RonB Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 From what I've been able to discover, Burstner appear not to include wing mirrors, whether folded or not, when quoting overall vehicle widths. Strangely, they do point out that ladders are excluded in the overall lengths given but no such disclaimer appears concerning mirrors. How this idiosyncratic, nay false, information is supposed to assist prospective purchasers I have yet to discover. I can well imagine some poor soul buying one of their motorhomes, with nearly a foot to spare between his walls over and above their published widths, only to find that he can't get the vehicle onto his property. This cannot be right whichever way you look at it - overall width should mean overall width. So why do Burstner publish such false details? It can't be put down to bad translation as,say, 228cm is the same in any language. It can't be printer error either unless the fault has gone unseen over the whole range for years. There would of course be a decided advantage if they could publish widths that presumed to show their models nearly a foot narrower than the opposition for the seemingly same internal space. But they wouldn't do that would they. I come back again to the question of testers. Surely these type 'discrepancies' are the very thing that they should be pointing out, along with inadequate payloads, axle loading inbalance, etc,etc. Lastly, I think there could be some merit in MHC's idea. A readers database, if that is what he is suggesting, including the pro's and con's of certain motorhomes, is not such a bad idea. Of course these might be highly opinionated depending on the reviewers experience and experiences with his vehicle. However, it would still give prospective owners, especially newcomers to the hobby, an additional source of information to check out. Sorry to keep banging on. Have fun with your spec sheets. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhc Posted December 4, 2006 Author Share Posted December 4, 2006 [/QUOTE] Depends, how much commission do you intead paying to us for helping with your business plan? ;-)[/QUOTE] I feel there is a potential there, yes, that's why I'm gauging a reaction :-S . I'm convinced that the way new motorhomes are represented on the web could be better and the results above would appear to support that. I don't mean just copying general details from a brochure, or a full blown 8 page article, but something inbetween. Straight facts, consistent format, good quality photos. Now, wouldn't that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 [QUOTE]mhc - 2006-12-04 3:51 PM [/QUOTE] Depends, how much commission do you intead paying to us for helping with your business plan? ;-)[/QUOTE] I feel there is a potential there, yes, that's why I'm gauging a reaction :-S . I'm convinced that the way new motorhomes are represented on the web could be better and the results above would appear to support that. I don't mean just copying general details from a brochure, or a full blown 8 page article, but something inbetween. Straight facts, consistent format, good quality photos. Now, wouldn't that make sense?[/QUOTE] I have to say no, not to me. I expect the manufacturer's information to be factual and accurate; although I accept it is not where you'll find drawbacks exposed! I therefore subscribe to magazines for less rose tinted appraisals. That is why I expect rigorous professional standards from the magazine testers. To better the manufacturer's facts, you'd have to test/review the vehicles yourself. Otherwise, so far as I can see, you'll be reduced to copying out what is already in the brochures. Ditto magazine articles. Thus, at best, you would seem only able to replicate brochure / article errors, not correct them. Or have I misunderstood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhc Posted December 4, 2006 Author Share Posted December 4, 2006 Partly. The idea is not to detract from the magazines, or even the brochures, but to give concise information to internet surfers to help them shortlist vehicles to view/get more information on. It would have to include at least a static visit to facilitate some writeup on salient points, plus get hold of layout plans and photograph items of importance which do not appear in brochures - believe it or not I had thought of some (not all) of the items mentioned already but wanted to see if I was on the right track - I've also taken some trial pictures. I would not envisage lengthly detailed assessments, just enough for people to make an informed decision about whether to shortlist a particular model for further personal assessment. This avoids the danger of too much opinion in a review - what's right for one user isn't necessarily right for another, ultimately it is the buyers' decision. Forget the magazine articles and tables for the time being. New people looking for the first time are using the internet as their first reference point and find the manufacturers and magazines through search engines, but the product information is largely missing ; yet ironically the most popular activity on Net is researching products and services (and thats from the Office for National Statistics). The question is whether the internet community or the industry want this type of service and who pays for it. Those are the things I'm now investigating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith T Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Hi again.. surely we go back to Square one here....this is the info we should expect to be able to get from the Manufacturers own websites. Yes, I agree 100% that the internet should be the best place for initial research, then perhaps articles/reveiews in mags, although I am rather cynical about the content of some, and would not put too much faith in them. If having done the initial search to provide a 'short list' from the internet and maybe articles, ther is only one way to see if any particular model suits - that is to see them. That probably is where the main difficulty lies, and theoretically, at least, the big shows (ie Birmingham and previously Earls Court) are the best. Dealers of some marques can be somewhat few & far between (- OK, I know we live on Cornwall, so have further to travel anyway to any dealers!) However, there may well be a huge differeence bewteen what looks good on paper, and meets all the parameters in terms of size, layout etc, but when looking at the actual vehicle, there are areas whcih either just don't work (visually or practically), or, quite often, the quality is not good enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 If you consult the Buyer’s Guide at the back of MMM, you get the following information for all motorhomes currently available in UK. Make, model, body type, base vehicle, base engine, automatic transmission option, LHD/RHD, max weight, payload, length, width, height, no of berths, no of belted seats, location of habitation door, single or double beds, WC/shower, space/water heating, sizes of fresh water tank, waste water tank, and fridge, no of hob rings, presence of grill/oven, size of gas locker, price, and when/where tested. It is in the form of a clear table that, because of the numbers of ‘vans concerned, extends over 15 pages, providing a huge amount of information in a very condensed format.I have tried encouraging MMM to facilitate downloads of their/Which Motorcaravan tests to subscribers, but they have not to date been so encouraged. However, if they would supply .pdf downloads for a couple of pounds, that would be just about perfect. I’m sorry, but I really can’t see how this can be bettered at reasonable cost. Just look at the number of advertisements in MMM, and consider the revenue they represent. Maintaining that kind of database requires constant checking, to say nothing of the preparation of the test articles. This is a huge task, requiring substantial income. If it isn’t kept up to date, isn’t comprehensive, and isn’t accurate; it is of little use. The idea is great, but I don’t see how you can start it from scratch, unless you’ve won the lottery, that is! It surely needs to be an extension of something that already exists. Now, if MMM put their database on this website, in searchable format, with links to the tests, that would be worth paying a bit more for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith T Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I totally agree with Brian - but, surerly if the manfacturers had a bit more foresight and initiative, they could provide all this information - in tabular form - for all their current vehicles on their own websites. In fact, this could be updated, and the older models kept in the listing (perhaps shown as nla) and this would be a very useful source of info for owners of older vehicles. Indeed, if they were really interested, I would have thought they could easily now go back for say 10years of the models they made. The info msut be in their archives! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhc Posted December 8, 2006 Author Share Posted December 8, 2006 Thanks to everyone for their comments, suggestions and votes on this poll. I think we are agreed there is room for improvement, which will surely come, whoever provides it ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.