Hymer MLI 580: Removal of Drop-Down Bed And Replacement Lockers.

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian Kirby - 2017-08-22 1:40 PM

 

...Could there still be an error in the figures?

 

That’s what I’ve been suggesting...

 

If the unladen axle-loadings are:

Front axle- 1540 kg;

Rear axle- 1900 kg;

 

and the fully laden axle-loadings are:

1: 1500 kg;

2 : 2420 kg

 

520kg of extra weight has been placed on the rear axle and 40kg of weight has been removed from the front axle. (This is with NO fresh-water on board.)

 

Given how motorhome storage is normally apportioned, the only way to produce such changes would be by putting a LOT of weight aft of a motorhome’s rear axle so that the leverage produced reduces the front-axle loading. I can’t see how storing items under the rear single beds or the rear high-level lockers could result in such a large weight shift, so if there’s nothing very heavy stored in the rear garage, there’s something odd about the figures.

[Frank McAuley]

Yes Brian it's possible the rear axle reading with the van loaded could be incorrect and we will never know that. Nevertheless it was the causation of us emptying the van and weighing it on an official Gov weigh bridge only to discover we had practically no payload; the dealer has since weighed the van in a similar mode and the figures agree.He accepts responsibility for this situation but wouldn't be keen to remove the extras to give us a decent payload.

It is my view that the load when full is now academic as the reading- right or wrong- was responsible  for uncovering the major flaw, viz , no payload despite being sold with a full payload before we fitted our extras: sat dish,awning and rear assisted air suspension.

Yes Brian a massive learning because before this we would have had no knowledge re weights as highlighted in this thread but depended on the dealer! We had one area of focus: 3.5 tons and 70 years of age!

I appreciate your advice re a 'different' layout as I can clearly see  the design of our MLI configures most of the payload/weight to the rear of the axle and coupled with the long overhang there is a problem.

[Frank McAuley]

Hi Derek please refer to my last reply to Brian.

[Brian Kirby]

You're right, Frank, I was rather clutching at straws! If you stick to your requirement and in effect reject this van as being over 3,500kg if it is re-plated to give it a realistic payload, you will, regrettably, have to go shopping again. The dealer can do the re-plating, and can then sell the van. I don't think this lias a Hymer's door, though stacking the van with all the extras at the dealers request does seem questionable. However, we don't know what passed between dealer and manufacturer (nor do we need to). Most manufacturers seem to favour forecourt vans being displayed "fully loaded", so no surprises there. Is the dealer making sensible suggestions, or just wringing his hands?

[Frank McAuley]

Thankyou Brian. I certainly do not want to start this procedure in a couple of years time hence We are being emphatic that the van is not fit for purpose and therefore no use to us.

I have come to the conclusion that this van possibly was sourced as you suggest and I just can't see the dealer ordering it with all those extras. I recall seeing a van, of a similar spec,in a showroom (Salinski) in Torigni sur Vire in Normandy but never on the road.As you say we don't know but it gives me cause for thought!

The dealer is actually very decent and his Service Manager is a gem ( I hope the situation doesn't change) and bearing in mind the foregoing possibilities they may be in a position to take a 'dig' on this transaction.They have already sold my trade in for a lot more than they paid me. I am hopeful for a successful conclusion after a lengthy discussion yesterday but all in abeyance until they return from Düsseldorf where we are currently planning to visit with a much wider ambit of knowledge of our requirements.

[Brian Kirby]

Frank McAuley - 2017-08-22 5:49 PM.....................Düsseldorf where we are currently planning to visit with a much wider ambit of knowledge of our requirements.

When are you going, Frank?

[bolero boy]

the upshot is that Franks van weighs 3440kg when 'empty'....

this is 425kg more than the supposed MIRO. (add in some water and passenger and the van is illegal before putting anything in it.

Re the extras....

Looking at the factory fit items i can see almost 200kg.

Frank has then got the dealer to add around another 130kg (or even more, perhaps) from what he's mentioned.

this still only accounts for 330kg, with around 100kg not accounted for (the gas system, perhaps?)

so, was the van a bit 'heavy' anyway?....or have we (i) missed a few bits?

however, move to the laden weight, and we are upto 3920kg....but this doesn't include (say) 20kg for some water and 75kg for Mrs Frank...

so the true laden weight would be around 4015kg....so 515kg away from where Frank thought he should be, and thats without carrying any water.....

 

having recently downsized to a smaller Carthago, i had the dealer weigh the actual (stock) van i was interested in (both axles and complete with factory packs and extras) and, effectively obtained my own actual MIRO, incl extras.

i was then able to add in the additional fittings i wanted (stuff transferred from previous van with approx weights) and everything we tour with, again weighed at home.

this allowed me to fully understand the overall (and axle) weights in our fully laden touring trim.

the acid test was to weigh the van laden (with everything i could think of) at the first opportunity, and we were within 20kg of my approximation, with plenty spare on each axle.....and a chunk left over for wine....

