Worried about payload on Apache 632

[colin]

I note our Belgium contributer pointed out that the Light chassis can be upped to 4t, not sure if this only applies to PVC's

[Bop]

mgnbuk - 2017-03-24 10:26 AM

 

There is an assumption that the van, when delivered, will weigh in "as advertised". IIRC the manufacturers quote the MIRO with a +/- 5% caveat, so your 3275 kg van could be delivered at 3438 kg & still be "within spec" ! I have not heard of any vans being delivered with the - 5% having been applied, but there are references to vans having beeen delivered taking advantage of the +5 %

 

I would want to see weighbridge certificates for axle & total weight of the "as delivered" van to ensure that it does actually have the published payload available before taking delivery.

 

Worrying unnecessarily ? I don't think so !

 

Nigel B

 

If it turned out that Kev bought his new van with the upper limit (+5% MIRO) then what would happen if he was stopped by the authorities and the van was found to be over the 3650kg limit. I suspect that it's the drivers responsibility to know the total mass of his vehicle but could he claim that he was working to the manufacturers figures or would that not wash.

 

Secondly, could he return the van to the manufacturer claiming that the goods were not fit for the purpose they were intended?

 

There must be a few people out there in this position.

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2017-03-24 1:30 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-03-24 12:09 PM

 

...I also note that AT state the MTW as 4.75 tonnes, and go on to say this will be increased to 4.9 tonnes if the MAM is increased to 3,659kg. This should be challenged, as my understanding is that the MTW figure derives from the chassis and power train (so is established by Fiat), and AT would seem unable to alter it as claimed...

 

My Rapido 640F (like the Auto-Trail Apache 632) is built on a Ducato ‘light’ camping-car chassis. The Fiat VIN-plate has 3650kg as the MAM, 6150kg as the GTW (Gross Train Weight), 1850kg for the maximum front-axle loading and 2000kg for the maximum rear-axle loading. I chose the 3500kg MAM option and the Rapido VIN-plate has MAM=3500kg, GTW=5500kg, with the axle-loadings unchanged at 1850kg/2000kg. Rapido’s technical brochure indicates that, if the 3650kg MAM option is chosen, the GTW increases by 150kg to 5650kg. It would appear from this (and from the Auto-Trail data) that, as long as the GTW does not exceed the limit set by Fiat for the base-chassis, the motorhome converter may increase the GTW when the 3650kg MAM is chosen.

Ah ha! Good. So AT (and clearly, others) are downrating the GTW, presumably on instruction from Fiat because unladen motorhomes are substantially heavier than the panel vans on which they are based. Then if utilising a bit more of the load flexibility to get to 3,650kg, Fiat releases a bit more of the potential GTW. Thanks for that. Make much more sense now.

[Brock]

Bop, most manufacturers work on a +-5% tolerance in their quoted weights. Most public weighbridges have a tolerance of 5%+-. VOSA examiners will allow a 5% tolerance before Fixed Penalty or Prohibition issue unless the relevant weight has been exceeded by 1 tonne or more. VOSA usually expect the overload to be corrected before the driver moves on. There is a weight check on the A55 and I've seen motorhomers emptying water tanks under the supervision of the examiners and caravans leaving baggage by the road side and presumably coming back later to pick it up. So if you are polite to the examiners, show an appreciation of axle and vehicle weights, there is a good chance that any motorhomer within 5% will escape a Fixed Penalty or Prohibition.

 

My son's commercial van is roadside weighed every other month or so by the DVSA and on the only occasion he was overweight on the rear chassis, they helped him move a pallet 2' nearer the front axle which solved the problem. It's not an issue for him now as his current van has on board weighing equipment.

[Brian Kirby]

Bop - 2017-03-24 6:45 PM...............If it turned out that Kev bought his new van with the upper limit (+5% MIRO) then what would happen if he was stopped by the authorities and the van was found to be over the 3650kg limit. I suspect that it's the drivers responsibility to know the total mass of his vehicle but could he claim that he was working to the manufacturers figures or would that not wash.

 

Secondly, could he return the van to the manufacturer claiming that the goods were not fit for the purpose they were intended?

 

There must be a few people out there in this position.

I think there are two issues here.

 

First, overload. Would Kevin be able successfully to plead he was misled by manufacturer's data? Possibly, if the overload was marginal and the officer concerned having a good day, otherwise he might be subject to a fine, possibly instructed to off-load goods to get down to his permissible MAM, possibly both.

