Colin Leake Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Is it just me or does anyone else find the new Bailey motorhomes with their boxy appearance due to the Alutec construction pig ugly? To my mind they remind me of a tea chest. I suppose Bailey must know what they are doing with the construction given that they are offering a 10 water ingress warranty but I have my doubts about this form of construction when used on a motorhome as opposed to a caravan that is not subject to the same potential twisting loads. It is said that this is the same form of construction used on some up market continental motorhomes but this is not strictly true. Some do use an aluminium contraction but then bailey system is unique to them. Given that style and appearance is important to motorhome owners I wonder how many will be in the Market for the new Bailey. My guess is only the few that are sold on the Alutec story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 a link or picture would be useful...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Well,I think it's very poor that neither the two nor the four berth models have any rear belted seats!?... 8-) (..unless I'm reading their website wrong... :-S ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirles Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 when i first saw the new bailey motorhomes they reminded me of australian and new zealand vans with that boxy shape. And when i was last over there the local motorhome mags were drooling over the new burstner vans that were arriving in large numbers. methinks bailey will have to get the style right pretty quickly if they are to succeed in parting us from our dosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 JudgeMental - 2011-09-22 10:55 AM a link or picture would be useful...... It's in this month MMM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I assume it's these we're talking about..? http://www.baileyapproach.co.uk/ ..I still can't see what's going to make them stand out from all the other,"inward facing settee,seatbelt lacking" Mhs ... :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snitrats Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Its certainly not pretty :'( I would have thought with a clean sheet of paper they could have done much better. They seem to have produced another run of the mill van (!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solwaybuggier Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 The thread title is a bit misleading - I thought the model name was the Bailey Ugly! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aultymer Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Luton vans are all pig ugly and should be banned by the style police. Can anyone explain why, given the van is that height at the front, the extra height is not carried aft and used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Solwaybuggier - 2011-09-22 2:15 PM The thread title is a bit misleading - I thought the model name was the Bailey Ugly! ;-) Sorry but that's not a bad idea. Perhaps thats what they should call it. Even leaving out angular appearance the back and front look like they were designed by two different designers who were not talking to each other. As some one who has been a successful designer in a long and varied career it makes me shudder just to look at it. I can't believe Bailey hope to sell any unless it is much improved. Seems to me they have blinded themselves to good design by not being able to see by their great idea with regard to the Alutec construction. Interesting to see that AutoTrail have said that they have no intention of following their lead with regard to this form of construction. Very wise I'd say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 aultymer - 2011-09-22 3:33 PM Luton vans are all pig ugly and should be banned by the style police. Can anyone explain why, given the van is that height at the front, the extra height is not carried aft and used? Yes it's quite simple. If you need to park on pitch under a tree with low branches this enables you to reverse under the branches without hitting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Maybe I'm biased:D I reckon they were making more of an effort with the luton design 20 years ago;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aultymer Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Colin Leake - 2011-09-22 3:42 PM aultymer - 2011-09-22 3:33 PM Luton vans are all pig ugly and should be banned by the style police. Can anyone explain why, given the van is that height at the front, the extra height is not carried aft and used? Yes it's quite simple. If you need to park on pitch under a tree with low branches this enables you to reverse under the branches without hitting them. Sorry, even that great advantage would not encourage me to be seen dead in one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 aultymer - 2011-09-22 3:33 PM Luton vans are all pig ugly and should be banned by the style police. ...and prey tell..what brought you to that conclusion..? http://www.travellerhomes.co.uk/?p=5262 (..I think this was one of Bailey's prototypes.. ;-) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 pelmetman - 2011-09-22 4:15 PM Maybe I'm biased:D I reckon they were making more of an effort with the luton design 20 years ago;-) ... but 20 years ago people weren't as fat as they are now so they need a bigger luton ... and of course there's all the hanky-panky they get up to up there too ... I assume that's not something you have to worry about Dave, or does your luton roof have dints in it from all your head banging? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 aultymer - 2011-09-22 3:33 PM Luton vans are all pig ugly and should be banned by the style police. Can anyone explain why, given the van is that height at the front, the extra height is not carried aft and used? So you get half a chance of keeping it in a straight line in a cross wind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Mel B - 2011-09-22 6:26 PM ... I assume that's not something you have to worry about Dave, or does your luton roof have dints in it from all your head banging? :DI made an extra thick headboard for it Mel;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuxDeluxe Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Even with the smart graphics it still looks that only a mother could love, but the only way to get a decent looking van is to have a low profile and then the rug rats would have to sleep in a locker....... I suppose the choice is aesthetically pleasing or a bit more spacious but lumpy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamw Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 The Alu-Tech construction seems to me to be a reliable way of joining two flat panels with seams of considerable integrity. However, this does limit the flow of a design from fore to aft. Looking at the Bailey product this becomes all too apparent from the curvacious shape at the front end and a stark box for the rear. To be honest the design is dated and identifies itself with a period in time when caravan manufacturers were moving into motorhome design and taking their tried and trusted caravan construction techniques with them, as is the case here. Motorhome design has moved on considerably, but knowing Bailey they'll probable be succesful with their motorhome as a number of people will give a higher priority to water ingress warranties than aethetics. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisB Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 grahamw - 2011-09-22 9:03 PM The Alu-Tech construction seems to me to be a reliable way of joining two flat panels with seams of considerable integrity. However, this does limit the flow of a design from fore to aft. Looking at the Bailey product this becomes all too apparent from the curvacious shape at the front end and a stark box for the rear. To be honest the design is dated and identifies itself with a period in time when caravan manufacturers were moving into motorhome design and taking their tried and trusted caravan construction techniques with them, as is the case here. Motorhome design has moved on considerably, but knowing Bailey they'll probable be succesful with their motorhome as a number of people will give a higher priority to water ingress warranties than aethetics. Graham One thing to be aware of (as warned by a caravanning friend) although a damp test may be unnecessary Bailey charge up to £300 to tighten the internal bolts every year or two as they are prone to become loose. I did see their service charges in an article which appeared to support these high charges for motorcaravans - but can't locate it now. Anyone confirm what I was told? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Cor!..........300 quid to have your nuts tightened every year8-)..........................Now that's going to hurt(lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brambles Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 I have found the following on another Forum for caravans which should help explain the situation on the bolts etc. which some of you should find interesting as helps to inform the facts rather than conjecture or rumours. Alu-tech construction has also had other teething problems like comdensation in very cold weather on the internal surfaces of the aluminium extrusions and drips out below the plastic covers. I do not know if this has been addressed and solved. Jon. ............................................................... This is a copy of a reply from Kelly at Baileys Caravans that was posted elsewhere in November 2009, it explains the servicing situation with the Alu-Tech vans. Quote Hello All, Apologies for the delay in response, but as I mentioned previously I am currently running a series of Service Centre training courses to familiarise their workshop staff with the new Alu-Tech body shell construction system. Just to recap the Pegasus Service Plan is as follows:- Pegasus has a fixed price service plan for the first three years of ownership after which it reverts to a standard service programme on the service centre's normal price tariff. Year 1: Standard caravan service @ £150 Year 2: Standard caravan service @ £250 Year 3: Standard caravan service + full body shell bolt torque check @ £350 Years 4 to 10: Standard caravan service @ service centre's normal price tariff With the exception of the one-off body shell bolt torque check after three years Pegasus requires an annual standard caravan service. A reduced damp check is required as part of each service, with a visual check for the upper body shell panels and a standard damp check for the caravan floor. This is because the floor panels still contain timber components whereas the upper body shell panels do not. In answer to the two questions raised in the original post:- The difference in cost of £100 between the first and second year service is cost of carrying of additional checks to a number of the caravan appliances. As you may be aware in additional to increasing the body shell integrity guarantee from 6 to 10 years with Pegasus caravans the cover of the 3-Year Manufacturers warranty has also improved. With a classic construction caravan there is one year comprehensive and two year restricted cover whereas with an Alu-Tech construction model there is two year comprehensive and one year restricted. We are therefore asking that a number of additional checks are carried out during the second year service so that any resulting issues can be rectified inside the comprehensive warranty period at no charge to the consumer. The third year service includes a one off body shell torque check and not a comprehensive re-torque as suggested. As part of the two-year development programme an Alu-Tech caravan has undergone accelerated life testing twice at the Millbrook Proving Ground. In both instances the caravan was tested over the equivalent of 6,000 miles or three years road usage and in both instances there was no movement whatsoever in any of the bolt torques. However we felt that as the Alu-Tech construction system is completely new to the caravan industry that it would be sensible to check the torques of the fixing bolts after a period of prolonged use as a precaution. If in three years time it is evident that there has been no movement in this regard we may well remove the need to carry out this additional check from the schedule. As part of the third year service the Service Agent is required to remove the appropriate internal capping and test the torques of all accessible bolts. Only if any of these bolts require a re-torque should the other less-accessible bolts be inspected. Under no circumstances should the caravan owner tamper with the bolt settings. The additional £100 for the third year service is to cover the labour cost of carrying out this exercise. I hope this successfully answers your questions Kelly Kelly Watts helpline@bailey-caravans.co.uk 0117 3052939 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Whatever the opinion of the 'look' of the Bailey motorhome tested by MMM, if the pricing given in http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/Motorhomes/News/Manufacturers/Bailey-sets-prices-for-new-motorhome-range/_ch1_nw1635 is correct, it seems to represent excellent value for money given the vehicle's size and specification. (I find the idea comical that a motorhome, irrespective of its design, size and shape, can ever be considered a thing of beauty, though I must agree that the Approach 760's mixture of the hideous Ducato cab, with a huge sleeping carbuncle above it and a large 'shed' behind it, is hardly an elegant combination.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crinklystarfish Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Aesthetics are often a personal thing and I find the look quite purposeful. I personally aren't that keen on the concept of fashion over function and am pleased that they have attempted to bring some genuine innovation to the market. If they are indeed as well built as the hype suggests then the company are to be applauded.It's a pity that they seem to be instantly alienating some customers simply because 'boxy' isn't (currently) perceived as fashionable.I guess that when rain is running down the inside walls of your shoddily built 'van at least you will have the comfort of knowing that most other fashionistas will think it looks pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 On the subject of the construction methods..well,if it gets uk manufactures away from relying no4 woodscrews and strips of ali' moulding,to keep the rain out and holding things together,then it's got to be good.. ;-) .. I rather like the idea of having a system where by the body can be "re-torqued" periodically..(..rather than just having to rely on mastic..) (..although obviously,if cost wasn't an issue,then all models would be of one piece,monocoque construction.. :$ ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.