Weight upgrade

[Derek Uzzell]

monique.hubrechts@gm - 2018-09-24 5:55 PM

 

...Remember you can drive heavy chassis whit B or the light C1...

 

I CAN legally drive a motorhome based on a Ducato ‘heavy’ (Maxi) chassis, but only if its Maximum Authorised Mass (MAM) were 3500kg (or lower) as I now have just a B driving-licence entitlement.

 

I CANNOT legally drive any motorhome if its MAM exceeds 3500kg.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Nice said Deneb, but if the leaf spring in steel, or ceramic is at his end, being one in 35l you are sagging, and whatever you call what sits above what you call spring assistor is just a piece of rubber who act at his solid end as bumpstop to prevent holes in your chassis runners etc, and wheel arches. Ask truck drivers, fiat heavy has two leaf springs. Some converters put this on in case of 3850 35 l upgrade. An alko air top is very risky. Cheers

[Deneb]

monique.hubrechts@gm - 2018-09-24 7:22 PM

 

Nice said Deneb, but if the leaf spring in steel, or ceramic is at his end, being one in 35l you are sagging, and whatever you call what sits above what you call spring assistor is just a piece of rubber who act at his solid end as bumpstop to prevent holes in your chassis runners etc, and wheel arches. Ask truck drivers, fiat heavy has two leaf springs. Some converters put this on in case of 3850 35 l upgrade. An alko air top is very risky. Cheers

 

Monique, I have a Ducato 3500 light chassis with twin leaf springs. It has a slightly nose down attitude even when fully laden, but nevertheless the spring assistors are in contact whatever its laden state, and have been since it was new. Whilst the rubber spring assistors will of course act as bump stops if compressed to their maximum extent, they are designed to be in contact with the springs in most, if not all driving conditions, to limit deflection of the spring(s) and dampen their oscillations by partial compression of the rubber assistors. Fiat offer at least 7 different leaf spring configurations on the Ducato rear suspension, although I'm not sure all would be available for vehicles intended for motorhome conversion, but all are intended to work in conjunction with the rubber spring assistors during normal deflection of the springs.

 

Two leaf spring configurations are specifically listed as intended for camping cars - twin leaf springs light and twin leaf springs heavy. I suspect that the single leaf springs are mostly to be found on vehicles purchased by converters as panel vans, which have been turned into motorhomes. My van is one such vehicle, but in my case it was ordered from Fiat with the twin leaf spring option fitted from the factory.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Sagging happens when you are below the standard ride height of the type approval. At showroom. The maker never publish in case of conversion like a van or UP. ALko on their chassis now exactly these figures in case of fiat tractor because they bolted on the chassis and have to do break and weight tests phase two. They can adjust their ride height in function weight by changing their torsion bar angles. To 10 cm max which is a lot for a motorhome chassis, even 5 cm is, their rear axle is never sagging, And in case of air constant ride height at their rear axle. The front strut of a fiat ducato 35l is also mostly at his end in our club.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Derek in belgium you can drive according actual miro independent of MAM. But out MOt is according MAM

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Agree Deneb. but a picture will prove this in case of RV, The variants of 7 on the rear i like to see. But it is possible, because the VW crafter is built in poland in 59 variants. I bought a new VW transporter VW t6, westfalia kepler one. And their roof c rails on the side wall to put a roof rack a awning is in very variants. I am out of fiat now. But still supporting the club on fiat and alko. hold contact.

[Derek Uzzell]

Deneb - 2018-09-24 8:04 PM

 

...Two leaf spring configurations are specifically listed as intended for camping cars - twin leaf springs light and twin leaf springs heavy. I suspect that the single leaf springs are mostly to be found on vehicles purchased by converters as panel vans, which have been turned into motorhomes...

 

My 2015 Ducato X290-based ‘coachbuilt’ Rapido has Fiat’s camping-car chassis. It has single-leaf rear springs and, when the motorhome is unloaded, between the top of the springs and the bottom of the bump-stops there is (by eye) about 40mm of air-space.Fully loading the vehicle adds weight to the rear and this obviously does reduce that distance, but (as I said above) even then the bump-stops are not touching the springs.