 

Second, whether a van that proved to be 5% heavier than advertised would enable him to reject the van as being so compromised by its lower payload as to be unusable as a motorhome? Again possibly, but in view of the stated 5% upward tolerance on the MIRO, I suspect he'd need a very good lawyer! Both are risks that, with luck and a little common sense, will not materialise. I'm no lawyer, so wouldn't wish to advise Kevin further on how to deal with those risks, other than to get a van with a more realistic payload, which would eliminate both risks. But, that's me. :-)

 

As I've said (in terms), if it were me, I'd pull the order, do my sums, and buy a van that had at least 500kg of genuine payload - after all accessories and options had been taken into account. But then, we travel for 8 - 12 weeks at a time, mainly on the continent, and I expect my vans to be able to travel with a full water tank. I don't want to faff around filling with water every time I stop, and then draining before I leave, just in case my van might be overloaded. Waste of time and water. FWIW, I also, would only buy a van that could take two 13kg gas cylinders, or equivalent. But, having said that, I completely accept and respect that others are happy to do otherwise.

[Bop]

Brian Kirby - 2017-03-24 7:28 PM

 

Bop - 2017-03-24 6:45 PM...............If it turned out that Kev bought his new van with the upper limit (+5% MIRO) then what would happen if he was stopped by the authorities and the van was found to be over the 3650kg limit. I suspect that it's the drivers responsibility to know the total mass of his vehicle but could he claim that he was working to the manufacturers figures or would that not wash.

 

Secondly, could he return the van to the manufacturer claiming that the goods were not fit for the purpose they were intended?

 

There must be a few people out there in this position.

I think there are two issues here.

 

First, overload. Would Kevin be able successfully to plead he was misled by manufacturer's data? Possibly, if the overload was marginal and the officer concerned having a good day, otherwise he might be subject to a fine, possibly instructed to off-load goods to get down to his permissible MAM, possibly both.

 

Second, whether a van that proved to be 5% heavier than advertised would enable him to reject the van as being so compromised by its lower payload as to be unusable as a motorhome? Again possibly, but in view of the stated 5% upward tolerance on the MIRO, I suspect he'd need a very good lawyer! Both are risks that, with luck and a little common sense, will not materialise. I'm no lawyer, so wouldn't wish to advise Kevin further on how to deal with those risks, other than to get a van with a more realistic payload, which would eliminate both risks. But, that's me. :-)

 

As I've said (in terms), if it were me, I'd pull the order, do my sums, and buy a van that had at least 500kg of genuine payload - after all accessories and options had been taken into account. But then, we travel for 8 - 12 weeks at a time, mainly on the continent, and I expect my vans to be able to travel with a full water tank. I don't want to to faff around filling with water every time I stop, and then draining before I leave, just in case my van might be overloaded. Waste of time and water. FWIW, I also, would only buy a van that could take two 13kg gas cylinders, or equivalent. But, having said that, I completely accept and respect that others are happy to do otherwise.

 

That makes perfect sense Brian (and Brock too)

 

I don't want to appear too insensitive to Kev's new purchase but I would definitely be cancelling the order for an alternative van with more payload capacity. It's nice to travel light but it's also nice to have the flexibility which a proper payload will bring the user.

 

Cheers Brian,

 

Andrew

[kevandali]

All this sensible info is doing my head in :-)

Spoken to Auto sales manager and he basically told me that there would be no problem and waffled about the actual payload available and didn't really answer my question regarding how much payload available after full diesel tank, full water, bikes and bike rack and all our gear.

Not contacts the dealer yet but was just thinking about which alternative fixed bed alternative I could consider. I am so annoyed and disappointed that AT can sell a van to prospective customers that have no idea about the lack of equipment they can carry legally.

My wife is def in the camp of don'y worry we will be ok and re arrange things if required.

Any ideas of alternative models before I actually approach the dealer?

feeling fed up and disappointed that I feel so worried about an area of the motorhome that I did not consider would be inadequate.

[globebuster]

The subject of payload has become a real bone of contention in recent years - and much has been written about it on forums, and in the press. MMM have done a good job bringing it to the fore, and continue to do so.

 

It would appear that a lot of manufacturers are pretty ambiguous with their formula for calculation, there doesn't seem to be any consistency between one make and another - Water tanks being a case in point.

 

It's interesting that when you visit the AT weight calculator the 3650 option comes up as default, almost an admission that the 3500 option is unworkable - which it is! In fact it's bloody ridiculous!!!

