Worried about payload on Apache 632

[Brian Kirby]

AlanS - 2017-04-01 9:22 PM.................. AT have manufactured an Apache 632 and 634 in the same guise since at least 2009 built on the Ducato light chassis. The so called payload has been similar for much of this time and must suit some motorhomers who do travel light otherwise AT would have dropped this from their range some time ago. Also those who wanted to have additional load capacity could upgrade to the 3650kg version if their licence permitted. ...............Alan

Indeed. However, looking at the catalogues for 2009 and 2017, I note the Unladen/MIRO in 2009 was 3110kg, whereas by 2017 it had increased to 3275kg. I don't know if we are comparing apples with apples in those figures, as the reproduction quality of the 2009 catalogue is too poor to read. However, it wouldn't be the first time a new model base vehicle has increased in weight compared to its predecessor, so that may explain where the extra has arisen. I just hope all owners of this model have visited a weighbridge to verify it is not overloaded, either overall or at either axle. You are right, it could, and doubtless can, be made to work, but why put your customer in that position when it could so easily work in on the "heavy" chassis, even if that meant an extra cost option?

[bolero boy]

Brian, the 2017 version is a little longer....stretched for more versatility, no doubt.....

incidently, the heavy chassis itself will pinch around 40kg of weight, according to my Carthago catalog but with a much higher ceiling on total payload and axle weights.

 

[Robbo]

bolero boy - 2017-04-02 6:57 PM

 

Brian, the 2017 version is a little longer....stretched for more versatility, no doubt.....

 

Yes, an extra 41cm compared with earlier models. That probably explains the weight gain on a pro rata basis.

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks for that info, chaps. Whatever the reason (and additional length is almost certainly the culprit) those 165kg of payload difference seem to me critical. After all, 165kg is about 3cwt, and losing that from payload reduces the van from borderline workable, IMO, to unworkable even at 3,650kg MAM. This is, of coures, merely my opinion, but vans are expensive, and most of us, having spent that much money, tend to hang onto the vehicle for quite a few years. Over that time our travel horizons tend to change. Whether so finely balanced a van will actually accommodate those changes, or whether a change of van will be needed to accommodate them, only time, and the buyer, will tell. My own experience (always a poor indicator! :-)) tells me that an expensive change of van is more likely than a continuing willingness to compromise to accommodate the van's limitations. But, as I've said, that's me.

[plwsm2000]

I do feel that the reviewers of motorhomes should also take some responsibility for letting manufactures "get away with it" and produce vehicles not really fit for purpose in terms of payload. I have seen reviews of motorhomes (from different manufactures) given a 4 star rating to vehicles with only a 200kg payload. When I but anything, I tend to look at the overall rating first and then the details.

If they were just given 1 star, no matter how well they were equiped, it would help make the manufacturers sit up and listen.

 

 

[armstrongpiper]

This thread has been very interesting. In the last thirty years, we have owned 3 caravans (I Colcchester and 2 Sterlings), an Autosleeper Nuevo, Auto trail Tracker, and all of them have 5% over the delivered or on the road weight. Our present ih PVC has not yet been weighed, but I think I know what to expect and we load and use it accordingly. It seems that the way it works is the makers weigh the van and subtract 5%. This weight is then the advertised figure to make the product more attractive.

 

Neil B

[Brock]

Brian, I found your payload figures in your van interesting because I did a similar calculation a month or so ago. Our MIRO after fitting extras comes to 3110kg [including 2x6kg gas cylinders and spare wheel] and in full touring trim, we are coming in at 3437kg resulting in us motorhoming with a 327kg payload compared to your figure of 482kg. The two big differences being we only carry about 20l of water and our general bits and bobs add up to half yours. Overall, you and I must motorhome differently!

 

I agree that a lack of flexibility which causes too much compromise is more likely to lead to an expensive change of van. We've seen it on the forums over the years. Our van had the flexibility to uprate the chassis. We're going ahead with this to carry more water and/or a second passenger when in full touring trim and for peace of mind given the number of DVSA/VOSA pull in points around us.

 

When I started motorhoming, the Apache was at the bottom end of the AutoTrail coachbuilt range. Since then it has gone upmarket and put on weight. Rather like the VW Golf. Putting the Apache on a heavier chassis is logical to us but I wonder whether AutoTrail thinks with a heavier chassis, the Apache will take sales off the Frontier range which may have a bigger profit margin. Yo me, AutoTrail have a cluttered line up as they seem to be trying to fine tune their products to very narrow customer segments - common in a booming market but where competition is tough, results in cost cutting. I'm guessing.

 

 

[Robbo]

Similar experience, Brian. When I bought a new van in 2002 (Hymer 544 MAM 3400Kg), I must admit that I knew nothing about payload. If I'd known then what I know now, I would have specified the Maxi chassis (3900Kg MAM). The salesman never ever mentioned upgrading to the higher capacity chassis.

 

Consequently, over time, our requirements changed and we wanted to carry a light weight scooter on a rear rack. Even upgrading the rear suspension to 3700Kg MAM was borderline. So, we had to sell our beloved Hymer and purchase a vehicle based on a 4250Kg chassis.

 

As they say, things change over time, and you need to future-proof your investment, whenever possible, especially when buying new when the depreciation is at it's highest.

[Brian Kirby]

I have no direct knowledge of AT vans, but from what is said above, and has been said by others, I understand that AT do not "build light". This characteristic is much prized by some owners as conferring "solidity" to their vans. However, as has also been intimated above, in common with almost all other vehicles, the tendency is toward greater size and weight, in part due to crash protection measures, in part due to fuel efficiency and emissions measures, and in part due to rising expectations in terms of air conditioning, automatic wipers, automatic lights, tyre pressure monitors, ABS, hill start, stability programs, reversing monitors, etc. etc. So, add chassis refinements to extra length, larger fridges, ovens, higher capacity leisure batteries, and the inevitable consequence, especially for a "solidly built" van will be diminishing payloads. At each price point manufacturers are locked in a specification war with competitors. They fear that if they don't keep up with the Joneses they will lose sales, so they add the gizmos and increase the bed and sofa sizes, let the payload pay the price, and judge that the buyer will adapt - if they find out.

 

To be clear, there seems to be nothing wrong with AT's quality. So, one is just left with the MIRO of this van, AT's choice of underpinnings, the resulting payload, and people's knowledge of (or lack of) payload (and axle load) issues. If all one has previously driven is a car, and one is looking at a motorhome that seems as big as a small house, one is liable to anticipate that it is build to be driven when stuffed full. All too often, the reverse is the case.

 

The water tank issue really bugs me. What, one might reasonably ask, is the point of installing a water tank, and advertising its capacity, if one cannot drive around with it filled? It wasn't AT who started this trend for declaring sharply reduced capacity while driving, but the CoP says (so far as I know still says) that the MIRO should be taken with gas, water, and fuel all at 90% capacity. Unladen weights have increased as time has passed, manufacturers are trying to lighten bodywork - some with greater success than others - but all are struggling to make their enhanced specifications fit into their MAMs.

 

One's best option, IMO, especially if looking for a realistic long distance, versatile, touring van, that one can comfortably occupy for 8 - 10 weeks at a time, remains to audition only those vans that have comfortably adequate payloads, and then look at the layouts. Probably I'm an exception, but functionality, closely followed by reasonable comfort, come before eye candy every time, and "luxury" definitely comes last. Its a "nice to have" if it's useful, just so long as it doesn't turn out to be naff bling! :-D

[kevandali]

Still following the thread with interest. :-)

Have totally emptied our van and couldn't believe the amount of cr@p that found its way into the van.

The general plan is to weigh our old van empty and then re weigh it just before we are off for a week then taking into account the diesel and water it will give us a better idea of the weight of all the gear we normally take with us.

I now realise (thanks to this thread) that there are issues with axle weights but weighing all our junk.....sorry, essential gear, will give us a better idea of how much we may have to compromise to ensure we are not overloaded.

Going by what actually found its way back into the van, I reckon we should be ok *-)

[Bop]

Kev,

 

This is just one of those threads that deserves the '4000-view' crown so I'm posting up again after being away for a few days (in the motorhome).

 

Our trip was for 3-days (we packed for 5) but we had a relatively slim loading list onboard including such extras as Mrs Bop (I had to take her really), mountain bikes, water, fuel and my extra kilos etc. This pushed our final payload figure to 415kg. The bikes were loaded onto the rear of the van but I haven't taken into account any extra mass that would potentially result from having rear-loaded cycles.

 

I do take an extensive tool kit and Milenco ramps but they only equate to circa 21kg so well worth the extra weight IMO.

 

This is the first time that I've weighed everything since our first MH purchase in September and I have to admit that I was expecting a chunk less that 415kg.

 

If we were to 'deploy' for a few weeks then I could easily see us taking 450kg of gear.

 

 

 

[candapack]

Something that just came to mind. When I was looking for my Apache, a feature I liked was it having 2 fresh water drain taps, one of which left c. 20 litres in the tank.

When my new van arrived, AT had done away with that, pretty obviously to "gain" an extra 20kg of payload.

[Derek Uzzell]

As Auto-Trail’s current Mass-In-Running-Order formula excludes ANY water being in the motorhome’s fresh-water tank, there’s no need for multiple drain-taps.

 

Auto-Trail presumably expects owners to open the single drain-tap before they drive the motorhome and completely empty the fresh-water tank. Like that’s going to happen!

 

[Bop]

I've already posted-up this bit of info in Brock's 'VOSA Thread' (sorry for repeating said info) but it was interesting when reading my new June-17 Edition of Practical Motorhome Magazine to discover that the manufacturers warranty also becomes null & void if the MTPLM is exceeded.

 

Therefore just a few kilograms over the MTPLM could mean a fine, points on license, prohibition notice, nil insurance and no manufacturers warranty.

