down rating to 3.5

[KeithR]

been looking at a new van, but realised it is rated at 4250kg. I am aware that over the magic 3.5t there are a number of negatives (I don't know of any positives, other than payload.).is it possible to down rate to 3.5t, and how much does it affect payload? any other negatives?

im sure the many knowledgeable forum members will be able to advise me on this question # :-(

[Brian Kirby]

KeithR - 2015-08-14 1:01 PM

 

been looking at a new van, but realised it is rated at 4250kg. I am aware that over the magic 3.5t there are a number of negatives (I don't know of any positives, other than payload.).is it possible to down rate to 3.5t, and how much does it affect payload? ......................

4,250 - 3,500 = 750kg. I doubt it would have any payload as 3,500kg, possibly even negative payload! :-D

[KeithR]

oh dear! I was hoping the maths was a percentage!!!

[Guest Joe90]

KeithR - 2015-08-14 1:17 PM

 

oh dear! I was hoping the maths was a percentage!!!

 

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure down rating to 3500 will put you in a higher VED tax band, which has always seemed very odd to me. :-S

 

 

[KeithR]

yes, I had seen mention of that strange anomaly on the forum, but my main concern is the number of places with a 3.5t weight limit, and the go box.

[yoko8pups]

You need to get the van weighed empty then see how much payload you have left at 3.5t. Our Hymer was plated at 3900 but empty it was 2850. We decided we could manage with that payload as we are two people and would hardly ever go away for more than 4 weeks. We are aware we will always have to be aware of weight. The axle figures remained the same so the issue for us is legal, we had to swap to a Portuguese license as we live there and they take away your 7.5t, not safety related.

 

The DVLA needed a licensed weighbridge ticket to consider our request and we used SVTech.

 

[yoko8pups]

You need to get the van weighed empty then see how much payload you have left at 3.5t. Our Hymer was plated at 3900 but empty it was 2850. We decided we could manage with that payload as we are two people and would hardly ever go away for more than 4 weeks. We are aware we will always have to be aware of weight. The axle figures remained the same so the issue for us is legal, we had to swap to a Portuguese license as we live there and they take away your 7.5t, not safety related.

 

The DVLA needed a licensed weighbridge ticket to consider our request and we used SVTech.

 

[KeithR]

thanks for your input folks, I now know I can get that vehicle at 3500kg, but with a smallish payload. I think I will get it at the lower weight and see what payload I can get away with. if I cant cope, then I will up rate. I think all the models ive been looking at give me the same problem. *-) 8-)

[Billggski]

By "new" I assume you mean new to you.

Taking 750k off your permitted weight seems unlikely, can you find the original specification sheet? That will give you a starting point.

[Derek Uzzell]

KeithR - 2015-08-14 3:01 PM

 

thanks for your input folks, I now know I can get that vehicle at 3500kg, but with a smallish payload. I think I will get it at the lower weight and see what payload I can get away with. if I cant cope, then I will up rate. I think all the models ive been looking at give me the same problem. *-) 8-)

 

A motorhome with a gross vehicle weight of 4250kg is usually pretty large and, consequently, far from light even when completely empty. There’s a good reason for the 4250kg weight and it’s because if it were significantly lower the user-payload would become so restricted that operating the vehicle ’normally’ would prove impracticable.

 

It would have been helpful if you had provided make/model/year details of the vehicle you are interested in, but there’s an example of a 4250kg motorhome here

 

http://www.marquisleisure.co.uk/motorhomes/stock-item/swift-bolero-724fb

 

A payload of 987kg is quoted and the vehicle’s unladen weight is given as 3263kg. At 3500kg the payload would reduce to 237kg, which ain’t much!

 

Rather than have the motorhome downplated to 3500kg and then find you need to uplate it to obtain a reasonable amount of payload, it would be far better to have the vehicle weighed before committing to purchase it - at least then you’d have a fair idea whether or not it would be realistic to downplate to 3500kg.

 

Downplating in the hope that you can get away with 750kg less than the design payload and then needing to uplate back to 4250kg seems a perverse plan to me. As you’d need to weigh the vehicle at the 3500kg weight in any case to establish whether you can operate the motohome legally at that weight, you might as well do the weighing now rather than later.

 

As Brian and Bill have warned, such a large reduction is likely to cause problems.