 

When the Rapido is being driven the springs and bump-stops will come into regular contact and that’s when the bump-stops will provide the spring assistance for which they are clearly designed. But - despite the Rapido only having single-leaf springs - its bump-stops are not in continuous contact with the springs (as was the case with my Ford Transit-based Hobby) and they are certainly not squashed as shown in the attached photo of a 2006 PVC’s rear suspension.

 

Returning to Steve’s original enquiry, he will be able to establish at a glance whether his Detleffs motorhome has single-leaf or twin-leaf rear springs, what the relationship is between the springs and the bump-stops above them, and whether there are any add-on enhancements (eg. coil-spring assistors). He should also be able to easily identify visually what the motorhome’s stance is when unloaded and whether there are any signs of genuine ’sagging’ when the motorhome is loaded.

 

Monique’s digression about extra springs and Belgian driving-licence rules does not directly affect Steve exploring uprating his motorhome’s MAM from its present 3500kg to 3650kg at no cost (which ought to be just a DIY ‘paper exercise’ that the DVLA would be happy with) or going higher (eg. to 3850kg) which might involve rear-suspension modifications and professional assistence to middle-manage the process.

 

Uprating a motorhome’s MAM beyond 3500kg will alter its ‘road fund’ category and have implications regarding driving-licensing, speed limits, insurance, breakdown-cover and resale. But I’m sure Steve will be aware of that and take it into account.

[Derek Uzzell]

monique.hubrechts@gm - 2018-09-24 8:22 PM

 

Derek in belgium you can drive according actual miro independent of MAM. But out MOt is according MAM

 

Altough there have been moves to standardise driving-licence entitlements within Europe, this hasn’t been totally successful. For example, the following two links show respectively the Belgian and UK age requirements for obtaining a motorcycle licence and there are clear variations.

 

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/vehicles/driving-licence/get-driving-licence/belgium/index_en.htm

 

https://www.gov.uk/ride-motorcycle-moped/bike-categories-ages-and-licence-requirements

 

I’m aware that (seemingly due to a translation error) the holder of a Portuguese “B” driving-licence is permitted to drive a motorhome having a MAM up to 4250kg, and that a French motorcaravanner with a “B” + Code 79 licence can legally drive an (apparently) unlimited-weight motorhome, but I’m surprised that Belgium’s driving licensing rules are based on a vehicle’s Mass In Running Order (MIRO) rather than MAM.

 

This is simply because, although a vehicle’s MIRO is likely to be stated in the manufacturer’s technical documentation, only the MAM will be shown on its data-plate. How would the Belgian police, having stopped a motorhome at a roadside check, easily confirm that the driver had a valid licence to drive it? In the UK, if the MAM on a motorhome’s data-plate exceeded 3500kg (a thing easy to confirm), a “B” licence would be insufficient and the vehicle’s MIRO would not change that.

 

The RAC offers advice about driving in Belgium

 

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/travel/country/belgium/

 

and (assuming that the information is correct) the Belgian rules of the road and regulations clearly do differ from those in the UK. So, if Belgian driving licensing involves vehicle MIRO not MAM, so be it.

 

But there’s little point you citing Belgian regulations on a UK forum without you saying that they ARE Belgian rules. Otherwise, it just confuses.

[Keithl]

Derek Uzzell - 2018-09-25 9:12 AM

 

... but I’m surprised that Belgium’s driving licensing rules are based on a vehicle’s Mass In Running Order (MIRO) rather than MAM.

 

Derek,

 

I think Monique may be misusing the term MIRO in the posts above as (IIRC) she has previously stated that the class of driving licence required in Belgium is defined by the ACTUAL weight of the vehicle at the time it is being driven. ie One person could drive a MH loaded to 3,600 kg with a C licence then off-load some weight and another driver legally drive it when below 3,500 kg on a B licence.

 

Monique, please could you confirm if my assumption is correct or not.

 

Keith.

[Derek Uzzell]

That, of course, would make matters even worse, as a vehicle would need to be weighed to establish if the driver’s licence permitted him/her to legally drive it.

