Payload, who cares?

[rupert123]

Tracker - 2012-11-18 4:51 PM

 

rupert123 - 2012-11-18 4:13 PM

 

Tracker - 2012-11-18 11:12 AM

 

So that makes at least three holier than thoughs eh Henry!

 

What happened to tolerance of other's opinions and being able to accept that differing points of view are all valid on this forum?

 

I too don't agree with those who deliberately flout the law - even the somewhat pointless at times weight rules - but in a free country that is their choice and I at least am able to say so without insult..

 

Sorry lost me Rich. What opinions are we talking about, if my reference to the police informers then this was not an opinion, they stated it was what they would do. What holier than thou thoughts, just stated what I do for those and their were a few, who failed to read my oiginal post. I do not much care what others do, although am willing to discuss the point. Perhaps i have misunderstood you, as someone said tome a few posts ago, please explain.

 

Sorry for the confusion Henry.

 

I am not for one moment referring to you as either a holier than though type who sits in judgement or of being one who does not show tolerance, without necessarily agreeing with the viewpoint of others.

 

Like you, I don't much care what others choose to do as their own actions are entirely their own choice!

 

Glad we cleared that one up. (lol)

[Derek Uzzell]

colin - 2012-11-18 12:39 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2012-11-18 11:34 AM

 

If a motorhome with a maximum overall weight of 3500kg is loaded so that it weighs (say) 4000kg, it will be 500kg overweight and illegal to drive.

 

If the same vehicle is loaded so that it weighs (say) 3450kg and a loaded unbraked trailer weighing (overall) 550kg is attached to that vehicle, the combined weight will also be 4000kg, but the motorhome/trailer combination will be legal to drive.

 

Which is legal, the former or the latter? Which is ‘safer’?

 

If any forum members believe that “legality” and “safety” are synonyms, an English dictionary should go on their Xmas-present list.

 

It's much worse than that Derek. My van is downplated by the manufacturer to 3500kg, if I wished it's an easy job to get it replated to 4005kg, but if I was to load it at that at the moment I would get fined, BUT, I can tow a 3000kg trailer giving a gross train weight of 6500kg.

 

I believe you'll find that, although your Globecar's Gross Train Weight may be 6505kg, its maximum towing weight (braked trailer) is limited to 2500kg. So, if your motorhome were 'up-plated' to 4005kg, you could legally have a vehicle/trailer combination totalling 6505kg, but currently you are limited legally to a combination maximum of 6000kg (3500kg + 2500kg).

[goldi]

Evenin all,

 

There is more to it than weight when towing a trailer, a van over loaded by 500 kgs . There is the suspension to which will be overloaded an the steering will be overstressed as well.

 

norm

[goldi]

Evenin all,

 

There is more to it than weight when towing a trailer, a van over loaded by 500 kgs . There is the suspension to which will be overloaded an the steering will be overstressed as well.

 

norm

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Good point, not that it's relevant to me, but I was wondering what the implications on payload are for those that tow with an A-frame :-S

[Mel B]

derek pringle - 2012-11-18 9:48 AM

 

I fish whilst on holiday so that is a reasonable weight difference on board to somebody who doesn't for example.

cheers

derek

I've heard some excuses in my time about why a motorhome is overloaded but with FISH ... c'mon, nobody catches fish that are THAT large ... except when bragging to friends maybe!!!! (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I think he meant his tackle was heavy, no wonder he walks funny. :D :D

[colin]

Derek Uzzell - 2012-11-18 6:09 PM

 

colin - 2012-11-18 12:39 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2012-11-18 11:34 AM

 

If a motorhome with a maximum overall weight of 3500kg is loaded so that it weighs (say) 4000kg, it will be 500kg overweight and illegal to drive.

 

If the same vehicle is loaded so that it weighs (say) 3450kg and a loaded unbraked trailer weighing (overall) 550kg is attached to that vehicle, the combined weight will also be 4000kg, but the motorhome/trailer combination will be legal to drive.

 

Which is legal, the former or the latter? Which is ‘safer’?

 

If any forum members believe that “legality” and “safety” are synonyms, an English dictionary should go on their Xmas-present list.