[Brian Kirby]

KeithR - 2015-08-14 3:01 PM

 

thanks for your input folks, I now know I can get that vehicle at 3500kg, but with a smallish payload. I think I will get it at the lower weight and see what payload I can get away with. if I cant cope, then I will up rate. I think all the models ive been looking at give me the same problem. *-) 8-)

Can you provide more information on the vehicle?

 

Can you say what the advertised payload is at 3,500 tonnes?

 

Can you say what is the difference in MIRO is between the version on a 3.5 tonne MAM chassis, and the one at 4.25 tonnes MAM?

 

Can you also say a bit more about why you want to stay below 3,500kg? If you are prepared to consider driving the 4.25 tonne version, why not bite the bullet from the outset and go for the heavier chassis?

 

Why the questions? Well, there are broadly two versions of the (assumed) Ducato chassis, the light, and the heavy. The light one (maximum 3.5 tonne MAM) has smaller wheels, a lighter rated suspension, and lower permissible axle loads, while the heavy (maximum 4.25 tonne MAM) has larger wheels, heavier rated suspension, and higher permissible axle loads.

 

So, were you to go for the light version on a relatively heavy van, you would be likely to find your ability to load it being restricted by its axle load limits before it reached its legal MAM of 3.5 tonnes. In practice, therefore, you might not have the payload you anticipated when buying.

 

OTOH, the "heavy" chassis, with its higher permissible axle loads, would not limit you in this way so, although its higher MIRO may rob you of some payload when downplated to 3.5 tonnes, it would be more likely to allow you to reach its full 3.5 tonne MAM.

 

Although counter-intuitive, and doubtless more expensive, I think a downplated heavy chassis could be the more practical route to follow, because the axle load limitations of the light chassis could limit the gains to be made by up-plating. AFAIK, the maximum to which you can up-plate the 3.5 tonne chassis is 3.85 tonnes, but this figure is unattainable in real-world conditions.

 

But, in the absence of the above figures, and without knowledge of the actual van being considered, all this is, of course, assumption.

 

The problem with payloads is that although the gross payload is easy enough to calculate, how much of it you can actually use is much less clear because of the way load is distributed between the axles. A motorhome is, in effect, a giant see-saw, with the rear axle as its fulcrum. Any load added between the axles gets distributed between them in proportion to its distance from each. But, load added behind the rear axle reduces front axle load, while increasing the rear axle load by its own weight plus that taken from the front. Before this can be calculated you need to know the weight of everything that you would load into the van, the distance ahead of, or behind, the rear axle in which it will travel, and the van's unladen axle loads. This is far more information than most of us have, or can obtain, before purchase.

 

Bear in mind also that you may want to add items to the van, such as an awning, additional habitation battery etc, and these all increase the unladen weight, and so reduce payload.

 

So, my take is that, as Derek says, if the manufacturer offers the van on the heavy chassis, there will be a good reason for him doing so. It might be that the 3.5 tonne version of this van is, in fact, on the heavy chassis, and is merely downplated to increase the number of potential buyers. If that is the case, re-plating to a higher MAM should be straightforward.

 

But otherwise, since the calculation of usable payload is so difficult to make before you buy, opting for a heavy chassis would give you the maximum of flexibility since, if it won't work, you can always plate it back up and it is almost guaranteed to work. On the other hand, if you opted for the light chassis and subsequently needed to plate it up, you might find the lower axle load limits govern loading before you reach an adequate load carrying capability. You would then be stuck with the choice between using a van that is unsatisfactory, or selling it to get one that would be. A potentially very expensive experience.

[KeithR]

the van is the new auto trail tracker RB, the dealer says that it is now only available at 4250kg.

I think the payload was 800+ but ive got differing info from different places.to keep below 3.5t ive considered the tracker FB and the elddis 255. its the only layout we like, but it means giving up the LHD we currently have (we mostly tour abroad).id consider vans 2-3 old but its getting to be a drag now and its giving me a headache!!

I don't like the idea of speed restrictions, limited access, go boxes and medicals. or am I being pedantic

:-S *-) 8o|

[bolero boy]

tracker RB MIro 3405kg

tracker FB MIRO 3210kg

 

neither allows for any extras and neither is (imho) a usable amount on 3500kg.

[KeithR]

thanks for all your input. I guess I need a rethink!! is 4250kg not so bad after all, or do we change our layout choice??? it all seemed so easy. I think i'll buy a tent (lol) (lol)

[Rayjsj]

bolero boy - 2015-08-14 9:37 PM

 

tracker RB MIro 3405kg

tracker FB MIRO 3210kg

 

neither allows for any extras and neither is (imho) a usable amount on 3500kg.