 

Great eh; the manufacturer builds a van that is verging on being unusable and then negates all responsibility when the new user is found to be over the van's MTPLM.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Bop - 2017-04-07 10:44 AM.................Therefore just a few kilograms over the MTPLM could mean a fine, points on license, prohibition notice, nil insurance and no manufacturers warranty.

 

Great eh; the manufacturer builds a van that is verging on being unusable and then negates all responsibility when the new user is found to be over the van's MTPLM.

On the first point above, the matter of licence points, prohibition notice and fine are IMO extremely unlikely in reality. Check VOSA's guidance on overload, and I think (from memory) you will find there is a 5% upward tolerance - seemingly in recognition of possible differences between weighbridges - before the serious waggy finger is deployed. 5% on 3,500kg is 150kg (3cwt), which is not far short of half the whole user payload for Kevin's van. I'm not saying it would be impossible for this limit to be surpassed by someone unfamiliar with the concept of limited payloads - as we all were when we started :-) - but it would indicate quite severe carelessness on the part of anyone else! On insurance, since this is a contract, the insurer would have to prove his reason for withdrawing cover, and I believe could not evade the third party element, which he is required to provide by law. I think all that would go would be the full comprehensive element. However, it would be interesting if anyone has chapter and verse on this.

 

The warranty issue is more real, but to take that line AT would need to have grounds, if not proof positive, before declaring the warranty void. Why do firms write almost unprovable conditions into warranties? Search me!

 

Just don't claim for defective sofa cushions after VOSA has recorded your van as overweight! :-D

[Bop]

Some good points there Brian.

 

There's a good post from Allan (A&N Caravans) in the VOSA Thread which highlighted the point that no one was being given any lee-way during his observations of a particular police/VOSA check meaning that a 3500kg MTPLM meant just that.

 

We are just debating the general points in this thread but I'm sure there are a number of people who try and probe every loophole positive in the hope that they will somehow avoid prosecution by declaring their ignorance of the system.

 

You and I are both of the mindset whereby if we do things correctly from the outset then you don't have to bluff your ticket for when the authorities do eventually catch up with you.

 

All the best,

 

Andrew

[colin]

Brian Kirby - 2017-04-07 11:43 AM

 

On insurance, since this is a contract, the insurer would have to prove his reason for withdrawing cover, and I believe could not evade the third party element, which he is required to provide by law. I think all that would go would be the full comprehensive element. However, it would be interesting if anyone has chapter and verse on this.

 

Couple of years ago a friend was in accident which injured a pedestrian with no damage to his car, to cut a very long and involved story short, his limo was found to be registered and insured as a saloon, the insurance company paid out the third party claim, there was no damage to his vehicle.

[StuartO]

Brian Kirby - 2017-04-07 11:43 AM .... On insurance, since this is a contract, the insurer would have to prove his reason for withdrawing cover, and I believe could not evade the third party element, which he is required to provide by law. I think all that would go would be the full comprehensive element.

 

I'm sure you're right about insurers being unable to exclude the third party cover (by law) but if they decide to exclude anything else don't they just do so, refuse the claim and leave you to sue for breach of contract if you dare?  They would have to defend their actions if you sued but having to go to those lengths would push most people into accepting their decision, wouldn't it?

 

[Brian Kirby]

Bop - 2017-04-07 12:58 PM

 

Some good points there Brian.

 

There's a good post from Allan (A&N Caravans) in the VOSA Thread which highlighted the point that no one was being given any lee-way during his observations of a particular police/VOSA check meaning that a 3500kg MTPLM meant just that.

This, from the same string, is clear about the 5%. It intrigued me, so I checked what VOSA's website said, and found the + 5% reference there.

Brock - 2017-03-24 7:07 PM

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.

This seems logical, as most commercial vehicles are weighed before despatch so, if they are relying on their own weighbridge and that is reading a bit low (against potentially 44 tonnes), their vehicle could easily show overload on a different platform. If the weighbridge is certified, it will be inspected annually by Weights and Measures, as they can lose accuracy over time.

 

The point being made above is that there should be no prosecution etc. for this amount of overweight. I don't think it was being suggested that the vehicle would just be sent on its way over-weight. That would beat the discretion of the inspector, I would imagine, depending on whether it was judged significantly over.

 

We are just debating the general points in this thread but I'm sure there are a number of people who try and probe every loophole positive in the hope that they will somehow avoid prosecution by declaring their ignorance of the system.

 

You and I are both of the mindset whereby if we do things correctly from the outset then you don't have to bluff your ticket for when the authorities do eventually catch up with you.

 

All the best,

 

Andrew

Yep, there's always the one who chances his arm, and hopes to plead ignorance. But then, how many times has is it been stated that ignorance of the law is no defence! Some, one simply cannot help. :-D

[kevandali]

Been doing a lot of hunting for the solution to my possible payload problem, might have found the answer and it willingly cost a fraction of our designated budget, other half/the boss/her indoors doesn't share my enthusiasm for some reason? I really don't understand why other caravan/motorhomers 'to be' haven't really taken this idea to their hearts?

[pagey]

i do :-D