RonB Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I have just read the CC Motor Caravan Awards 2006 supplement that came with this months Which Motorcaravan. The A Class top award went to the Adria Vision 1707G. My questions are these. Why do organisations continually seek to confuse people by testing one version of a vehicle whilst showing weight information for another? Don't they know the correct figures and if not how do they arrive at their final deductions? In the above case they tested a 3.0 ltr version of the vehicle whilst quoting weight figures for a 2.5 ltr version. I can well imagine a confused newcomer to our hobby laying out 50K+ for a poultry maximum payload of just 220kg, which in my opinion should get a duffers award. If my information is correct the vehicle has belted seats for four. Can anyone tell me how, with all seats occupied and perhaps the usual extras, what weight is left for a bag of crisps? Well, the Caravan Club recommended it didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonB Posted August 1, 2006 Author Share Posted August 1, 2006 Or a chicken come to think of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I don't actually put much stock in any of these surveys and awards, many of them are only done on vehicles that have been submitted for scrutiny and they are only by a few manufacturers so there's no way they can give the best results, not by a long shot. All they can do is tell you what, in the opinion of the testers, is the best vehicle that met the criteria they were measuring by at the time of the test. The payload issues should be one of the most important issues for which a large proportion of the points should be awarded. It doesn't matter how many taps are in the washroom, whether it has a full oven or not, comfy beds etc - as soon as you drive it off your drive with your family on board and your holiday paraphanalia, if you are then over the legal weight limit due not to you taking too much but simply to the fact there isn't the minimum payload necessary to properly use the vehicle for what it was intended, then it should be discounted totally as 'not fit for purpose'. I must admit I am disgusted that some vans win these awards with a pathetic payload which makes them usable for no-one but the most anorexic motorhomers. If the only way to make a motorhome realistically usable is to upgrade and not keep it in it's normal form, ie on the standard chassis which the vast majority of motorhomers choose to have, then it should not be a contender in any awards at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 [QUOTE]RonB - 2006-08-01 8:45 PM Or a chicken come to think of it![/QUOTE] Well spotted! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Isn't this observation a near-clone of a posting in June that (I thought) was commented on fully by Which Motorcaravan's editor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 How dare you critiscise the CC? Don't you know that they have NEVER got anything wrong in their entire existence? Any more talk like that and you will not be welcome on their sites unless you stay for a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breakaleg Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 my brother bought a brand new car on the strength of the tow car of the year award, witch towed great on the road, but as soon as it seen damp grass the front wheel drive couldnt cope with a caravan on the back. pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonB Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 Derek - Back from a long break abroad so have missed a couple of months postings. Can you identify the posting you mention as I cannot find it. Sounds like someone else is talking straight though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Madge Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 [QUOTE]RonB - 2006-08-02 1:58 PM Derek - Back from a long break abroad so have missed a couple of months postings. Can you identify the posting you mention as I cannot find it. Sounds like someone else is talking straight though.[/QUOTE] Ron, I think this was what Derek was refering to. http://tinyurl.com/nm59z Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonB Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 I've now discovered how to look back through the forum other than using a keyword (technology is not my strong great) and read the quoted posting along with the Which editors comments. The two postings were very much alike but my main point was why do manufacturers,magazines,motorhome clubs,testers, etc, continue the practice of misleading people like this? Do they think that we are all stupid? In the end they only succeed in receiving the flak and disrespect they are asking for. If those who should now better want to continue, for whatever reason, reporting on unsuitable vehicles then their reports should carry some sort of danger warning similar to what we have on cigarette packets. With regard to the Which editors comments. Having already identified this vehicles payload problem why continue praising it later without further comment - and why publish the unsuitable weight figures as though recommending them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonB Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 Thanks Don - obviously our postings overlapped whilst I was still one-finger typing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.