The 3650 upgrade doesn't do much better really, but might be doable if you're careful.

I can see no mention of Fuel or Gas allowance either.

To be fair to AT, there are a lot of standard features that would not be included in alternative vans, that would obviously eat into their payload - to a degree.

The combined 93kg allowance for personal possessions might cover an outdoor chair clothing and food for each and a few books if you're lucky.

 

With the 632 you have a van with capacious rear storage, but still only a rear axle max of 2000, but unless you put a standard spec 632 on a weighbridge [with a tank of fuel and gas bottle you won't know just how much you can really carry in there, and a bike rack with a couple of bikes - how will that effect the pay/axle load?

Surely AT have some axle weight info they can supply you with fuel and gas on board, maybe even some water!!

 

I just can't see why anyone would spend 50k plus on a 'luxury' motorhome and find that they have to compromise, or modify its use to stay safe and legal. If you can't reasonably carry a decent capacity of water, outdoor BBQ [to use with the point supplied] a couple of chairs and a table or even a TV, you might as well just go camping....

 

Before you fret too much, email AT and ask for some definitive answers on whether fuel, gas are included in the dry weight.

Hopefully, you could be better off than it first appears

 

 

[derek pringle]

hi kevandali,

Having explained our experience of payload in an earlier posting, I really hop this issue does not come back and bite you on the bum. We found that as we got more adventurous and going away for longer etc. it tends to lead to taking more gear, plus the extra luxuries you buy-cadacs and such. All these things make a difference and I would like to have a little in reserve rather than being on the edge each time we went anywhere.

best of luck to you both and enjoy the van

derek

[Bop]

kevandali - 2017-03-24 11:08 PMAll this sensible info is doing my head in :-)

Spoken to Auto sales manager and he basically told me that there would be no problem and waffled about the actual payload available and didn't really answer my question regarding how much payload available after full diesel tank, full water, bikes and bike rack and all our gear.

Not contacts the dealer yet but was just thinking about which alternative fixed bed alternative I could consider. I am so annoyed and disappointed that AT can sell a van to prospective customers that have no idea about the lack of equipment they can carry legally.

My wife is def in the camp of don'y worry we will be ok and re arrange things if required.

Any ideas of alternative models before I actually approach the dealer?

feeling fed up and disappointed that I feel so worried about an area of the motorhome that I did not consider would be inadequate.

Morning Kev,Mrs Bop and I have researched dozens of vans from various manufacturer's in the last few weeks and we've found that purchasing a new MH is a potential minefield on mega scale. We've seen a few vans which we liked but after calculating the payloads, besides other things, we've had to discount them as being totally unsuitable for happy motorhoming. I did the 'living rough' stuff when I was in the Army so I'm not prepared to spend a whole fortune on a MH only to be restricted to carrying one pair of pants because my payload is so poor, One of the pitfalls that we found is the MIRO figure. Example: The Autotrail MIRO (as per its website) includes a 75kg driver but no water (and fuel is not alluded too anywhere), whereas the MIRO on my new Pilote van excludes the drivers weight but includes 90% fuel, 90% gas and 20litres of fresh water.Our new van gives us a 607kg usable payload after the fuel/gas/water from the above example is detracted from the original payoad of 680kg with an MTPLM of 3650kg. I've even taken the LED lights (2kg), the spec list, 150BHP upgrade (11kg) and every other extra into consideration to achieve the 607kg figure.I've got to admit that I will not be looking at vans again for a very long time. This experience has been emotional to say the least so good luck with whatever you decide.All the best,Andrew

[Caddies104]

Hi both

Please don't worry, you like the outlay, the bikes go in the garage, everything you need will go in easily, as you know we have had an Apache 632 since 2011 and even carry 2 electric bikes in the garage, no problem,,, stop worrying and enjoy life, you only get one chance at it....

[Bop]

One of my paragraphs doesn't read quire right:

 

I meant to say there is 607kg of usable payload remaining once alll of my extras are considered on a MTPLM of 3650kg.

 

Ooooops,

 

Andrew

[Brian Kirby]

Caddies104 - 2017-03-25 10:15 AM

 

Hi both

Please don't worry, you like the outlay, the bikes go in the garage, everything you need will go in easily, as you know we have had an Apache 632 since 2011 and even carry 2 electric bikes in the garage, no problem,,, stop worrying and enjoy life, you only get one chance at it....