 

It's much worse than that Derek. My van is downplated by the manufacturer to 3500kg, if I wished it's an easy job to get it replated to 4005kg, but if I was to load it at that at the moment I would get fined, BUT, I can tow a 3000kg trailer giving a gross train weight of 6500kg.

 

I believe you'll find that, although your Globecar's Gross Train Weight may be 6505kg, its maximum towing weight (braked trailer) is limited to 2500kg. So, if your motorhome were 'up-plated' to 4005kg, you could legally have a vehicle/trailer combination totalling 6505kg, but currently you are limited legally to a combination maximum of 6000kg (3500kg + 2500kg).

 

My van is built on the Maxi chassis this has MTW of 3000kg. The 2500kg is for the 35L

[Mel B]

rupert123 - 2012-11-18 10:55 AM

 

Crinklystarfish said 'could you qualify what you mean please'

 

No problem, go back and read my original post. If you did you will note i am one of the few who actually weigh their van on a reguler basis, i have never, ever, driven my van overweight. My original post does not advocate doing this, just making the point that most do not have a clue about their vans weight. I also wondered if it mattered much and after this am completely sure it does not. Is your van unsafe if it is 100kg overweight, of course not, as many have pointed out uprating is usually a paper excercise. As for people like Mel and Euroserve saying they will 'shop you' if you are a kg overweight, charming glad these two are not friends or neighbours.

 

Shame you can't take a sensible approach to reading other people's posts and use common sense Henry ... I was agreeing with Nick (Euroserve) in relation to his comments regarding being overweight when it can affecting the handling/stopping etc of your vehicle ... not just by 1kg ... so I suggest you get off your soapbox and go and see if you can find some 'friends who are happy not to be allowed to have their own views ... can't be many of them. :-|

[rupert123]

Mel B - 2012-11-18 7:32 PM

 

rupert123 - 2012-11-18 10:55 AM

 

Crinklystarfish said 'could you qualify what you mean please'

 

No problem, go back and read my original post. If you did you will note i am one of the few who actually weigh their van on a reguler basis, i have never, ever, driven my van overweight. My original post does not advocate doing this, just making the point that most do not have a clue about their vans weight. I also wondered if it mattered much and after this am completely sure it does not. Is your van unsafe if it is 100kg overweight, of course not, as many have pointed out uprating is usually a paper excercise. As for people like Mel and Euroserve saying they will 'shop you' if you are a kg overweight, charming glad these two are not friends or neighbours.

Shame you can't take a sensible approach to reading other people's posts and use common sense Henry ... I was agreeing with Nick (Euroserve) in relation to his comments regarding being overweight when it can affecting the handling/stopping etc of your vehicle ... not just by 1kg ... so I suggest you get off your soapbox and go and see if you can find some 'friends who are happy not to be allowed to have their own views ... can't be many of them. :-|

 

'If i knew would do what nick would do and shop you'.

Your words Mel, you just specified overweight. This is not a view it is a very clear statement of intent. Now euroserve I sort of understand because he deals with white van man, who thinks nothing of overloading by 1000kgs, but we are talking M/H,s and a few kgs which despite all the stuff being thrown around will make no differance at all. Read some of the stuff posted and figures quoted and you will see how little it means. I say again I do not overload but see no problem with it if someone does and a hell of a lot clearly do or do not know, hope they do not run across you. You are allowed your view but apparently i am not allowed mine. I would be interested at what point you feel a m/h becomes affected by overload, suspect you do not have a clue.

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

This could run and run, but I wonder how many folk run with one axle overloaded without knowing,those with "garages" for example full of xmas booze from cross channel trip, or could your front axle be overloaded because your two pooches ride up front, or at the back all other things being equal, questions, questions, questions mmmmm. 8-)

[pepe63xnotuse]

As well as any "over weight" issue,I often wonder just how secure some of the "stuff" people lug about really is ?.....There's been lots of talk about how a vehicle would behave under heavy braking etc...but very little about what would happen to all the clutter/pets/bikes/leisure gear etc that some folk shoehorn into their "living quarters".... :-S

[Tracker]

pepe63 - 2012-11-19 8:47 AM

 

As well as any "over weight" issue,I often wonder just how secure some of the "stuff" people lug about really is ?.....There's been lots of talk about how a vehicle would behave under heavy braking etc...but very little about what would happen to all the clutter/pets/bikes/leisure gear etc that some folk shoehorn into their "living quarters".... :-S

 

Good point.

 

If you want a very mild example just take your van up to 40 mph on a quiet road and slam the brakes on very hard - you will be amazed at how much moves and how far - especially from forward facing unsecured overhead lockers that you thought were OK.

 

In fact I suggest that everyone does just that if only to learn how the 3.5 to 4.0 tonne beast reacts under emergency braking.

 

Forewarned is forearmed as they say and every little helps.

[pepe63xnotuse]

Unfortunately,be it a MH,a caravan,a car & trailer(or just a car),for many the reasoning seems to be,

"...if it fits in it..then it must be okay..or why else would they make it that big?..." *-)

 

We watched someone "unload" their Transit PVC a while back..and out came a couple of full sized bikes,a couple of sunloungers,a table,a "proper sized" kettle bbq,several "large"(as in BIG) holdalls....and there didn't appear to be a great deal of "unstrapping" going on... :-S

 

..but "weight-wise",they may well've been "fine" ...

[derek pringle]

Hi Mel and 1Foot,

Oh what I would give for you BOTH to be right (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

cheers

derek

[euroserv]

Hello Campers,

 

It's been a long weekend by the look of it and this discussion has many twists and turns plus the usual spats and misunderstandings so I thought I would be a little more specific about what i meant...

 

As certain people picked up, including Mel, the effects of load on any vehicle are fairly progressive up to and beyond the legal maximum mass. To knowingly over-load is irresponsible and illegal and I don't want to share the road with anyone that does not care about that because they probably don't care about other things that could affect my safety either.

 

Here is the shocker;

 

I drive fully loaded and perfectly legal vehicles and at times, even though I drive responsibly, I don't think that the vehicle is safe. I don't feel confident that it could stop soon enough and could be unstable if I have to make any sudden changes of direction. I also tow things and while I never go beyond the legal and design capabilities of the vehicles I still sometimes feel that it involves rather too much compromise. If I have no choice but to drive it anyway, I do so but in a very careful and considered manner.

 

A 7.5T truck with air assisted brakes feels like it might not stop when loaded to anything more than 7T and yet it could legally tow a trailer up to a GTW of 11000KG. Not on your life. Legal does not mean safe!

 

There are a lot of stupid anomalies in the laws of this and other lands that quite literally allow you to take your life in your hands. This does not make it right that you should do so.

 

I implore you to weigh your vehicle and then if it is legal to do so, drive it. Be aware of how it behaves and adopt a driving style that is defensive because no matter what the law says; extra weight makes a difference and your responsibility is make sure that you present no risk to yourself or other road users.

 

This is not holier than though, it is a clear statement that I expect others to be diligent and responsible. If you are; I have no beef with you. If you are not I hope you get what you deserve but don't take me with you!

 

Now; since everyone is diligent and responsible, there can be no argument with my point of view!

 

The original poster of the thread entitled 'Payload, who cares?' was probably wasting everyones' time because it turns out that he does and is aware of the weight of his vehicle. Good chap.

 

Nick

[747]

Concise and to the point as usual Nick.

 

Another issue which has not been given full consideration is that if you are not aware of your normal travelling weight, how can you be sure that your tyres are inflated to the correct pressure?

 

Get it on a weighbridge!

 

I am pleased I did because I got a big surprise at the result. 8-)

[stelynn]

Following on from 747.

 

For those that are unaware of their unladen weight how can they be sure whether reduced speed limits are applicable to them or not. The actual weight for speed limits is 3050kg unladen.

 

Regards,

Steve

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

colin - 2012-11-18 7:20 PM

 

My van is built on the Maxi chassis this has MTW of 3000kg. The 2500kg is for the 35L

 

I stand corrected - I was relying on the accuracy of the following data

 

http://vanleasingmadesimple.com/van-leasing/fiat/ducato-40-maxi-xlb-lwb/24810/technical-data/

[Mel B]

rupert123 - 2012-11-18 9:48 PM

 

Mel B - 2012-11-18 7:32 PM

 

rupert123 - 2012-11-18 10:55 AM

 

Crinklystarfish said 'could you qualify what you mean please'

 

No problem, go back and read my original post. If you did you will note i am one of the few who actually weigh their van on a reguler basis, i have never, ever, driven my van overweight. My original post does not advocate doing this, just making the point that most do not have a clue about their vans weight. I also wondered if it mattered much and after this am completely sure it does not. Is your van unsafe if it is 100kg overweight, of course not, as many have pointed out uprating is usually a paper excercise. As for people like Mel and Euroserve saying they will 'shop you' if you are a kg overweight, charming glad these two are not friends or neighbours.

Shame you can't take a sensible approach to reading other people's posts and use common sense Henry ... I was agreeing with Nick (Euroserve) in relation to his comments regarding being overweight when it can affecting the handling/stopping etc of your vehicle ... not just by 1kg ... so I suggest you get off your soapbox and go and see if you can find some 'friends who are happy not to be allowed to have their own views ... can't be many of them. :-|

 

'If i knew would do what nick would do and shop you'.

Your words Mel, you just specified overweight. This is not a view it is a very clear statement of intent. Now euroserve I sort of understand because he deals with white van man, who thinks nothing of overloading by 1000kgs, but we are talking M/H,s and a few kgs which despite all the stuff being thrown around will make no differance at all. Read some of the stuff posted and figures quoted and you will see how little it means. I say again I do not overload but see no problem with it if someone does and a hell of a lot clearly do or do not know, hope they do not run across you. You are allowed your view but apparently i am not allowed mine. I would be interested at what point you feel a m/h becomes affected by overload, suspect you do not have a clue.

 

Ref the highlighted part above ... from your post I think you mean the opposite ... probably in an overloaded motorhome!!! :D

 

I think Nick has quite sensibly and succinctly put the position and understands my stance which is the same as his.

 

As for your comment of:

 

"I would be interested at what point you feel a m/h becomes affected by overload, suspect you do not have a clue"

 

You are WRONG as I certainly DO have a clue: it is when it isn't sensible to take it on the road, regardless of whether it is legal or not - a motorhome does not have to actually BE overloaded to become 'unsafe'. The loaded weight can make it less safe so that such things as the stopping distances increase with the extra load so it doesn't come to a halt in as short a distance as it would at a lower weight - eg this could mean the difference between hitting a child or not. Also a loaded motorhome doesn't handle as well as it would with less weight, which in itself can cause accidents, if the driver is unable to get it to go round a corner as it should and swing out more, causing problems for others etc - how many drivers change their driving style to take account of the extra weight I wonder ....

 

Indeed, even some motorhome testers/reviewers mention how an empty motorhome handles and what the likely effect of it being loaded (legally I hope!) would be.

 

To make it clear where I'm coming from just for you - it isn't the motorhome that is unsafe (overloaded or just over a 'sensible' load but still within it's limits), it's the MORON who's decided to drive it that way who is! 8-) By far the WORST MORON is the one who KNOWINGLY does this!!! >:-(

[crinklystarfish]

Tracker - 2012-11-16 2:38 PMI suppose it really was expecting too much, given the emotive topic, for this not to quickly degenerate into a mud slinging contest once the 'holier than though' brigade got wind of something to really have a go at.What happened to reasoned discussion - again?

You clearly, having read your subsequent posts, had several contributors in mind so once again, a simple question: who / what constitutes the "holier than thou brigade" please? 

And why?

Is it that you think people who are concerned about road safety are somehow worthy of derision? Is it that you don't care what your own 'van weighs and feel you should be allowed to act beyond the law? Is it that you think people who perceive those who recklessly overload 'vans should be rightfully prosecuted are somehow to be ridiculed? Please - do explain; if you can.

As before, there's nothing magic about the actual threshold, the more weight, the more mechanical stress, and the less likely a driver will be able to cope in an emergency situation. In simple terms, for your common-or-garden 3500kg motorhome, adding any weight to your 'vans mass in running order increases the chances of you becoming a liability as far as road safety is concerned. The more weight you add, the more of a potential liability you become.

It's no more complicated than that.

[Guest pelmetman]

Mel B - 2012-11-19 8:21 PM

it is when it isn't sensible to take it on the road, regardless of whether it is legal or not - a motorhome does not have to actually BE overloaded to become 'unsafe'. The loaded weight can make it less safe

 

If you applied that criteria to a bus, then they'd have to run around half empty:D.............As a bus driver my load could change from empty to full in 1 stop ;-)........

 

If you can't tell when your vehicle feels loaded and modify your driving accordingly,,,,,,,,,should you be driving at all ?:-S

[Tracker]

crinklystarfish - 2012-11-19 9:04 PM

You clearly, having read your subsequent posts, had several contributors in mind so once again, a simple question: who / what constitutes the "holier than thou brigade" please? .

 

I don't feel the need to explain my own attitudes on weights to you as these have been clearly expressed in this and in previous threads.

 

You're the expert on dragging up and regurgitating old history so you go look back and check if you want to but I am not going to elaborate.

 

Have I derided anyone - other than the holier than thou brigade for taking such an intolerant attitude to what really is not in most cases any serious risk?

.

And yes - as you insist on knowing - you are indeed coming across as one who has a pompous and holier than thou attitude at times - as well as being ever happy to snipe at anyone who disagrees with you.

 

Hope you are ecstatically happy now that the truth is out - but somehow I doubt you will be - but on the bright side it does at least give you a reason for another go - not that you would worry about needing a reason!!!

 

 

[crinklystarfish]

Ah, so when you wrote:

Tracker - 2012-11-17 6:06 PM ...Nothing has gotten to me - I just get a bit miffed when someone has an unprovoked go at me just because they 'think' that I had a veiled go at them! If I have a go at anyone specifically it sure as heck ain't veiled...  

you were in fact clearly lying on several counts. 

You now admit you were directing the 'holier than thou' slight at me too, but initially tried to make out this wasn't the case. You claim you would have a direct 'go' rather than 'veiled' - a straightforward lie. You claim that me taking you to task was unprovoked - but it is clear now you were indeed actually attempting to provoke me (and others) into a personalised exchange - again.

Well, on this occasion, it worked.

I point it out to demonstrate to the wider readership once again how you slyly drop in comments that are designed to provoke reaction, and then when you are taken to task you frequently lie, claim there has been a massive misunderstanding, and launch into your unpleasant personal attacks in the completely fabricated guise of 'self-defence'.

You set up confrontations in an effort to justify highly personalised abuse. You are dishonest.

Richard, it is an unpleasant thing to do. It diverts many a thread, and is all about you gratifying your need to 'score' against a select band of users that you clearly do not like, me included.

I am often put off posting on threads because I've seen the bait you lay and just can't be bothered with your sneaky provocation. I wouldn't be surprised if there are others in my position. Do you not think it a bit selfish to consistently turn threads into interminable egocentric 'Tracker the hurt and offended innocent victim' charades?

There are forums out there that are all about debate just for its own sake. Give one a go if that's your bag. Be warned though, the participants see through fallacious argument instantly and I suspect would rapidly expose you.

I dislike what you do and simply wish to publicly record my objection to your silly little games.

[Tracker]

It does seem odd that for one who protests so much about off topic postings you continue to 'bait' me, as you would put it, in public rather than by private message? Is it so important for you to be seen to get your version of events across? You do have away with words - unfortunately your way is distortion and lack of tolerance of the views of others!

 

May I remind you that it was you who began by going back 4 years (or more - can't remember) with an unprovoked, offensive, distorted and untrue accusation about Starspirit.

 

I didn't originally have you in mind when I posted the holier than thou tongue in cheek bit but it was pointless me saying that to you as you obviously realise that the cap does fit you!! There has been an element of self righteousness on this topic based mainly on misunderstandings as ever..

 

So you are now a self appointed moderator it seems to add to your own ego trip - in which case I await your apology for your accusation about my attitude towards the weight of my own van.

 

I never set out to set up confrontation as you put it but I do respond when I see others showing a lack of understanding and tolerance by sitting in judgement of fellow members - something you do quite often.

 

Nobody else elected to see my comment as veiled or anything else so it seems that only you have this paranoia that I'm picking on you.

 

Shall we let it go there as it is all rather pointless isn't it. You stop baiting me and I will stop responding.