Spare wheels on the 2007 Sevels

[Don Madge]

This was part of a post on one of the other m/h forums. "Many of the new Fiat based motorhomes do not have a spare wheel fitted as from the 2007 models. Rapido are supplying a sealant and pump as standard instead of a spare." I never gave it much thought until today when getting my van out of the storage area I noticed a row of shiny new vans on the dealers forecourt. They were from Compass, coachbuilts special (the salesman told me) editions named Rambler for Wandahome. The low profile looked OK but the one with the luton had the aerodynamics of a brick. Had a quick look around did not go inside but noticed a spare wheel, usual place on a coachbuilt underslung at the back. Price at under £28000 look good when you think you can pay almost double that for panel van conversions. So question, are spare wheels standard on the new Sevels? Don

[Brian Kirby]

Interesting, innit?  I saw new Mercedes sprinters at a German manufacturer a couple of weeks back, and they were devoid of spare boots as well.  When I asked I was shown a neat little cubby at the base of the passenger's cab door containing a cylinder full of goo.  That, I was told, was to use in the event of a flat.

So, be careful not to drive over your own three pointed star!

The cheapskates - and at their prices!

[Bill Ord]

I suspect missing spare wheel syndrom is more to do with weight saving than money saving. My Rapido 924F is the baby of the A class range and still manages to show 3560kg on the weighbridge with full tanks and one bicycle. I do have a PTAC of 3850kg but 3500kg is normal. Extras include a solar panel and satellite dish and bike rack; nothing unusual there. I strongly believe that the majority of vans are compromised for payload particularly in the over 6 metre class and it's about time the magazines paid more attention to it rather than quoting the makers' figures. The move to the 2.3 Fiat motor will also free up payload as it is considerably lighter than the 2.8 of roughly the same power.

[RonB]

Bill I totally agree with you on the payload issue. However, I came to the conclusion long ago that should the magazines start telling the truth about payload, especially individual axle payloads, then they would very shortly have no main advertisers left. Which is the reason we aint gonner get the info. Have fun.

[Bill Ord]

I suspect you're right Ron B, however in the meantime there are lots of 'vans running round in an illegal state and by that they are also probably uninsured in the event of a claim while overloaded. I believe it's in the magazines and manufacturers interest to come clean on this issue as in the long term we need vehicles that are fit for the intended purpose. It's bad enough that there's usually a disclaimer that weights can vary by +/- 5% which can easily be 150kg; take that off the stated payload and you really do have a problem. I do hope that MMM in particular will be brave enough to decide on a nominal payload for each person and include full fresh tanks and a realistic weight for the passengers and publish and be damned. If my 924F is over 3500kg in touring trim then I suspect every Rapido low profile will be as well as they are all bigger than the 924F and those with garage storage if used are probably over weight on the rear axle. It's noticable that many garage models have a maximum weight of 150kg for the garage; what chance of adding a scooter rack?

[Brian Kirby]

Bill

It's already been done.  There is an EC directive that all new vans muct comply with when declaring weights.  It's been around for a while and the basic unladen weight of vans much now include the driver at 75 KG, 90% full fuel fresh water and gas stores and an allowance for luggage for driver and passengers.  It seems to vary a bit in detail, depending on where the 'van is made, but provided you read the fine print in the tech spec you should have no difficulty working out what is in and what is out and understanding what the payload has to absorb.  The good thing is that if you choose to travel "dry", for example, you can re-allocate weight of the water you won't be carrying to your great dane, or whatever.

[messerschmitt owner]

I spent three years with an Elddis Autoquest 400 which I knew was overladen every time I took it out - made much worse by the scooter rack on the back! In 2004, when we went to look for a van with a decent payload (a ton or more), we found only two - the Rimor 747TC and the Geist Matterhorn, both on the 4.6 tonne Mercedes sprinter chassis. Despite purchasing the Rimor at £43500 all in, we cannot load the rear garage fully as it very quickly pushes the van above the rear axle weight due to the overhang! And it has a genuine 1.2 tonne payload. We have to load stuff into the overhead cab area (and put the safety net up) to balance the weight when travelling with our antique postcard stock. Campbell

[colin]

Getting back to subject As posted on another thread, I would advise anyone with a 'bottle of gue' get a proper spare. On my Dutton there is no spare, only time I had a punture it was a flint that totaly wreaked tyre. When in NZ had two blow-outs on one day, both times tyre was shreaded.

[Keith T]

Yes, interesting- was looking at Burstner loast week, and asked it the spare wheen was still as inaccessible as prviously....Salesman asked 'What spare wheel' - its mnow in a can!! Yes in principal a good idea, I suppose, given the difficulty of retreiving it on the older models. Must have benefit on weight though aspecailly as many model now seem to be on 3300 chassis.

[Basil]

Keith T, It may or may not be a help with weight, but it probably won't help with payload as they will probably just use the extra to put more 'toys' in to make it more appealing to the gullible. I also believe that having a bottle of goo and a shreaded tyre will not endear you to breakdown/ recovery services who, at least when I last looked, stated in the small print that they would only be responsible if you were carrying an adequate spare wheel all others were chargable!! Bas

[Mel E]

I also agree on the payload issue. It's odd that, in today's modern computer world, they cannot 'weigh' a design before they put it into production. They don't seem to, however. Even poor little me 'weighed' my van conversion - total and individual axle weights - on the computer before it went into the build stage. However, can I correct one common misapprehension: that MMM editorial content is written in order to appease advertisers. It isn't. I know the joint editors well and they tell me - and I believe them - that they have never been asked by the publisher to modify any editorial content. The advertising is sold from Lincolnshire and they are in Devon, so they don't even see the ad team from one month end to the next. Of course, the content is written so as to provide as objective a view as possible of each 'van reviewed. Remember that one man's meat is another's poison, so what you read may not wholly please you. And I do know that some review 'vans have been weighed to check the manufacturer's figures. Even so, I agree that a bit more focus on load carrying would be useful to those of us who use our 'vans for long breaks and hence load them up more. Especially as the UK Police, at least, are now having fairly frequent blitzez on motohome weights. Hope that helps and clarifies.