This is encouraging. Can you please say what are the actual fully laden (all reservoirs full, and everything and everyone aboard) and unladen (ideally empty with just spare wheel, basic tools, but full fuel) axle weights for your 2011 version?

[Caddies104]

Brian

Sorry no, had one since 2011, but now on our 3rd, another story, just picked up our 2017 model,,, never weighed one once..

 

[mgnbuk]

Caddies104 - 2017-03-25 3:15 PM

 

Brian

Sorry no, had one since 2011, but now on our 3rd, another story, just picked up our 2017 model,,, never weighed one once..

 

Ah ........... the "ignorance is bliss" approach !

 

Nigel B

[Brian Kirby]

Caddies104 - 2017-03-25 3:15 PM

 

Brian

Sorry no, had one since 2011, but now on our 3rd, another story, just picked up our 2017 model,,, never weighed one once..

So, you can't really say whether your vans have been running overloaded or not? And also presumably can't say whether either axle is over its permissible load?

 

I'm therefore puzzled as to how the following assurances could be given to Kevin and Ali.

 

"Please don't worry, you like the outlay( layout?), the bikes go in the garage, everything you need will go in easily, as you know we have had an Apache 632 since 2011 and even carry 2 electric bikes in the garage, no problem,,, stop worrying and enjoy life, you only get one chance at it...."

 

That things will go in easily isn't in doubt. What some of us have been trying to explain to Kevin is that having got it all in, it is highly probable with so slender a payload that his van (as I'm inclined to think yours may be) would end up illegally overloaded. So, with my apologies, I'm going to urge him to disregard your advice.

 

It is unlikely (though not impossible) that any overload would be sufficient (roughly, if over 4 tonnes on a 3,500kg MAM) to incur a £100 fixed penalty fine, but the offence would be likely to be recorded, might involve a formal caution, and would certainly cause inconvenience. But, why risk it on a £55,000 motorhome for the sake of a £10 weighbridge certificate and a bit of maths?

[PJay]

They now weigh vans at MOT! We discovered last year, when weighed for the first time at MOT, that we would be over , when FULLY loaded , 2 people plus clothes , food, water. We took of the roof air con, as that was very heavy, and have cleared out things taken "just in case"

Been using van for 10 years, and never been pulled over and weighed !! But then we don't use in UK.

 

The salesmen don't tell you about weights, when you buy a van, and you add awnings, air con (in our case) bike racks etc.

Has any one ever been told about weight limits, when purchasing??

It was and is our first van, and being used to boats, where you don't have to worry about weight. ( we used to bring back cases of wine,) not just bottles !!, we did not know about such things!

 

We knew delivery vans could be pulled up for over loading (UK) but not private MH.

Mind you have passed many well overloaded vehicles in France and Spain!! i guess you have too

 

I would not be surprised if lot's of Mh are running over weight, and do wonder if everybody is aware of weights?

i only found out from this forum. We knew we could not drive over 3500, but.s all we knew about weights an motor homes.

 

PJay

I shall blame you lot, if I find when we go away , that I have had leave something at home, that I needed.!!

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

The fiat light chassis on two axle can carry one ton per wheel times four is 4 tons.

[Mike88]

Running an overweight motorhome would surely have insurance implications in the event of an accident. Imagine seriously injuring or even dare I say killing someone in an accident. In all probability the insurance company would simply deny any claim on the basis the vehicle was being operated in a theroretically unsafe condition due to the chassis being overloaded. Why risk it when your life savings and even house would be at risk in the event of such a claim let alone the misery caused to an affected family due to your negligence.

[Brian Kirby]

PJay - 2017-03-25 5:10 PM........................I would not be surprised if lot's of Mh are running over weight, and do wonder if everybody is aware of weights?

i only found out from this forum. We knew we could not drive over 3500, but.s all we knew about weights an motor homes.

 

PJay

I shall blame you lot, if I find when we go away , that I have had leave something at home, that I needed.!!

There is an underlying safety issue here Pauline, that is even less well publicised. The Ducato is the most popular base vehicle for motorhomes, and the "light" chassis is the most commonly used variant. That chassis has a maximum permissible rear axle load of 2,000kg, and (prior to the new X 290 version), is usually fitted with 215/70 R 15 C, or more often CP, tyres.

