Bessacarr Air assist suspension

[pepe63xnotuse]

Apologies to the OP but...

Payloads and axle ratings aside, when you step back and think about it, it's appalling that manufacturers are producing vehicles so long and so low and with comedy rear overhangs (some containing "garages"!), that in order to stop the things from routinely bellying out, or from scraping their backsides on the road like a dog with worms, the owners of these (new and very expensive!) vans have to fork out even more money to raise the suspension!...

It's nuts!

..and none of it is really for the end user's benefit.

Routinely bolting ridiculously overlong chassis rails onto cabs,and power plants /transmissions ,that were originally designed to drag 6-6.3m delivery vans, is just an easy way for manufacturers to shift ever bigger, ever bling-ier vans..

 

 

 

 

[crocs]

pepe63 - 2017-11-08 8:53 AM

 

Routinely bolting ridiculously overlong chassis rails onto cabs,and power plants /transmissions ,that were originally designed to drag 6-6.3m delivery vans, is just an easy way for manufacturers to shift ever bigger, ever bling-ier vans..

 

 

 

 

Or, it's a way of satisfying the demands, wishes and aspirations of their customers B-)

[derek pringle]

Derek Uzzell - 2017-11-07 9:13 AM

 

derek

 

I think the Bessacarr E660 model was built on a non-AL-KO Ducato ‘maxi’ chassis (4005kg?) and, consequently should have had a reasonable amount of payload to begin with given the vehicle’s dimensions.

 

Ian’s Bessacarr 597 is a lot longer than an E660, with a lot longer wheelbase and an AL-KO chassis that is much closer to the ground. It has a Ducato ‘light’ 3850kg chassis with (apparently) no ability to opt for the ‘maxi’ 4250kg chassis instead. Adding rear air-assist to an E660 would be a relatively simple (DIY) and cheap task, but adding air-assist to a 597 would be more complicated and expensive.

 

It’s not just the limited payload with a Bessacarr 597; there’s the limited ground clearance under the rear and beneath the chassis to consider (as Ian mentions in his original posting). Irrespective of whether adding rear air-assist would improve a 597’s ride and handling, driver-controlled rear air-assist would help with the ground clearance issue.

hi Derek,

I understand your points but was just trying to make the point that in my opinion air suspension will not only help with the op's problem but will probably improve the ride quality,mine did especially cornering and such.

cheers and good luck

derek

[pepe63xnotuse]

crocs - 2017-11-08 9:57 AM

 

pepe63 - 2017-11-08 8:53 AM

 

Routinely bolting ridiculously overlong chassis rails onto cabs,and power plants /transmissions ,that were originally designed to drag 6-6.3m delivery vans, is just an easy way for manufacturers to shift ever bigger, ever bling-ier vans..

 

 

Or, it's a way of satisfying the demands, wishes and aspirations of their customers B-)

 

Those could all still be satisfied but whilst building on more appropriate underpinnings in the first place? - twin rear wheel drive, tandem axle or at the very least, just a hefty enough chassis to provide the vehicle with a decent ground clearance and axle limits.

(....less profit for the builders/sellers perhaps?...)

I doubt any end user would truly aspire to an expensive MH if they knew that it risked scraping it's belly or clacking it's rear end, every time it pulls on/off a driveway or camp' pitch..?. :-S

 

Folk wouldn't buy a new car, and then expect to routinely pay out to modify the suspension, just so that it could carry out it's normal day to day function...So why do "we" MHers?......

 

It's not a phrase that I usually like (as it gets bandied around too much ) but in some cases, it's debatable whether some of these MHs are "Fit For Purpose" ?

 

Edit; Again, apologies to the OP for wandering off the topic. :$