Me neither! as an aside I think that 3500kg is an arbitrary and artificially low limit, the British 7.5 tonne limit, made/makes far more sense and fitted better with our licensing laws, and traffic weight limits through towns and villages, where 3500kg limits are still seldom seem. Ray

[KeithR]

I don't really know what is or isn't a usable weight allowance.

like you guys, we go touring over the water for 2-3 months at a time,

and carry clothes, some food (and drink!) and outside table and 2 chairs. not a lot I would think.

of course, if you add laptops, bikes and other sundries it does seem to mount up!

does this mean most autotrails on the road are overloaded? or am I givving to much importance to staying below the 3500kg van limit?? I invite your personal opinions B-)

[Brian Kirby]

Just to give you an idea on load, we do much as you do, and we go spring and autumn so avoid the extremes of winter and high summer. Our total load for food, clothing, liquids, footwear, cooking utensils, washing requisites, maps, guides, bikes, etc etc is 300kg.

 

MIRO normally includes an allowance for gas, water, and fuel, plus a driver at a nominal 75kg. A T's weight calculator also includes a passenger at 75kg. Obviously, actual weights should be substituted in both cases. You'll need to check closely how A T calculate their MIRO. It seems it includes only 20ltrs fresh water in a 100ltr tank, so I'd want to add 80kg to fill the tank. It is unclear what allowance is made for gas. Normally this is calculated at 90% capacity, but with one 13kg and one 7kg cylinder possible, it could be either, or both, at 90%, or full. Fuel, I'd guess is 90%, so an extra 10ltr diesel needs to be factored in. Say 8.5kg.

 

I don't altogether trust Auto Trail's weight calculator, as it give no weight increase for the Comfortmatic box or the 150PS engine. All this is before you get into A T's options list.

 

However, I think that with a starting MIRO quoted at 3,405kg, the 855kg payload for the RB should remain workable unless you go mad with options! Front axle 2,100kg, rear axle 2,400kg.

 

The FB, at a payload of 290kg, before options, is a bit of a (bad) joke. Even uprated to 3,650kg I doubt it is realistically workable, as I strongly suspect you'd hit the 2,000kg rear axle limit before you got to 3,650kg all up.

 

Both have longish rear overhangs, which would worry me on ferry ramps, and on some tight uphill hairpins. The turning circles are not quoted, but the RB will be considerable in view of its longer wheelbase.

 

I'm puzzled that not only do A T quote all vans as having 16" wheels, which on the X250 were for the "heavy" chassis only, but that they also quote 225/70 R16 CP tyres across their entire model range, which seems odd when such a wide variation of axle loads is involved.

 

A T state that the LHD chassis is available to order, but that delivery time would be longer. I saw one this spring on an X250 base in France, so it seems this is not a new departure.

[lennyhb]

From the opposite end, we did not want to go over 3500kg for the reasons Keith states, however always finding ourselves on or over the limit, so we recently bit the bullet and upgraded to 3850kg.

Our van has a MIRO of 2920kg and we found it impossible to run comfortably at 3500kg, so I think it would be impossible with the Tracker.

 

If you want to keep to LHD surely there must be a German van that meets your needs,a German LHD van is cant be sold or traded in any country, if you brought a LHD Autotrail I would think it would be almost unsalable, not a known brand abroad and not much call for in the UK.

 

You know it makes sense buy a quality German van. :D

[KeithR]

agree with both off you, and certainly a LHD AT appears to be out of the question. as for a euro van, unfortunately the lay out we now prefer is only available on UK vans (rear bed, double bench seats in the lounge). so is 4250kg really not as problematic as I first though ? although I don't condone breaking the law, is an overweight 3.5 tracker a major liability, or is a 4250kg van an obvious speeder, or a vignette or 3.5t limit abuser.(whllst getting a vignette in austria, I was aware of someone asking after the vignette/go box and then saying vignette please. he had a 30ft motorhome towing a car and trailer!!!obvious or what!!!

[KeithR]

lenny, did you find upgrading a problem?? I don't (yet) have any medical problems, but I do like to knock on a bit, especially on a motorway :-|

[lennyhb]

I used SV Tech a bit expensive but just a case of filling out a form, there is anther company that does for a third of the price found out too late. Only problem I had is DVLA 3 months now & still not got a correct V5.

