Worried about payload on Apache 632

[John Allen]

This is why we bought an Apache 700. Loads of payload for that overweight kitchen sink and the front dinette gives much more room in a van that is not much longer. As it it is built on the heavy Fiat chassis it attracts the lower road tax but obviously you have to have the appropriate licence to drive it.

 

Our mass in running order was quoted as 3445kg in the paperwork and the Auto Trail factory confirmed the completed fully fitted vehicle was 3331 kg when it rolled off the product line complete with spare wheel and solar panel, batteries and media pack 2. Obviously it would have to add the driver weight plus fuel which at 75kg for the driver and 75kg for fuel means it was approximately 35kg (1%) over its initial target weight..

 

Would seriously suggest you upgrade to this model if you still have the opportunity. Nothing worse than fighting the payload limit all the time.

[Derek Uzzell]

In AlanS’s posting of 25 March 2017 9:15 PM he quotes Auto-Trail’s definition of Mass in Running Order (MRO) that, for an Apache 632, is 3275kg.

 

On a 3650kg chassis (which I understand kevandali could still opt for) the usable-payload would (as has been said at the start of this discussion) be 385kg. This is not a massive allowance, but the Apache 632 is not a small motorhome and there are plenty of similar size models from other manufacturers that are no better payload-wise.

 

The Apache 632 in standard form is not a ‘family’ motorhome and, with just 2 adults onboard when travelling, 385kg should be adequate. Factoring in a +3% increase in the MRO would reduce the usable-payload from 385kg datum to 277kg, but that’s still well over 5 hundredweights in old money.

 

I could comfortably operate an Apache 632 legally if it had an MRO of 385kg, and I am confident I could still do it if it had an MRO of 277kg, though it would grieve me to (probably) not be able to travel with a full tank of fresh water.

 

It’s up to kevandali as to what they want to do, but as the ex-factory weight of of the motorhome they have ordered is so important to them, the logical approach would be to insist that its weight on delivery conforms to Auto-Trail’s stated MRO criteria.

[derek pringle]

Robinhood - 2017-03-28 9:23 AM

 

derek pringle - 2017-03-28 9:05 AM

 

hi Robinhood,

Would it also be fair [not rude ] to suggest most middle aged m/homers would probably exceed 75kg?,point is all of this is before you put any gear in the van.

cheers

derek

 

 

...you can say what you want - I no longer count myself middle-aged, so (though they might otherwise be apposite) the comments don't apply to me.

 

SWMBO, however, might be offended - on one real and one "imagined" basis (and I'm too timid to highlight which is which).

 

;-)

Touche' Robinhood,

Really put that wrong, what was meant was;-

I think most m/homers are probably middle aged.

most middle aged couples together would maybe equal more than 150kg.

Definitely no intention of being rude to you or your other/better half

cheers

derek

[Bop]

Derek,

 

(This is for my own learning now)

 

Reference your last paragraph: Would Kev ask the dealer to provide a weigh bridge certificate or would Autotrail supply a separate document from the factory. Is this something that any customer can insist on when buying a new MH from a UK-based Dealer.

 

Also, would there be a cost involved to the customer.

 

Regards,

 

Andrew

[Derek Uzzell]

It might be difficult for a motorhome buyer to insist on the motorhome they have ordered being weighed after they have signed the purchase contract, though they could insist this be done as a condition of purchase and have a ‘weighing’ requirement added to the contract before they sign it.

 

As Kev is so concerned about the payload issue and has made this concern known to the vending dealership, I’d anticipate the dealership and Auto-Trail to be cooperative.

 

I’ve no idea whether Kev would be happy with a weight confirmation from Auto-Trail and/or the dealership. Not being a trusting soul, I’d prefer to be there when the motorhome was weighed (and I certainly would not expect to pay any weighing charges.)

[Brian Kirby]

Bop - 2017-03-29 8:59 AM

 

Derek,

 

(This is for my own learning now)

 

Reference your last paragraph: Would Kev ask the dealer to provide a weigh bridge certificate or would Autotrail supply a separate document from the factory. Is this something that any customer can insist on when buying a new MH from a UK-based Dealer.

 

Also, would there be a cost involved to the customer.

 

Regards,

 

Andrew

Simple answer, surely, is that would depend on the manufacturer and the dealer, but also on the conditions attaching to the confirmation. If the condition were of a "drop dead" nature, i.e. if the weight exceeds X the deal is off, I would imagine neither would agree. If mere confirmation for record purposes, with no penalty attached, were required, I would imagine either might be willing to play.