 

(I’d like a link to the Belgian regulations that allow this, as it seems to go against the logic of EU driving licensing.)

[Sssnake]

To confirm, my motorhome is a 7057 EB low profile not the A class ‘I’ version. The Fiat manufacturer’s VIN is stamped with the MTPLM 3500kg, front axle 1850kg and rear 2000kg.

 

The Dethleffs ‘plate’ records 3499kg, 1950kg and 2000kg.

 

I have spoken with John Ruffles at JR Consultancy who assures me that an increase to 3850kg is a simple exercise with no modifications necessary. This is the option I have decided to take and affords a more than acceptable payload for our requirements.

 

Incidentally JR Consultancy’s fee for doing so is now £180, which to my mind is great value. Thankfully, my wife and I are fortunate to be old enough to hold C1 category on our driving licences and young enough to be able to enjoy this privilege for many years yet.

 

This group really is very helpful and those of you who contribute are very kind to do so.

[Derek Uzzell]

I think (based on your original posting and what’s commonplace) that the Fiat data-plate gives the MTPLM as 3650kg.

[Sssnake]

Doh, you are absolutely correct of course. It WAS very late a night and I was a tuffy tired bear!

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Nice response derek. But a said in belgium and meaning belgian licence plate. The same is effective in the netherlands. And more countries perhaps, except the UK. About the weight upgrade belgiumis very restrictive being the only one in europe. To upgrade a coc of 3500 to 3850 needs a new coc of 3850, and is very costly and comprehensive, but could be of interest of uk foreign residents in belgium.

[Sssnake]

Than you to all who contributed to this, by way of an update...

 

I used JR Consultancy and have upgraded the MPTLM to 3850kg with no modifications. Cost was £180 and I received all paperwork and a new ‘sticker’ (placed adj to Dethleffs’ one) within a week. My V5 is at DVLA so I’ll probably get that back in April.

 

I went off on holiday last week with a full tank of water and fuel and the total on the weighbridge was 3620kg but I was 60kg over on the rear axle. I dumped three quarters of the fresh water tank and then came easily within all maximum limits. I didn’t have any bikes on the rack though so will need to reconsider what other things we carry in the summer but I’m confident I can balance this.

 

Take care all.

[Derek Uzzell]

As it looks like you’ll be hovering around the 2000kg rear-axle maximum, you might want to consider fitting a ‘semi-air’ kit to the rear suspension. This would not increase the 2000kg limit, but it might well improve the vehicle’s handling when fully loaded and would allow you to counter any rear-end sagging.

 

 

[roger20]

Derek. When I asked SV Tech about upgrading a Fiat Light with Alko chassis on a Hymer Exsis the rear axle could be increased to 2240kgs with semi-air suspension and 16" tyres. Weight then 3850 kgs or 4000 kgs if front springs uprated as well.

[Derek Uzzell]

I’m aware of SVTech’s advice, but Steve’s wish was to uprate his Dethleff’s MTPLM above 3500kg at nil/minimum cost.

 

His motorhome has 16”-diameter (steel) wheels as standard, so its 225/75R 16 tyres would already be adequate for a rear-axle load-limit upgrade. I believe the JR Consultancy exercise has just uprated the Dethleff’s MTPLM from its original 3500kg to 3850kg without changing the original axle-weight limits of 1950kg (front axle) and 2000kg (rear axle). As long as Steve can operate his motorhome without exceeding those maxima, there should be no NEED to uprate the axle-load limits, but as adding a 'semi-air’ kit to a Ducato X290 non-AL-KO chassis motohome like Steve’s Dethleffs is fairly straightforward and reasonably inexpensive (say £400 for the kit) and might well be beneficial in Steve’s case, it’s something to keep in mind. (Adding semi-air to an AL-KO chassis Ducato is more difficult and a good deal dearer.)

 

 

[Brock]

I had Goldschmitt semi air fitted to my van four and a half years ago. As Derek says, it's not cheap on an AlKo chassis. Mine's also heavy so anyone operating near their rear axle limit need to bear in mind the added weight of semi-air. The system has worked well on my van although had I known I was going to keep the van for longer as I now intend doing, I'd have gone the whole full air way.