 

Those tyres, whether C or CP designated, can sustain a maximum permissible rear axle load of 2,060kg when inflated to 5.5 bar. So, the working margin for the tyres is very close to the maximum permissible axle load, with any overload on the axle liable to take the tyres beyond their safe margin, so risking overheating and possible blowout. Guess which axle most often becomes overloaded, especially on vans with large rear overhangs? :-)

 

Further, their ability to sustain that load is conditional on maintaining that 5.5 bar inflation pressure, and on the tyres being in good condition. Should the pressure fall to 5.25 bar, for example, the safe axle load for the tyres falls to 1,985kg, and at 5.0 bar falls again to 1,910 kg, and so on. So, not only are the tyres running close to their safe working limit when correctly inflated, they very quickly get into the danger zone if the pressures are allowed to fall.

 

Not, IMO, a particularly desirable situation on a leisure vehicle where owners don't necessarily monitor their actual axle loads and, on a long trip, may well not maintain the optimum inflation pressures either. This, I think, is why Michelin are so reluctant to advise any rear tyre pressure below 5.5 bar whatever the declared axle load.

 

Add to that the tendency to stick in a case or three of wine (at about 15kg per dozen bottles) or whatever on the way home, and it is easy to see how both under-inflation and overload can result in tyres working well into, or beyond, their safety margins. I just prefer to have an extra margin in hand, for those odd occasions when circumstances conspire! :-D

[Robbo]

Brian, the spec for the AT 632 indicates the use of 225/75 R16CP tyres.

 

A good H&S wheeze by AT considering the limited payload :D

 

If Kev really wants to take onboard the advice already offered, he will try and establish (from AT) the individual axle weights in MIRO trim and ascertain what is included in that state.

 

Knowing the location of the freshwater tank, relative to the rear axle would help. Using simple maths it's easy to determine the impact on the axle weights. I use an Excel spreadsheet to give me "what if" loading configurations, as I'm sure others do. I would be happy to assist Kev in the calculations if this would help.

 

PS. I'm slightly confused, the OP mentions mounting his bikes on a bike rack. The AT 632 has a garage so presumably he would store his bikes in the garage. The AT 634 has a rear lounge so a bike rack would be necessary in this situation.

 

PPS. It's interesting to note that approximately 40% of the van is taken by the front axle and 60% is taken by the rear axle based on the wheelbase and overall dimensions. If, for instance, the weight taken by the front axle was 1700Kg this would leave 1950Kg on the rear axle (based on a gross of 3650Kg). So, the permissible rear axle load of 2000Kg could not be achieved.

 

 

[AlanS]

For those who do not know what the MIRO figures include on AotoTrail a look at their brochure, both current and previous ones will show the following:-

 

Mass in Running Order (MRO): The Mass in Running Order (MRO) is the mass of the empty vehicle including a 75kg allowance for the driver, the diesel tank full and an LPG cylinder full. The MRO is calculated with the freshwater tank empty on all models and with one 13kg LPG cylinder. Should you choose to travel with water in your freshwater tank, or an additional LPG cylinder, then the MRO figure must be adjusted accordingly. Tolerances: The MRO figure quoted is representative of a number of similar specification models weighed on our fully calibrated axle weighbridge. Because of the materials and construction techniques used in the manufacture of our motorhomes, all weights quoted by us are subject to the tolerances allowed in Regulation (EU) No.1230/2012 (+/-3%). 86

 

Also the garage in the Apache 632 although not too bad a size to store items in, is restricted by the size of the access doors. My Savannah has similar sized openings and I couldn't get my mountain bike in without completely taking it to pieces, hence the idea of the OP putting the bikes on a rack on the rear of the MH.

 

Alan.

 

 

[Bop]

Team,

 

There is something very desperately wrong with the system of motorhome purchase when manufacturers are producing goods like the 632 which are not fit for the purpose they were intended. This thread has just about proved that the 632 is a true lemon of the motorhome world and as such the manufacturer should be working hard to change its levels of usability to help support and protect its customers accordingly

 

Ive just checked the Autotrail Weight Caluclator for the Imala 7-series; Apache (not the 700) and the Tracker brands and just about everyone of them is totally unusable in the 3.5T guise, with at least 50% still struggling to gain any real usability @ 3.65T.