 

However, that would only confirm MIRO or ex-works weight. Neither would allow the buyer to know whether, when loaded, the van would exceed its MAM, or whether the rear axle would exceed its 2,000kg permissible load. Both remain risk factors until either the actual weight of the van, and the weight and distribution of the load, are known. By that time the van will have been bought and paid for, and Kevin and Ali will face the prospect of either compromising on what they take, or seeking to reject the vehicle as unfit for purpose. Neither are prospects I'd relish having just spent north of £50K on a new van!

 

Kevin and Ali are both experienced motorhomers, so will know what they usually take with them. If they assembled their normal travelling load, and took their bathroom scales and weighed it, they could easily find out where they stand on MAM. If the ex-works rear axle load were confirmed by AT, with a bit of maths, they could approximate the rear axle load. If they could access an Apache 632 with a tape measure, they could refine the maths to something rather more reliable by allocating their load to the various storage locations around the van, and measuring where those points fall ahead of, or behind, the rear axle.

 

It is not so much a case of whether one could make the van work if one had to, it is really a case of whether, having paid so much for the van, one would be happy with the compromises necessary to make it work. As I've said, I wouldn't, but I'm not Kevin and Ali. Ultimately, it's their money, and their decision.

[kevandali]

Just thought I would let everyone know.......... Got some more info.

I never realised that a simple post regarding my concerns about payload would generate so much discussion. At least it may open other peoples eyes regarding this important issue that is not openly discussed at dealerships far and wide. 

We love the van layout but just need to be sure in our own minds that this low payload will be workable for us. It's rare that we travel with a full tank of water but we will do if planning to avoid aires and campsites for a few days. At the very least, as mentioned early on in this thread, we now realise that low payload issues are not an isolated problem and effect many types and makes of van, something which urgently needs looking at.

Interpret the below information as you see fit.

The quoted mass in Running order of the Apache 632 model is 3275kg. This figure includes an allowance of 75kg for the driver, a 25kg allowance for one 13kg gas bottle and a 50kg allowance for a 90% full diesel tank. There is no freshwater in the MRO calculation.

 

Load calculation is

 

Maximum Authorised Weight                                     3650kg

Mass in Running Order                                                  3275kg

 

Mass remaining is                                                              375kg

 

Of that 375kg remaining load we have to allow 75kg for the additional passenger (remember the driver is in the MRO figure). To comply with legislation we also have to have a minimum ‘payload in excess’ (this is for clothes and food etc. for the passengers and driver). This calculation is 10N + 10L where ‘N’ is the number of passengers (including the driver) and ‘L’ is the overall length of the vehicle. In the case of the Apache 632 this is 74kg + 20kg which equals 94kg.

 

So of the remaining mass of                                        375kg

Take away weight of passenger                                     75kg

Take away minimum load in excess                              94kg

 

This leaves                                                                            206kg

 

From your Email you want to carry:

 

Freshwater tank full                                                           135kg

Mass of cycles & Carrier                                                       48kg

Extra gas bottle (13kg)                                                        25kg                

Mass of dog                                                                             20kg

 

This adds up to                                                                     228kg

 

This is slightly over the 206kg figure but by your own calculations your passenger is 60kg, not 75kg so this immediately brings this very close to the maximum figure.

Thanks again for everyones help and advice, it really is much appreciated

Kev and Ali :-)

[bolero boy]

ramps, ehu leads, hoses, chairs, tables, bbq, food, cutlery, crockery, kettle, toaster, just to name a few otems you might want to leave at home.....even at 3650 this van is worse than a struggle, at 3500 just not possible.

please think once again....

[Bop]

bolero boy - 2017-03-29 9:23 PM

 

ramps, ehu leads, hoses, chairs, tables, bbq, food, cutlery, crockery, kettle, toaster, just to name a few otems you might want to leave at home.....even at 3650 this van is worse than a struggle, at 3500 just not possible.

please think once again....

 

All you need as an Apache 632 owner is a pocket knife, ten matches and the latest survival book by Bear Grills.

 

Kev - You will have to eat the dog.

[Brock]

I admire your staying power Kev and Ali.

 

As I said in the second post of your thread, 375kg is doable. Having checked our figures, partly because of this thread - thanks - we motorhome using 310kg for three weeks on sites as a couple but we carry no bikes, no dog [sadly], and only 20l of water. We are in the process of uprating to 3850kg which will give us a practical increase of 170kg because of storage design and axle loadings. This will give us capacity for extra water and a second passenger plus peace of mind.

 

Good luck on whatever you decide.

 

 

[mgnbuk]

No mention of the axle weights of the van in running order there, Kev.

 

You are assuming that you will be able to fully use all the available payload & distribute it as you like. You will probably find that the rear axle hits it's limit before you get to the authorised maximum all up weight & that there is some un-used capability on the front axle that you can't use, as it won't be possible to load the weight there.