 

I've also uprated my overall MTPML to 3,850kg [3650kg would have been enough] but left the axle loadings at 2000kg. The extra cost of uprating the rear axle was too much for what was only a need to stay legal with a passenger midships or 100l of water.

 

It took the DVLA a week to record the Revenue weight at 3850kg, two months and three attempts to get the Maximum Permissible mass to 3850kg.

[Derek Uzzell]

For a Ducato X250/X290 with a non-AL-KO chassis the weight-penalty for fitting a rear-axle manually-inflatable semi-air kit should be 9kg to 10kg.

[colin]

I think this thread illustrates what I've posted before, if you are getting a MH with a long rear overhang get it on a Maxi chassis, Steve now has a MH with an effective MAM of around 3560kg, and once he puts a couple of bikes on the back it will be right on the limit, if it had been on a Maxi chassis it would have an effective MAM of probably 3960kg and have little to worry about with rear axle loading.

[roger20]

Brock - 2018-11-04 3:20 AM

 

I had Goldschmitt semi air fitted to my van four and a half years ago. As Derek says, it's not cheap on an AlKo chassis. Mine's also heavy so anyone operating near their rear axle limit need to bear in mind the added weight of semi-air. The system has worked well on my van although had I known I was going to keep the van for longer as I now intend doing, I'd have gone the whole full air way.

 

I've also uprated my overall MTPML to 3,850kg [3650kg would have been enough] but left the axle loadings at 2000kg. The extra cost of uprating the rear axle was too much for what was only a need to stay legal with a passenger midships or 100l of water.

 

It took the DVLA a week to record the Revenue weight at 3850kg, two months and three attempts to get the Maximum Permissible mass to 3850kg.

 

Brock - can you recall what the weight penalty was? If the axle limit upgrade is 240kg but semi-air eats into this substantially then the cost may not be worthwhile. Colin is quite right because on a rear garage layout with the typical continental front seat/table arrangement most of the load is is over the rear axle or behind. Worse with the Exsis because the fresh water tank is behind the axle.

[Laurence]

Steve,

 

You seem to have this fixed now, but this thread seems to have taken some heavy diversions.

 

A final bit of advice is that the paperwork is important. You will have had two Certificates of Conformity, one from Fiat and one from Dethleffs. It is the converters (Dethleffs) that is important as they will determine loads and weights that are applicable after the conversion has taken place. If the details are going to be changed make sure you have the appropriate authoritative certificates to show this. I was stopped in Portugal and the police asked to see certificate of ownership (V5) and certificates of conformity - we always take them when travelling abroad. It wasn't a problem and we were allowed to drive on. I think sometimes they are just looking for an excuse to fine you!

 

It did concern me to read that you were driving with a full tank of water. This is highly inadvisable and your manual probably advises no more than about 20 litres when travelling. Not only does it add unnecessary weight, but depending on the position of the tank and how much is in the tank, you might be generating unnecessary and unwelcome sideways forces when cornering. Maybe I'm being overcautious, but all manufacturers (and insurers) advise against this and its just not worth it.

 

Regards,

[Brock]

Roger, I weighed the van in full running trim shortly after fitting and it had risen by 60kg on the rear. I reckoned the semi air on an Alko chassis added 35kg but I can't be sure. The dealer suggested 38kg at the time but hadn't weighed the parts and this was the first motorhome they'd fitted. Goldschmitt didn't know either but said no more than 40kg. With semi air, I was told the existing suspension is retained so everything added is extra weight.

[Keithl]

According to page 17 on the Dunlop suspension brochure here...

 

http://www.motorcaravanning.co.uk/pdf/DunlopAuxiliaryAirSuspCat_Ed5-4-r2.pdf

 

The basic system for an X250 weighs 12 kg.

 

As a comparison the system for our 2004 Sprinter (without ABS) weighs 15 kg which I would say is pretty near from memory when I installed it.

 

Keith.

 

Edit. Changed link.