 

I'm sure that Kev's dilemma is not a new one to the motorhome fraternity but that said the manufacturers should now be working harder to better safeguard its customers from both a legal and safety perspective. IMO the dealerships are also at fault and in most cases I liken their current Modus Operandi to someone who sells firearms without first checking either the provenance or valid license of the recipient. I have visited 17 different dealerships (various brands) over the last few weeks and not one was prepared to engage properly with me on the topic of payloads and usability - but all were ultimately keen to sell me the most expensive van that I could (or could not) afford. This is not right in the whole scheme of things and especially so when this thread has concentrated on the key issues which seem to be missing during a sales transaction, i.e. the critically important issues of payload, legal & liability, consumer rights and protection, road safety and HSE.

 

The only immeditae solution is for the consumer pool to avoid the purchase of such flawed products in the first place (in absence of any real industry standards) as only then will the likes of Autotrail (and the many others) get the picture and therefore make products that don't need to be sold under a smoke n'mirrors guise.

 

Cheers,

 

Andrew

[Muswell]

My son-in-law hired a motorhome last summer for a trip around the Highlands. I asked him what they were going to get and found that what they were going to give him to transport wife, 3 kids all with seatbelts and bicycles was completely unusable. The number of belted seats was a joke.. Luckily he has an HGV license so could upgrade. Both the manufacturer and the hire company were completely irresponsible.and I reckon some sort of consumer protection court case is needed.

[mgnbuk]

"There is something very desperately wrong with the system of motorhome purchase when manufacturers are producing goods like the 632 which are not fit for the purpose they were intended."

 

In many cases, motorhome manufacturers are selling a dream - not reality. What sells a new van to many people isn't something mundane like available payload or axle loadings, it is features (or toys), spaciousness, the size of the bed etc. The "wow" factor as you step though the door, the "I could see myself in this on the Riviera" feel etc. That a 7.75 metre, end island bed motorhome with a 2000 kg rear axle loading & a 3 metre rear overhang is going to be almost impossible to actually live with is largely academic when it comes to selling the thing to a prospective customer. The dealers then want to make more profit by selling the prospective purchaser "essentials" to enhance the dream - like 4 metre plus cassette sunshades, satellite domes, habitation aircon, solar panels and extra batteries, TVs in bedroom and lounge etc. etc. To mention to the unwary that these profitable "essentials" would make the van unworkable from a weight perspective is not good for meeting sales targets !

 

The UK magazines don't do enough to push the payload / axle weights angle in tests IMO - it is all about selling the positives & not upsetting advertisers. The German magazine Promobil does far better tests, with the van under test being weighed in running order & the individual wheel (not axle) weights being shown in "traffic light" coloured boxes to show how the testers rate the results. You are unlikely, however, to find a Promobil test of an Autotrail ! The British stock answer to running too close to the limit with unworkable vans is always "you can easily upgrade to PHGV, and save road tax too !", without dwelling too much (if at all) on the disadvantages of doing so.

 

I have some (small) sympathy for the manufacturers. The base vehicles are getting heavier as emissions control & safety requirements are forced upon them by legislation - the new Euro 6 Transit has around 50kg of Adblue tank & gubbins added, for example. On a commercial panel van, this is accomodated by raising the MAM (which is under 3500kg) to keep the same payload. This is not possible on a motorhome, as 3500kg is a fixed limit, so that 50kg comes off the payload. Customer expectations are also rising, so more "toys" have to be included - and so it goes on.

 

Motorhomes, like most things in life, are about compromises & what is essential for one user will be irrelevant to another. There was a letter in last month's MMM from a user lamenting the space lost by having a shower & why couldn't the manufacturers just not leave that out, as she always used site facilities. Yet, for me, a workable separate shower cubical (not a wet room) is an essential, as I don't like to use site facilties when on sites & frequently stay on stellplatz-type stops where there are no facilities. Who is "right" here ? We both are !

 

The van in question may, as a 3650 kg MAM, be "workable" if (possibly severe) compromises are made on what is taken & how it is loaded. For how I use my van, I cannot see how I could make that van work - I compromise by choosing a 6.7m van that has a separate shower and has workable payload/ axle loadings, for what I want to do with it, at 3500kg. I accept that I have less interior space and no "toys" like an awning or TV / satellite etc. system as a result.

 

While the manufacturers, their agents & the specialist publications should do more to highlight the weight issue and educate prospective purchasers, surely such a major purchase should be undertaken only after a great deal of "due diligence" to find out exactly what you are getting and whether you can legally make it work. This may lead to having to walk away from the "dream" a salesman may be trying to sell you (that is his job after all) - but better that than having the "dream" turn into an expensive nightmare !

 

As always - Caveat Emptor !

 

Nigel B