Coach Built as opposed to panel vans

[Guest Peter James]

Colin Leake - 2011-12-09 6:55 PM

One is the drivability and the other is the ability to slide the side door open in hot weather. If we do ever go for a panel van conversion it will be the big IH. joby on the Merc chassis.

 

Sprinter vans are narrow, particularly at the top.

Its great to open the big side door when you are parked at the roadside, looking out over a fabulous view. If its not to windy I don't even need to shut the door when its raining, as I have a wet (lino) floor. Passers by tend to look inside, some stop and talk which is fine sometimes, but it can get a bit wearying after a while answering the same questions. There are times I have thought about fitting a window in the side door, then change my mind when I think how much easier it would make the van to break into, (and up my insurance premium.)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

You may also want to factor in fuel costs, on our last 12 week tour of France and Germany our overall fuel consumption came out at 36mpg, and that is in our "old" 2003 Jtd, I'm told the new Euro 5 PVC's will do even better once loosened up.

 

Brian makes the point about storage room for those length of trips. It does of course depend on both your lifestyle and particular van, but we carry clothes all the year round that just stays in the van to cover for every eventuality, ditto bedding. Having said that we don't do artic conditions, and your never that far from launderette, so anything is solvable, storage space is simply not an issue for us, we have room to spare.

 

I do think with fuel costs only going one direction with forecasts of £2 + per litre by next summer, converters are trying to stay ahead of the game, only this year one company that have never done a PVC have now launched a range, I'm sure they are aware of market trends.

[Guest Tracker]

Sorry - but I think that perceived fuel cost savings are a bit of a red herring here.

 

Consider the huge depreciation and other costs of owning a motorhome - especially if you buy new or nearly new - add in the dealer margin written off when changing vans - and relate the relatively minor savings to be made by even a potentially huge 10 mpg increase possibly gained by switching from a large coachbuilt to a small pvc to the extra depreciation.

 

Factor in the loss of space and convenience and I wonder if it is an equation that sits easily with a lot of us for whom the cost is less important than the enjoyment of our leisure time away from home?

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Tracker - 2011-12-10 1:48 PM

 

Sorry - but I think that perceived fuel cost savings are a bit of a red herring here.

 

Consider the huge depreciation and other costs of owning a motorhome - especially if you buy new or nearly new - add in the dealer margin written off when changing vans - and relate the relatively minor savings to be made by even a potentially huge 10 mpg increase possibly gained by switching from a large coachbuilt to a small pvc to the extra depreciation.

 

Factor in the loss of space and convenience and I wonder if it is an equation that sits easily with a lot of us for whom the cost is less important than the enjoyment of our leisure time away from home?

 

Look some do not have to consider costs, others do, for them fuel costs may well be a factor,if not right now, maybe just down the line. I can tell you we have no less enjoyment from our PVC that our previous Elnagh Marlin and given the choice of spending my cash on fuel taxation or on myself I don't have to think about it very long. We neither suffer from lack of space or convenience in fact convenience is a major plus compared to our Elnagh. You may be surprised to hear we enjoy our travels every bit as much as before even as you see it struggling around in our tiny PVC. I say again converters are responding to a market demand for more PVCs so I guess they may be on to something don't you ?

[Guest Tracker]

1footinthegrave - 2011-12-10 2:01 PM

You may be surprised to hear we enjoy our travels every bit as much as before even as you see it struggling around in our tiny PVC. I say again converters are responding to a market demand for more PVCs so I guess they may be on to something don't you ?

 

Of course I am not surprised - why would I be - that you enjoy your pvc?

 

I am in no way detracting from or critcising your or anybody elses experiences in either type of van and neither am I suggesting that my own way is better - all that I am trying to high light are the differences and the different perspectives that can be used to work out which way forward is best for each of us.

 

I too don't enjoy paying fuel duty but as a lesser of two evils from my perspective I prefer it to the huge VAT and heavier depreciation on a new van.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Tracker - 2011-12-10 2:13 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2011-12-10 2:01 PM

You may be surprised to hear we enjoy our travels every bit as much as before even as you see it struggling around in our tiny PVC. I say again converters are responding to a market demand for more PVCs so I guess they may be on to something don't you ?