 

As for layout I think there are quite a few A Class vans with that layout.

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian

 

It used to be easy to identify a ‘heavy’ Ducato X250 chassis because it had 16”-diameter wheels, but steel or alloy 16” wheels (instead of the standard 15”) are an option for ‘light’ Ducato X290s and - when 16” wheels are chosen for a ‘light’ X290 chassis destined to become a recreational vehicle - the tyres will be 225/75 R16CP 116/114Q. For a ‘heavy’ Ducato X290 chassis destined to become a recreational vehicle, the tyres fitted to its 16” wheels will (according to Fiat’s handbook) be either 225/75 R16CP 116/114Q or 225/75 R16CP 118R.

 

At the February 2015 NEC Show I asked the Fiat technical representative what happened about the vehicle's gearing when the 16”-diameter wheel factory-option was specified for a ‘light’ X290 chassis, pointing out that the 225/75 R16CP tyre instead of the standard 215/70 R15CP tyre would increase the overall gearing by about 9% unless something were done to prevent this. He told me that this would be addressed at the SEVEL factory when the vehicle was bult and I said “OK, but what happens? Do ‘light’ chassis get a Maxi gearbox when 16” wheels are specified, or is a special low-ratio final-drive fitted?” He said he didn’t know.

 

Presumably Fiat does take the raised gearing into account when the 16”-diameter wheel option is specified, otherwise there would be a good few X290-based motorhomes having difficulty pulling 6th gear and being tricky to start on steep slopes.

[Rayjsj]

lennyhb - 2015-08-15 8:03 PM

 

From the opposite end, we did not want to go over 3500kg for the reasons Keith states, however always finding ourselves on or over the limit, so we recently bit the bullet and upgraded to 3850kg.

Our van has a MIRO of 2920kg and we found it impossible to run comfortably at 3500kg, so I think it would be impossible with the Tracker.

 

If you want to keep to LHD surely there must be a German van that meets your needs,a German LHD van is cant be sold or traded in any country, if you brought a LHD Autotrail I would think it would be almost unsalable, not a known brand abroad and not much call for in the UK.

 

You know it makes sense buy a quality German van. :D

. If only they would make them with suitable layouts and levels of equipment for the UK, what Nutter fits a fully automatic single cup of coffee maker, yet neglects to fit spark ignition to the hob ??. Quality is great if used on sensible styling, fit for the Market it is intended to be sold in. Most German vans scream out to us ' uncompromising Germanic styling'. Take it or leave it. We'll leave it thanks. Ray

 

Even if that means going over 3500kg.

[Brian Kirby]

KeithR - 2015-08-15 9:15 PM

 

agree with both off you, and certainly a LHD AT appears to be out of the question. as for a euro van, unfortunately the lay out we now prefer is only available on UK vans (rear bed, double bench seats in the lounge). so is 4250kg really not as problematic as I first though ? although I don't condone breaking the law, is an overweight 3.5 tracker a major liability, or is a 4250kg van an obvious speeder, or a vignette or 3.5t limit abuser.(whllst getting a vignette in austria, I was aware of someone asking after the vignette/go box and then saying vignette please. he had a 30ft motorhome towing a car and trailer!!!obvious or what!!!

UK law says if the unladen weight of a van exceeds 3,050kg, it is subject to lower speed limits. This is not easy to determine, as "unladen" means without fuel, tools, or any occupants, and no manufacturers quote it. However, an official weighbridge ticket that shows the registration number of the vehicle and a weight below 3,050kg should be sufficient to fend off the odd over-zealous policeman. After all, if you could drive the vehicle to a weighbridge to get it weighed it will have had fuel on board, so with no fuel on board it could only weigh less. :-) This assumes it is not so borderline as to be impossible, in practical terms, to prove. So, looking at the two ATs, the FB would be OK, and the RB almost certainly not.

 

However, once abroad the test is that if its MAM exceeds 3,500kg it is subject to lower speed limits (and these do vary from country to country). So, 3,500kg or under abroad is subject to car speed limits, but 3,501kg is not. Whether the vehicle weighs 3,501kg or 4,250kg is, therefore immaterial so far as speed limits are concerned. It merely has to exceed 3,500kg to become subject to the lower limits.

 

AFAIK, prohibitions on weight grounds universally refer to the plated MAM. Commonly these will ban vehicles over 3.5tonnes from built up areas, often where there is also a by-pass or designated HGV route, but other limits may apply, for example at bridges, where the limit is based on structural considerations. If the prohibition sign has a pictogram of a commercial vehicle below it, it applies only to commercial vehicles so motorhomes, even if over 3.5tonnes, can ignore the sign. Sometimes there is the "except for access" relaxation, meaning that only through traffic over that weight is excluded. I'm pretty clear that access to a specific location within the limit would qualify for the exception, for example to a camp-site or aire, but am less clear whether stopping to buy a loaf of bread would! :-)

 

Our van is plated at 3.7 tonnes, but is identical in every respect to a van plated at 3.5 tonnes. I opted for this factory upgrade because I calculated it would be borderline at 3,500kg, which has proved the case. I "cheat" from time to time when confronted with 3.5 tonne prohibitions, as the actual weight is usually just under, both axles have a sensible margin, and the vehicle itself is no different from one plated at 3,500kg. My decision, my funeral! :-D However, at 4250kg, personally I would not take these occasional liberties.

 

Regarding upgrading the FB beyond 3,500kg, this is really fraught. The problem, as I said before, is that each axle has its own limit, and predicting how its load would distribute between the two axles requires a dimensioned plan of the layout, and knowledge of the weight of everything, and everyone, that/who would be on board, plus the actual loads on each axle when in a known reproduce-able condition (for example, with its fuel tank full, spare wheel plus jack and wheel brace loaded, but otherwise empty). As I said above, in general, one would have to have bought the van before this can be established.

 

The further complication with those vans you have been looking at is that all have long rear overhangs, and anything loaded into that overhang multiplies up the rear axle load, and the light Ducato chassis has a relatively low rear axle maximum load of 2,000kg. Due to this overhang either van will leave the factory with the rear axle relatively heavily laden, compared to a similar sized van with a shorter overhang. So, the design reduces the loading margin on the axle, while providing greater loading space behind it. A bit of a paradox! To me, this suggests the rear axle load limit for the FB would be likely to be hit quite early, possibly even before you get to 3,500kg. It is for that reason that I urge caution regarding upgrading the FB to a higher MAM, as I suspect the actual benefit would be far less than the gain in MAM, possibly bordering zero. If you could get an FB on the heavy chassis, downplated to 3,500kg you would overcome that problem, and would be free to up-plate it to any MAM between 3,500kg and 4,250kg, as its tyres should already be suitable for the higher loads (but that would need to be specified and confirmed). The price you'd pay for that would be a further reduction in the already paltry payload, due the the greater self-weight of the heavy chassis, to the extent I think it not worth contemplating.

 

Regarding the Elddis, I think it is a non-runner, on several grounds. First, MIRO is 3,039kg before options, with a resulting payload of 461kg (for a four berth van!). Second, Elddis say the weights are calculated with all tanks empty, and recommend travel with empty tanks. Third they only allow 20kg for two gas cylinders. Fourth it comes as standard with 15" wheels and tyres (215/70 R15C {note, not CP} 109S, max axle load 2060kg @ 5.5 bar), meaning any up-plating would be likely not only to run into rear axle load problems, but also possibly to axle/tyre upgrading (not at all the same, or as simple/cheap, as uprating MAM). Fifth, I can't see an option to upgrade to 16" wheels or to the heavy chassis. This is a classic example of a van designed for "hanger appeal", not for real world use! Might work as a weekend van, but not for longer term touring. Bit of a disgrace overall, I think. My opinions, obviously. :-D

 

Finally, thank you Derek for the explanation of X290 wheels/tyres. It is odd that AT are quoting 225/70 R16 CP, are these made do you know, or is this possibly (another :-)) AT website error, and they mean 225/75 R16 CP?

[KeithR]

well guys, i think you have clarified the problems. :-D

I haven't noticed any A class with a similar layout, except perhaps a few out of my financial league!. upgrading the FB is definitely out, as it would then be over the 3.5t (3650kg) so no advantage to the RB (4250kg) which we prefer.:-(

and the elddis is also impractible as regards the payload!!! :-(

I must either bite the bullet and go for the RB, or look if any other vans with this layout are weight practical. there is the bailey(but wide) 740, AT have a 2016 imala, and there is a bolero. no idea about the payload of these, only that thy are all 3500kg vans. more investigation I guess. *-)