[colin]

Got an email from SMC saying 'join us at Düsseldorf', surprised to see they will be there.

[Brian Kirby]

I've been mulling this over between other things. Frank has now decided to look at alternative vans, I guess before making a final decision on which way to go.

 

The answer, I think, will be a compromise between 1) space, 2) layout, and 3) the maths (isn't it always? :-)).

 

3) Maths first. Frank's required payload is made up from three things. (i) The "stuff" he puts into his van, which in the ML-I amounted to 480kg. Plus (ii) the options he considers essential, which add 100kg to that. Plus, to give some margin for error, and because he says he weighed his van without water or Mrs McAuley, (iii) the difference between the almost universal 20 litres (kg) included in motorhome MIROs and a full tank: so, say, 80kg. This gives an all-up payload requirement of 680kg, plus Mrs McAuley, say a nominal 75kg, bringing the total to 735kg. Deducting this from Frank's required MAM of 3,500kg gives a target MIRO of 2,765kg. Anything higher will require some further compromises in the "stuff" department, the abandonment of poor Mrs McAuley or, deduction of the difference from the amount of water to be carried (not easy in practice)! But, remember, this takes no account of manufacturer's options that may be considered desirable, such as engine upgrades, choice of chassis, inclusion of air conditioning, etc. etc. all of which carry a weight penalty that will increase the vehicle's MIRO and further erode its payload.

 

1) Space, in this context, equates to the length of the van, since increased volume equals extra weight. I think an MIRO of 2,765kg with 3,500kg MAM should be achievable, with careful choice of manufacturer. However, this will be made more difficult with an A class van, as they tend to be heavier than an equivalent conventional coachbuilt. Still, not impossible.

 

2) Layout. The crunch! Franks favoured layout is one that has twin, longitudinal, beds with a "Eurolounge" up front. The Eurolounge is ubiquitous on continental vans, so no problem there. The problem, as I see it, is those twin longitudinal beds. For comfortable workability elsewhere, this layout demands a van at least 6.5 metres long. A standard UK double bed is approximately 1.3 metres wide, and 1.9 metres long. So, if the bed is to be longitudinal (whether single or double), and the lounge, kitchen block and washroom are to remain essentially the same as in a transverse bed layout, an extra 0.6 metres of length will be required. (I know it can be done in less, but the inevitable consequence is a compromised washroom and kitchen block). Alternatively, a transverse bed, or a short van with only a drop down bed, seem possible ways to go.

 

Bluntly, what Frank presently seeks is, in effect, a quart from a pint pot! It may exist, but there will, IMO, be very little choice of manufacturer.

 

My suggestion would be to start with a review of the "stuff", to see what can be pruned, and then weigh the rest, so as to be sure there are no redundant items.

 

Then comb the technical sections to the manufacturers' brochures, looking at the weights of the desirable manufacturers' options (including the "packs"), and add the weight of these to the published MIROs of potential contenders. Add 100kg for the essential extras (awning, bike rack, etc.). Adjust MIRO for actual weights of occupants (MIRO includes 75kg for the driver, nothing for the passenger). Adjust again for gas load (many German made vans allow only one 11kg aluminium cylinder @ 19kg in a two cylinder locker. UK sourced exchange cylinders tend to be steel. As before, two typical 13kg cylinders will weigh roughly 30kg more than the MIRO allowance). Then, I would still say, allow for a full water tank to give a margin for error on a "desk" exercise, say an extra 80kg.

 

Then, finally, see if any of the resulting payloads is sufficient for the (now reduced) pile of "stuff".

 

If it is, look at the rear overhangs (remembering that anything added behind the rear axle places more load than its self-weight on that axle, while removing the difference from the front axle load) and filter out the longest. Since it is already clear the rear axle load will be high, if any of the contenders are on the Fiat "light" chassis (2,000kg max rear axle), factor in a further 40kg of MIRO and opt for the "Heavy" chassis, with its 2,400kg rear axle limit. If on the Mercedes chassis with its 2,400kg rear axle load, they should be OK.

 

If, after all that, nothing that is presently available looks as though it will/could work, there remains the option of getting the ML-I 580 plated up to give a higher (legal) MAM on its present chassis (which may still require a little pruning somewhere to keep the rear axle out of trouble), and use it for the next two years, during which time conduct a more detailed appraisal of available vans, in combination with a more searching appraisal, and pruning, of payload.

 

But, whichever route is taken, first lay in a plentiful store of aspirin! :-D

[Frank McAuley]

Thankyou Brian. Your contribution is really appreciated. I am still absorbing the details of your considerations and conclusions but at this early stage may I pose couple of questions:-

 1. if I retained the van under the terms as suggested by you would it be necessary to updrate the suspension to improve handling;I am assured it is currently fitted with the latest 'kit';

 2. there were approx 26 issues with the van, e.g.,water ingress into the garage, garage door strut fell off, shower not correctly fitted requiring sealant to be applied to one vertical joint, two fly screens not properly fitted, etc which the dealer has stated is unprecedented in a Hymer but nevertheless the "Hymer Trust' factor is shaken. Combined with the non declaration of reduced payload do you still think retention of the van is worth consideration?