 

Of course I am not surprised - why would I be - that you enjoy your pvc?

 

I am in no way detracting from or critcising your or anybody elses experiences in either type of van and neither am I suggesting that my own way is better - all that I am trying to high light are the differences and the different perspectives that can be used to work out which way forward is best for each of us.

 

I too don't enjoy paying fuel duty but as a lesser of two evils from my perspective I prefer it to the huge VAT and heavier depreciation on a new van.

 

Tracker I personally think anyone buying new is slightly bonkers, but without them I could not have bought my IH for £19000,that two years on I'm told still has a book price of the same amount. Would I like an old American with triple slide outs on the odd occasion, of course I would, but would I want 9 mpg and all the other associated costs and hassle, I don't think so. Like you say best way forward for each individual and their circumstances.

[mandale]

Peter James - 2011-12-10 12:40 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-12-10 11:16 AM For example, many of the PVCs (but by no means all, even at the higher price levels, so do check carefully) on offer have generous payloads on paper, but have very small load margins on their front axles, severely limiting their actual usability.

 

Thats another good point. Rear axles on panel vans tend to be further back to allow for a large side door. This makes the front axle take most of the weight, (an advantage on slippery surfaces as more of the weight is on the driving wheels) but it leads to front axle overloads

Another reason why I think the X250 L4 versions are better than the usual L3 because all of the additional 300mm length is behind the rear axle, counterbalancing the excessive weight on the front.

 

Incidentally I would put the rise in popularity of PVCs down to the new X2/50 as its wider, and lower, than any of the others.

 

 

Load distribution has very little to do with wheel base or rear axel overhang. The only thing a large rear axel overhang allows is additional load length inside the vehicle which does not affect the turning circle characteristics. It is the motorhome manufacturers who affect the load distribution of all motorhomes. The location of fresh and waste water tanks and travelling passengers must be the first consideration. It is not rocket science, fresh water tank, van midline opposite the fuel tank. Rear seating, fitted as close to the rear axel as possible without being on top of it, and the best one keep as much weight away from the front axel as possible. The original vehicle manufacturer do not allow for additional loads over the front axel. After all, the vehicle was originally designed to carry items in or on the rear.

 

Coach build or panel van conversion, is a personal choice. Both have good points and bad points, here are my personal views

 

If I was looking for a motorhome with more than 3 berths, it would be a coach build, simply because I feel the space inside a PVC runs out after the 3rd person ‘2 adults and a child’.

 

If I was looking for a 2 berth motorhome I would not look twice at a coach build, reasons for this are:

Original steel body is stronger, will last longer, repair is easier, better access to parts, less chance of water ingress, more practical and better fuel economy.

 

So, coach build if space is needed and panel van conversion otherwise, that’s my view.

 

Ps, final payload figures should really include the following: The complete vehicle with, full fuel tank, full fresh water tank and an allocation of 75kgs per travelling passenger. The bit that is left at the end is the payload for your holiday extras.

 

This is how we calculate on our PVC models.

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

You make some excellent points.We once looked at a Burstner coach built but were astonished to see that ALL of the heavy gear including gas bottle locker and inboard water tank were all on the nearside of the vehicle which for a large converter / builder seemed crazy to me. However I'm willing to bet this would go over the head of the average user, nor has neither been near a weighbridge with their own vehicle, or would have a clue to payloads etc. at least judging by some of the gear I've seen come out of vans, not to mention the loaded to the gunnel's with duty free at this time of year ( are you reading this Mike ) ! !

[mandale]

1footinthegrave - 2011-12-10 3:00 PM

 

You make some excellent points. But I'm willing to bet the average user has neither been near a weighbridge, nor would have a clue to payloads etc. judging by some of the gear I've seen come out of vans, not to mention the loaded to the gunnel's with duty free at this time of year ( are you reading this Mike ) ! !