 

Your 48kg of bikes and rack will have a disproportionate effect on the rear axle loading, due to their placement 2 1/2 to 3 metres behind the rear axle, as willl loading the wardrobes, under bed storage etc.. Where are the water tanks ? On my last 2 vans, the fresh tank was behind the front cab seat & the waste tank over a metre behind the rear axle, giving a substantial weight distribution change in use. On the Carioca 22, when towing a motorcycle trailer, I only had 50 kg free on the the rear axle with the 100 litre fresh tank full & waste empty. To prevent a rear axle overload, I had to dump the waste before travelling. This was not too arduous, as we use sites when taking the motorcycles, but would have been more of an issue when attending events etc. had the same situation existed when not taking the bikes. My current van has both tanks close to the rear axle, so there will be less of a weight transfer issue in use. There is more to weight than just the overall maximum !

 

You could save 25 kg by fitting a single 11kg Gaslow or similar refillable gas tank - I have done this for the last 4 years with no problems, usually getting through around 12 litres of gas in 3 weeks in summer (from the 22 litres available), though 3 nights between Xmas & New year used a similar amount.

 

I would not expect any sympathy, concern or any other action to assist from either the dealer or Autotrail should you find that the payload issue makes the van difficult (or impossible) to use as you want to after the purchase has gone through.

 

Nigel B

[Bop]

Those figures, and how they've been formulated & presented 'by the dealer', remind me of one of our house projects that Mrs Bop and I did a few years back.

 

We had a refurbishment budget of £25K and I knew it wasn't enough but I still fudged the figures to make the £25K fit.

 

Well then, it won't come as a shock to you guys to hear that things went tits-up very rapidly. The cost of the new concrete floors were coming in at £3,000 when I had only budgeted for £500 and let's not talk about all of the bits that I intentionally omitted from my plan to help me get to the £25K figure.

 

Yep, you've gussed it, the 25 turned into just over 47. Plonker!

 

Enough said.

[Derek Uzzell]

As I highlighted in my posting of 29 March 2017 8:44 AM above, the potential sting-in-the-tail is Auto-Trail’s plus or minus 3% build-weight variation.

 

If Kev’s Apache 632 turns out to have an MRO of 3275kg, the calculations in his last posting are valid. If it comes in 3% ‘light’ he gains 98kg of usable payload and if it comes in 3% ‘heavy’ he loses 98kg of usable payload.

 

Gaining 98kg of payload would be good, but losing 98kg of payload would pretty much wipe out the 93kg weight allowances (48 + 25 + 20) assumed for bikes, gas-bottle and dog. Realistically, to offset that payload loss, it would be necessary to carry about 40 litres of fresh-water not 135 litres - which would be a nuisance but not a show-stopper.

 

Axle weights when loaded are an unknown quantity. The Apache 632 has a long wheelbase chassis (4035mm) and 225/75 R16CP tyres. As Nigel B has warned, going into overload on the rear axle remains a possibility, but in terms of ‘safety' it should be OK.

[colin]

It strikes me that whilst the van may be workable with care at 3650kg for a couple, assuming the rear axle is not overloaded, it is not the only Autotrail van with similar constrictions, and some of these are aimed at "Young families".

[Muswell]

Derek Uzzell - 2017-03-30 9:00 AM

 

As I highlighted in my posting of 29 March 2017 8:44 AM above, the potential sting-in-the-tail is Auto-Trail’s plus or minus 3% build-weight variation.

 

I

 

The plus or minus 3% is a bit dubious too. Nobody would be concerned if the van were underweight. If there is a 6% variation in weights and the upper weight is critical they should quote the tolerance as plus 0% minus 6%. I wonder why they don't? B-)

[Billggski]

All these Jeremiahs spreading doom and gloom may sound totally negative, but that's the real world for many new motorhomers. I must admit I never gave payload a thought when I bought my first Moho. As I then added an awning, a spare wheel and a bike rack. It already had a towbar and roof rack!

Luckily it had been uprated to 3850kg, but with the original tyres, which I have changed to 225 70 15.

Dealers have to start quoting real world payloads as they point out the mood lighting, microwaves and fancy upholstery.

[Keith T]

Billggski - 2017-03-30 10:00 AM

 

.

Dealers have to start quoting real world payloads as they point out the mood lighting, microwaves and fancy upholstery.

 

It took long enough to get them to understand the 70year olds age restrictions, and I seem to recall that when we were looking into buying our present van almost 10 years ago thre was very little knowledge by dealers of these...or indeed that there were any differences on reaching that age....!