I am to have a  further discussion with the dealer tomorrow so perhaps you may wish to PM me with an approach to cover, as you term it : 'the wringing of hands syndrome'?

[Robbo]

Teddie's main objective in downsizing to a 3500Kg van was to avoid applying for the C1 licence when reaching 70 in two years time.

 

Unless Teddie's general health is suspect, the C1 application including medical is fairly straightforward. I had to have a medical at age 68, for other reasons, which fortunately didn't reveal any problems. This gave me the confidence to upgrade to a +3500Kg van, prior to reaching 70.

 

OK, I have to have a medical every 3 years, but that is not a bad thing IMO. You still need to self-certify your fitness to drive under a B licence every 3 years after reaching 70.

 

Perhaps, Teddie should consider a pre-70 medical assessment to widen/restrict his options, depending on the results.

[Derek Uzzell]

Who is “Teddie”?

 

Frank McAuley seems to have the opportunity to obtain a full refund on his Hymer ML-I 580 motorhome on the grounds that, realistically, it could not be operated at the 3500kg MAM weight it was sold at. The effect on maximum axle-loadings of uprating the Hymer to a higher MAM is not known, but if the vehicle already exceeds either of its axle-load maxima and those values do not increase as part of the uprating, Frank will be no better off. If Frank can get his money back, that’s probably the best way to go.

 

Regarding 3500kg alternatives, Carthago’s C-Compactline I 143 (example here)

 

http://www.southdownsmotorcaravans.co.uk/stock/100474/pixindex.html

 

appears to be a possibility but, although marketed specifically to have plenty of payload at 3500kg MAM, augmenting its basic specification and adding heavy ‘essential’ extras would soon erode this. The Carthago is built on a Fiat AL-KO chassis so ought to be inherently lighter than a Mercedes-based equivalent, but a 7-metre long ‘luxury’ A-class design is never going to be a featherweight.

 

If Frank’s top-of-his-priority-list is to limit his motorhome’s MAM to 3500kg, that’s what he should do. If he is prepared to risk being able to retain his C1 driving-licence beyond 70, or is prepared to hang on to the Hymer (after it has been uprated) for a couple more years and then sell it, that’s a completely different ball-game.

[Brian Kirby]

Frank McAuley - 2017-08-27 1:53 PM

 

Thankyou Brian. Your contribution is really appreciated. I am still absorbing the details of your considerations and conclusions but at this early stage may I pose couple of questions:- 

1. if I retained the van under the terms as suggested by you would it be necessary to updrate the suspension to improve handling; I am assured it is currently fitted with the latest 'kit';

2. there were approx 26 issues with the van, e.g.,water ingress into the garage, garage door strut fell off, shower not correctly fitted requiring sealant to be applied to one vertical joint, two fly screens not properly fitted, etc which the dealer has stated is unprecedented in a Hymer but nevertheless the "Hymer Trust' factor is shaken. Combined with the non declaration of reduced payload do you still think retention of the van is worth consideration? I am to have a  further discussion with the dealer tomorrow so perhaps you may wish to PM me with an approach to cover, as you term it : 'the wringing of hands syndrome'?

Probably a bit late for your meeting by now, Frank, I'm afraid we were out this morning gathering some last minute bits and pieces.

Re 1 above, I would think not, but I have no experience of the Mercedes chassis, or how it drives generally. Having followed a few here and there I have been struck that they all seem to roll and wallow somewhat on bends, roundabouts, etc - which I have assumed due to spring/damper ratings. I suspect that with the rear axle flirting with its limit, and the front axle relatively light, it will feel a bit odd (our previous van was somewhat similar, and was cured by air assistance at the rear, but that only adds to the cost of something you presently do not wish to keep). I'm prevaricating because I'm not you, but if it were me, and the dealer was amenable to a refund, I think I'd pull his hand off! :-D

Re 2 above, in the light of the list of defects on your van (apart from the weight issues), and with the same caveat, I would do as above, and return it to the dealer ASAP - providing an acceptable offer is made. In the absence of an acceptable offer, I think I'd seriously explore going for the dealer under sale/supply of goods legislation. Far too much to have paid for a lemon, especially taking account of the unworkable payload, failure to warn over adding further fixtures, and your expressed desire for a van with a MAM of 3,500kg.

 

Edit to add that I also agree with Derek's post above. The main pitfall is liable to be time, in that I suspect it will take you a while to unpack the details of what is on offer from the various manufacturers, and a certain amount of compromise on what you will be able to take, what size of van you can live with, and what layout offers a favourable alternative. These are, of course, all personal matters, on which no-one else can really offer guidance.

 

My suggestion of keeping the van in the meantime was on the basis that it would allow continued travels while you sorted the wheat from the chaff. As above, in view of the list of defects on the van, I now think I'd be inclined to hand it back, and start afresh. But, as above, that's me! :-D