 

I hear you and agree. However the manufacture should think of this too. We take all are new vehicles to the weighbridge when they are finished and provide the customer with the certificate. Our two berth has a payload of approximately 450kg depending on specifications, that is a lot of duty free and tins of soup. I note from a previous post on this thread the relationship between payload and space to store it. We have also taken this into account, if you really, really wanted you probably would have space in our new model to carry the 450kgs. This is a result of the main use we considered this model being for, which is two people taking long breaks, possibly abroad and requiring the equipment and space found in a coach build. We also have a compact two berth with a payload of about 300kgs, again we designed the vehicle with wk end breaks and possible 2wk max trips in mind.

 

 

[Mike88]

1footinthegrave - 2011-12-10 3:00 PM

 

However I'm willing to bet this would go over the head of the average user, nor has neither been near a weighbridge with their own vehicle, or would have a clue to payloads etc. at least judging by some of the gear I've seen come out of vans, not to mention the loaded to the gunnel's with duty free at this time of year ( are you reading this Mike ) ! !

 

Moi! Can't be. Always carry very little and don't bother with duty free as the price differential on alcohol hardly makes it worth the bother. I don't see the need to take many clothes either as I go on holidays to enjoy the outdoor life, travel as far south as possible for sun and don't sit in restaurants and on site clubs which are a complete anathema to me. When clothes need washing there are always laundrettes but we mostly handwash and as far as bedding is concerned we use sleeping bag liners which take up no room at all. Storage space is not an issue and we even travel with a couple of wall cupboards completely empty.

[rupert123]

mandale - 2011-12-10 2:43 PM

 

Peter James - 2011-12-10 12:40 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-12-10 11:16 AM For example, many of the PVCs (but by no means all, even at the higher price levels, so do check carefully) on offer have generous payloads on paper, but have very small load margins on their front axles, severely limiting their actual usability.

 

Thats another good point. Rear axles on panel vans tend to be further back to allow for a large side door. This makes the front axle take most of the weight, (an advantage on slippery surfaces as more of the weight is on the driving wheels) but it leads to front axle overloads

Another reason why I think the X250 L4 versions are better than the usual L3 because all of the additional 300mm length is behind the rear axle, counterbalancing the excessive weight on the front.

 

Incidentally I would put the rise in popularity of PVCs down to the new X2/50 as its wider, and lower, than any of the others.

 

 

Load distribution has very little to do with wheel base or rear axel overhang. The only thing a large rear axel overhang allows is additional load length inside the vehicle which does not affect the turning circle characteristics. It is the motorhome manufacturers who affect the load distribution of all motorhomes. The location of fresh and waste water tanks and travelling passengers must be the first consideration. It is not rocket science, fresh water tank, van midline opposite the fuel tank. Rear seating, fitted as close to the rear axel as possible without being on top of it, and the best one keep as much weight away from the front axel as possible. The original vehicle manufacturer do not allow for additional loads over the front axel. After all, the vehicle was originally designed to carry items in or on the rear.

 

Coach build or panel van conversion, is a personal choice. Both have good points and bad points, here are my personal views

 

If I was looking for a motorhome with more than 3 berths, it would be a coach build, simply because I feel the space inside a PVC runs out after the 3rd person ‘2 adults and a child’.

 

If I was looking for a 2 berth motorhome I would not look twice at a coach build, reasons for this are:

Original steel body is stronger, will last longer, repair is easier, better access to parts, less chance of water ingress, more practical and better fuel economy.

 

So, coach build if space is needed and panel van conversion otherwise, that’s my view.

 

Ps, final payload figures should really include the following: The complete vehicle with, full fuel tank, full fresh water tank and an allocation of 75kgs per travelling passenger. The bit that is left at the end is the payload for your holiday extras.

 

This is how we calculate on our PVC models.

 

Daniel, load distribution has quite a lot to do with rear overhang. If you have a coachbuilt with a fridge and cooker right at the rear with a big overhang then you will have a multipull of their weight on the rear axle. For example I have a 100kg scooter and a rack that weighs about 30kg, total weight 130kg, this adds 200kg to the rear axle and takes 30kg of the front axle. I have no idea what a fridge and cooker weighs but if at the rear with a large overhang you can bet the weight on the axle is a X2.

[mandale]

rupert123 - 2011-12-10 4:05 PM

 

mandale - 2011-12-10 2:43 PM

 

Peter James - 2011-12-10 12:40 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-12-10 11:16 AM For example, many of the PVCs (but by no means all, even at the higher price levels, so do check carefully) on offer have generous payloads on paper, but have very small load margins on their front axles, severely limiting their actual usability.

 

Thats another good point. Rear axles on panel vans tend to be further back to allow for a large side door. This makes the front axle take most of the weight, (an advantage on slippery surfaces as more of the weight is on the driving wheels) but it leads to front axle overloads

Another reason why I think the X250 L4 versions are better than the usual L3 because all of the additional 300mm length is behind the rear axle, counterbalancing the excessive weight on the front.

 

Incidentally I would put the rise in popularity of PVCs down to the new X2/50 as its wider, and lower, than any of the others.

 

 

Load distribution has very little to do with wheel base or rear axel overhang. The only thing a large rear axel overhang allows is additional load length inside the vehicle which does not affect the turning circle characteristics. It is the motorhome manufacturers who affect the load distribution of all motorhomes. The location of fresh and waste water tanks and travelling passengers must be the first consideration. It is not rocket science, fresh water tank, van midline opposite the fuel tank. Rear seating, fitted as close to the rear axel as possible without being on top of it, and the best one keep as much weight away from the front axel as possible. The original vehicle manufacturer do not allow for additional loads over the front axel. After all, the vehicle was originally designed to carry items in or on the rear.

 

Coach build or panel van conversion, is a personal choice. Both have good points and bad points, here are my personal views

 

If I was looking for a motorhome with more than 3 berths, it would be a coach build, simply because I feel the space inside a PVC runs out after the 3rd person ‘2 adults and a child’.

 

If I was looking for a 2 berth motorhome I would not look twice at a coach build, reasons for this are:

Original steel body is stronger, will last longer, repair is easier, better access to parts, less chance of water ingress, more practical and better fuel economy.

 

So, coach build if space is needed and panel van conversion otherwise, that’s my view.

 

Ps, final payload figures should really include the following: The complete vehicle with, full fuel tank, full fresh water tank and an allocation of 75kgs per travelling passenger. The bit that is left at the end is the payload for your holiday extras.

 

This is how we calculate on our PVC models.

 

Daniel, load distribution has quite a lot to do with rear overhang. If you have a coachbuilt with a fridge and cooker right at the rear with a big overhang then you will have a multipull of their weight on the rear axle. For example I have a 100kg scooter and a rack that weighs about 30kg, total weight 130kg, this adds 200kg to the rear axle and takes 30kg of the front axle. I have no idea what a fridge and cooker weighs but if at the rear with a large overhang you can bet the weight on the axle is a X2.

 

Again I do agree, the basic rules of engineering prove that moving a load beyond the rear axel will cause a pivoting action on the front axel. This is exactly my point, installing heavy items in an area that changes the load characteristics of the vehicle are a poor design failure on the manufacturer’s behalf. In relation to the rear scooter mounting system, surly manufacturers recognise that lots of their customers do like to have these, so why not design a more suitable storage area for them. I would suggest two tall but narrow garages one on either side of the vehicle at the rear, but with the load evenly proportioned over the rear axel and not behind it. I find it interesting that you have made this point as I am fairly sure that next years legislation for vehicle type approval covers rear cycle and scooter racks and think it will probably be covered under the weights and masses section and external sharp edges. This is only my interpretation of the regulations you must understand, I may be wrong, but the winds of change are defiantly coming!

[Brian Kirby]

rupert123 - 2011-12-10 4:05 PM................................. For example I have a 100kg scooter and a rack that weighs about 30kg, total weight 130kg, this adds 200kg to the rear axle and takes 30kg of the front axle. I have no idea what a fridge and cooker weighs but if at the rear with a large overhang you can bet the weight on the axle is a X2.

Sommat's a bit awry there, Henry! Apologies, but the total load added to rear axle, less load transferred from front axle, must equal the load added at the rear.

 

So, 200kg added on rear (130kg x lever arm), less 130kg (actual load added) must give 70kg transferred from front.

 

Alternatively, if only 30 kg is taken from the front, the load at the rear axle can only be 160kg.

 

Either that, or your bike plus rack actually weigh 170kg. Were you sitting on the bike when it was weighed? :-D

 

I agree with the rest, though.

[Guest Peter James]

mandale - 2011-12-10 2:43 PM

 

Peter James - 2011-12-10 12:40 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-12-10 11:16 AM For example, many of the PVCs (but by no means all, even at the higher price levels, so do check carefully) on offer have generous payloads on paper, but have very small load margins on their front axles, severely limiting their actual usability.

 

Thats another good point. Rear axles on panel vans tend to be further back to allow for a large side door. This makes the front axle take most of the weight, (an advantage on slippery surfaces as more of the weight is on the driving wheels) but it leads to front axle overloads

Another reason why I think the X250 L4 versions are better than the usual L3 because all of the additional 300mm length is behind the rear axle, counterbalancing the excessive weight on the front.

 

Incidentally I would put the rise in popularity of PVCs down to the new X2/50 as its wider, and lower, than any of the others.

 

 

Load distribution has very little to do with wheel base or rear axel overhang. The only thing a large rear axel overhang allows is additional load length inside the vehicle which does not affect the turning circle characteristics. It is the motorhome manufacturers who affect the load distribution of all motorhomes. The location of fresh and waste water tanks and travelling passengers must be the first consideration. It is not rocket science, fresh water tank, van midline opposite the fuel tank. Rear seating, fitted as close to the rear axel as possible without being on top of it, and the best one keep as much weight away from the front axel as possible. The original vehicle manufacturer do not allow for additional loads over the front axel. After all, the vehicle was originally designed to carry items in or on the rear.

 

Coach build or panel van conversion, is a personal choice. Both have good points and bad points, here are my personal views

 

If I was looking for a motorhome with more than 3 berths, it would be a coach build, simply because I feel the space inside a PVC runs out after the 3rd person ‘2 adults and a child’.

 

If I was looking for a 2 berth motorhome I would not look twice at a coach build, reasons for this are:

Original steel body is stronger, will last longer, repair is easier, better access to parts, less chance of water ingress, more practical and better fuel economy.

 

So, coach build if space is needed and panel van conversion otherwise, that’s my view.

 

Ps, final payload figures should really include the following: The complete vehicle with, full fuel tank, full fresh water tank and an allocation of 75kgs per travelling passenger. The bit that is left at the end is the payload for your holiday extras.

 

This is how we calculate on our PVC models.

As I said on the L4 version of the X2/50 van the additional 2 cubic metres of space is behind the rear axle. So common senser would suggest that the weight of the extra bodywork, plus whatever is in it, will counterbalance weight on the front. So you don't have the layout limitations of trying to put all the heavy things towards the back.

 

Was it my comments about the X2/50 being the widest most spacious panel van that offended you?

The only PVC which permits a full size bed to go in widthways.

I see you only use the narrower, higher floored panel vans for your conversions.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I bet the OP is well confused and bemused by now.......................... :-S

[mandale]

sorry, off topic a bit !

[mandale]

Peter James - 2011-12-10 4:49 PM

 

mandale - 2011-12-10 2:43 PM

 

Peter James - 2011-12-10 12:40 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-12-10 11:16 AM For example, many of the PVCs (but by no means all, even at the higher price levels, so do check carefully) on offer have generous payloads on paper, but have very small load margins on their front axles, severely limiting their actual usability.

 

Thats another good point. Rear axles on panel vans tend to be further back to allow for a large side door. This makes the front axle take most of the weight, (an advantage on slippery surfaces as more of the weight is on the driving wheels) but it leads to front axle overloads

Another reason why I think the X250 L4 versions are better than the usual L3 because all of the additional 300mm length is behind the rear axle, counterbalancing the excessive weight on the front.

 

Incidentally I would put the rise in popularity of PVCs down to the new X2/50 as its wider, and lower, than any of the others.

 

 

Load distribution has very little to do with wheel base or rear axel overhang. The only thing a large rear axel overhang allows is additional load length inside the vehicle which does not affect the turning circle characteristics. It is the motorhome manufacturers who affect the load distribution of all motorhomes. The location of fresh and waste water tanks and travelling passengers must be the first consideration. It is not rocket science, fresh water tank, van midline opposite the fuel tank. Rear seating, fitted as close to the rear axel as possible without being on top of it, and the best one keep as much weight away from the front axel as possible. The original vehicle manufacturer do not allow for additional loads over the front axel. After all, the vehicle was originally designed to carry items in or on the rear.

 

Coach build or panel van conversion, is a personal choice. Both have good points and bad points, here are my personal views

 

If I was looking for a motorhome with more than 3 berths, it would be a coach build, simply because I feel the space inside a PVC runs out after the 3rd person ‘2 adults and a child’.

 

If I was looking for a 2 berth motorhome I would not look twice at a coach build, reasons for this are:

Original steel body is stronger, will last longer, repair is easier, better access to parts, less chance of water ingress, more practical and better fuel economy.

 

So, coach build if space is needed and panel van conversion otherwise, that’s my view.

 

Ps, final payload figures should really include the following: The complete vehicle with, full fuel tank, full fresh water tank and an allocation of 75kgs per travelling passenger. The bit that is left at the end is the payload for your holiday extras.

 

This is how we calculate on our PVC models.

As I said on the L4 version of the X2/50 van the additional 2 cubic metres of space is behind the rear axle. So common senser would suggest that the weight of the extra bodywork, plus whatever is in it, will counterbalance weight on the front. So you don't have the layout limitations of trying to put all the heavy things towards the back.

 

Was it my comments about the X2/50 being the widest most spacious panel van that offended you?

The only PVC which permits a full size bed to go in widthways.

I see you only use the narrower, higher floored panel vans for your conversions.

 

 

 

Hello Peter,

 

No offence has been taken from you post on my part. I was simply trying to say that manufactures can think about where they are fitting heavy items and what effect this may have on the vehicle when being driven.

I have no problem with the L4 that you speak of and in fact we are currently looking at this model so we can offer 3 and 4 berth PVC early next year. We use the Renault at the moment on our two berth motorhome because only a small number of converters use it and we would like to offer something different. The Renault is not as tall inside or as long as the vehicle you have mentioned but it does not seem to effect our conversion.

We are able to fit a bed length of 6 feet 1 inch across the Renault, what is the longest transverse bed you have come across in PVC, as this would be of interest to me.

 

I am truly sorry if I have offended you, or if my comments have caused upset, that was never my intension.

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

You'll soon learn it does not take much to get some started, could be mass seasonal affective disorder, don't take it personally even if that's how it comes across is my two penneth worth ;-)

[JamesFrance]

Back to the original topic, I think that layout has more to do with storage space than body type. I have noticed that many of the British PVCs with convertible lounges have minimal cupboard and underseat space compared to our van with a permanent double bed at the rear.

 

In the past we have had 3 coachbuilts of less than 6 metres length, firstly a Hymer 534, then a Herald Templar and finally an Autosleeper Executive.

 

Compared to all of those our Adria has much greater storage space, a larger fridge, a much bigger gas locker, larger water tank and a much more comfortable bed.

 

The only thing smaller inside is the hot air in the middle.

[mandale]

JamesFrance - 2011-12-10 7:20 PM

 

Back to the original topic, I think that layout has more to do with storage space than body type. I have noticed that many of the British PVCs with convertible lounges have minimal cupboard and underseat space compared to our van with a permanent double bed at the rear.

 

In the past we have had 3 coachbuilts of less than 6 metres length, firstly a Hymer 534, then a Herald Templar and finally an Autosleeper Executive.

 

Compared to all of those our Adria has much greater storage space, a larger fridge, a much bigger gas locker, larger water tank and a much more comfortable bed.

 

The only thing smaller inside is the hot air in the middle.

 

Great layout on these, fixed bed position is good. For a panel van of this size with a fixed bed they take some beating.

[graham]

Just how many public car parks are there where you can park a 6m van within the marked out car park space and how can it be easier with a 6m PVC than a 6m coach built. Yes I know you can park with the back end over a grass verge (we do) but strictly speaking that isn't within the parking slot. Some car parks you can't do it anyway - Summerleaze beach at Bude for example where none of the slots back onto the verge but fortunately the attendants are a bit laid back about in the winter. I like PVC's but found that the shorter ones (Symbol for example) seemed a bit tighter than we were happy with.

[colin]

Peter James - 2011-12-10 4:49 PM

 

As I said on the L4 version of the X2/50 van the additional 2 cubic metres of space is behind the rear axle. So common senser would suggest that the weight of the extra bodywork, plus whatever is in it, will counterbalance weight on the front. So you don't have the layout limitations of trying to put all the heavy things towards the back.

 

Was it my comments about the X2/50 being the widest most spacious panel van that offended you?

The only PVC which permits a full size bed to go in widthways.

I see you only use the narrower, higher floored panel vans for your conversions.

 

The extra lenght of L4 has only a small effect on front axle loading, the big differance is that most(but by no means all) L3's are using 3.3t chassis which has much lower axle limits 1750 vs 2100 on front and 1900 vs 2400 on rear, the downside of which is a much choppier ride

[colin]

graham - 2011-12-10 7:45 PM

 

Just how many public car parks are there where you can park a 6m van within the marked out car park space and how can it be easier with a 6m PVC than a 6m coach built. Yes I know you can park with the back end over a grass verge (we do) but strictly speaking that isn't within the parking slot. Some car parks you can't do it anyway - Summerleaze beach at Bude for example where none of the slots back onto the verge but fortunately the attendants are a bit laid back about in the winter. I like PVC's but found that the shorter ones (Symbol for example) seemed a bit tighter than we were happy with.

 

This afternoon we parked in Stamford car park, we pushed as far as possible into the vegitation and still overhung space by several feet, proboly not within the 'rules' but the slightly narrower width of PVC meant the cars either side where able to use doors without too much hassle, it's times like this I miss using the T25 which wouldn't have been an issue at all, but am glad not in a CB as the ajacent drivers would have been swearing.

[rupert123]

Brian Kirby - 2011-12-10 4:35 PM

 

rupert123 - 2011-12-10 4:05 PM................................. For example I have a 100kg scooter and a rack that weighs about 30kg, total weight 130kg, this adds 200kg to the rear axle and takes 30kg of the front axle. I have no idea what a fridge and cooker weighs but if at the rear with a large overhang you can bet the weight on the axle is a X2.

Sommat's a bit awry there, Henry! Apologies, but the total load added to rear axle, less load transferred from front axle, must equal the load added at the rear.

 

So, 200kg added on rear (130kg x lever arm), less 130kg (actual load added) must give 70kg transferred from front.

 

Alternatively, if only 30 kg is taken from the front, the load at the rear axle can only be 160kg.

 

Either that, or your bike plus rack actually weigh 170kg. Were you sitting on the bike when it was weighed? :-D

 

I agree with the rest, though.

 

You may well be correct Brian, just giving the weighbridge weights before and after. It may be we have altered something else as well, not sure what though, and as we are within axle loads, only just on rear, and the load on the front axle still meets Fiats minimun requirement not really bothered. Just making a point

 

[Colin Leake]

If the width is a problem in a car park with a coach built do what we do and simply park central on one of the lines taking up two spaces but leaving plenty of room for drivers on the two adjacent spaces to open their doors! If length is also a problem pull forward so that you take four spaces. Always remember to be considerate of others like us when you park!

 

Don't give us motorhome drivers a bad name.