 

Regarding loading limits, over the years with the various vans we have had each time we seemed to increase in size, but certainly I have made it more priority to ensure that we have adequate workable limits, albeit within 3500kg. In fact we took the optional upgrade when buying the Burstner as the standard was 3300, and we calculated that the option gave us about an extra 150kg net...well worth it. Just how some of the large MHs so called 6 berth manage I do wonder if they are seriously overloaded, even if the chassis is marginally upgraded....

[Bop]

I've just examined the Autotrail Apache 634 in 2-berth, 3.5T guise, and if you add a towbar but leave off a Media Pack then your available payload is -2KG; minus!

 

I just don't understand what the manufacturers are trying to achieve.

[Robbo]

Without the front and rear axle weights (based on the MRO) it's difficult to speculate on the effects of loading on the individual axles.

 

However, using a broad-brush approach based on the vehicle dimensions it is clear that 40% of the vehicle length is taken on the front axle and conversely, 60% on the rear axle.

 

So, a MRO of 3275Kg + 75Kg passenger = 3350Kg. Load on rear axle = 60% x 3350 = 2010Kg (10Kg overweight) ie. permissible load on rear axle is 2000Kg.

 

Even taking a 45/55% split (allowing for the concentrated weight of the engine on the front axle), gives a rear axle load of 1843Kg (157Kg spare).

 

These broad-brush figures exclude fresh/grey water, food, dog, clothes, camping equipment, bikes etc.

 

Before Kev goes any further, I suggest he asks AT for the front and rear axle weights in MRO trim. The AT brochure mentions that they do weigh various models at the factory, so this information should be readily available. This would also provide a good benchmark for when/if he collects the vehicle from the dealership and immediately takes it to a weighbridge for comparison.

[Brian Kirby]

In haste, as got to go shopping! See the attached link to a Practical Motorhome article from 2010

http://tinyurl.com/mhqfrpb and then contrast their recommendation with that in the letter Kevin received. Then contrast that again with the figures I presented above.

 

What Kevin's letter explains is how the manufacturer complies with a non-mandatory code of practice for the industry.

 

What the PM article (and my own figures) demonstrates is how far from reality that code is from normal practice.

 

If the van had a payload below that established by the CoP, Kevin would have the basis of an argument in law. As the payload is above the CoP figure, his legal position is be considerably weakened vis a vis any claim he may wish to bring post purchase that the van is legally unfit for purpose.

 

Arrrrrrgh! Why is this so bloody hard? :-D

[plwsm2000]

Given that 1 bottle of wine is about 1.2kg, a 375kg payload is ONLY 312 bottles. As the van weighs 3040 bottles, it seems to me that you are carrying too much unnecessary stuff (bed, oven, fridge, water, spouse, children etc).

You can keep the clothes and food weight down by becoming a naturist and living off marshmallows. (another excellent tip is to use the marshmallows to stop the bottles rattling in transit).

 

Luckily, my van has a double floor that is 1.25 bottles high and 7.3 bottles wide. The van itself is 22 bottles long excluding the extra wine carrier on the back where some people like to put their bikes. Obviously the wine needs to be stood up while travelling but this is not a problem as it doesn't last long enough for the corks to dry out.

 

Hope this is helpful ;-)

Phil

 

[kevandali]

Cheers Phil, you have made some interesting points, a bit like 'Payload' I never considered most of them.

Ali has now banned the use of the word 'payload' from the house, however, you gave us both a good larrfff.

Not so keen about the marshmallows, but gummy bears might do the trick? The naturist thing is a non starter as the kids have caught me in the past nipping to the toilet in the middle of the night and they had flashbacks and nightmares for weeks.

I have passed your valuable worthy information onto Auto trail and they hope to incorporate the info in their 2017/18 brochure :-)

[plwsm2000]

Not sure about gummy bears, but winegums may be a good substitute :-)

[pepe63xnotuse]

Keith T - 2017-03-30 10:18 AM

 

Billggski - 2017-03-30 10:00 AM

 

.

Dealers have to start quoting real world payloads as they point out the mood lighting, microwaves and fancy upholstery.

 

It took long enough to get them to understand the 70year olds age restrictions, and I seem to recall that when we were looking into buying our present van almost 10 years ago thre was very little knowledge by dealers of these...or indeed that there were any differences on reaching that age....!

 

.

 

Yes...and it wasn't all that long ago that the actual manufacturers were still able to market their vans as 4-6 berth etc, whilst only have seatbelts in the cab!

 

So good luck to all, in getting the dealers to voluntarily provide accurate, and consistent payload figures. :-S

[Billggski]

I just read the instructions for officials stopping vehicles to weigh them.

This bit is interesting.

 

the accuracy limit of an axle weigher in static mode is +/- 50kg per axle, with a consequent accuracy limit on gross/train weight of +/- 50kg, multiplied by the number of axles: