LHD headlight deflectors

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian

 

I don’t think there is any ‘confusion' regarding the UK-registration of rael’s motorhome - this is an ex-rental LHD Challenger “Vany” PVC that he personally imported from Germany in late-2018 and drove back to the UK himself. (His posting of 26 November 2018 10:01 PM here)

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Drive-Home-Insurance-/43525/

 

Once the Challenger reached the UK the usual changes needed to be made to the vehicle to comply with the DVLA’s requirements and a problem arose with sourcing left-dipping headlamps with integrated DRLs (explained in his posting of 15 January 2019 4:53 PM on the above link.)

 

Barcobird’s LHD Pilote was bought new from a UK dealer in early 2017 when the fact that the vehicle had right-dipping headlamps, a single rear fog-lamp on the UK-nearside and and a kmh-only speedometer should have been addressed. As I understand it, the only change the dealer made was to fit a replacement mph/kmh speedometer face.

 

Fitting a central reversing light is almost certainly a non-starter as barcobird’s motorhome has a rear rack that habitually carries a scooter.

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Air-suspension/47157/

 

The Pilote’s rear end is as shown in the attached photo and the neatest and most acceptable approach would be (as suggested earlier in this thread) to swap the reversing and fog lights over. Obviously some rewiring would be needed, but the lights look symmetrical, so perhaps just the (inverted) lenses could be swapped over.

 

Based on the photo on my posting of 11 February 2019 6:27 PM above, the Pilote has LED DRLs in the front bumper, which suggests that the headlamps may not have LED DRLs. If that’s the case, at least it would keep down the cost of replacing the headlamps with left-dipping equivalents.

 

Whatever happened (or didn’t happen!) back in 2017, I agree with you that barcobird should be contacting the vending dealer and insisting that the vehicle be ‘legalised’ now and not next year close to MOT-test time.

[Barcobird]

Brian Kirby - 2019-02-13 5:39 PM

 

rael - 2019-02-12 9:26 PM..........................There is actually nothing to stop a garage/dealership importing a LHD vehicle, filling out the CMR application and submitting it without actually doing the work, or only partially doing it. The only 'proof' needed is a letter from the garage saying the work has been done. This is probably illegal and could also impact on the vehicle insurance, so not to be recommended.

 

As Derek mentioned, back in 2005 importing was a very simple matter. In 2004 I imported a Buerstner 747, and simply brought it into UK, registered it in 20 minutes at Maidstone and that was it. It has become much more complicated.

 

If your 2017 motorhome does not have RHD lights and it is UK registered then somewhere along the line someone has cut corners and possibly been economical with the truth! I think Id be going back to the garage/dealership and asking how a vehicle with LHD lights was granted a Certificate of Mutual Recognition.

I agree with the above. Either the dealer has mistakenly registered your van as though it was regular RHD stock import (which, depending on who was responsible for completing and submitting the vehicle details to DVLA, presumably through the dealers' fast-track vehicle registration system that issues batches of registration numbers in advance, seems quite possible), or someone has pulled a fast one for convenience. Error seems to me at least feasible, especially if yours arrived in the spring when they traditionally deliver the bulk of their vans, but in either event, definitely head back to the dealer with a request that they bring it up to UK legal standard.

 

Thinking of the rear fog lights, I just wonder if it would be preferable to install a further rear fog light on the UK offside, so that the rear always has fog lights on whichever side is the offside at the time, and install a separate (CANBUS compatible LED) reversing light centrally on the rear. That way you will be fully compliant whichever side of the Channel you are.

 

It was my intention to go and see the dealer next week while back in the UK but I have just realised it's the NEC week :'( so I've got no chance :-( unless I go to the NEC and surprise them (lol)

 

I have a scooter rack permanently fitted to the back and so a reversing light would be difficult, unless it could be fitted to the rack which I would think extremely unlikely.

My easiest option (or the dealers :-) ) would be to splice into the wires and run extensions from one side to the other with additional connectors, it would then be easy to just unscrew both lights and swap them over. Biggest problem with that is routing the wires which probably would involve removing various panels.

I don't believe the headlights are a problem because as mentioned I can use benders *-)

[Barcobird]

Derek Uzzell - 2019-02-13 6:40 PM

 

Brian

 

I don’t think there is any ‘confusion' regarding the UK-registration of Barcobird’s LHD Pilote was bought new from a UK dealer in early 2017 when the fact that the vehicle had right-dipping headlamps, a single rear fog-lamp on the UK-nearside and and a kmh-only speedometer should have been addressed. As I understand it, the only change the dealer made was to fit a replacement mph/kmh speedometer face.

 

Fitting a central reversing light is almost certainly a non-starter as barcobird’s motorhome has a rear rack that habitually carries a scooter.

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Air-suspension/47157/

 

The Pilote’s rear end is as shown in the attached photo and the neatest and most acceptable approach would be (as suggested earlier in this thread) to swap the reversing and fog lights over. Obviously some rewiring would be needed, but the lights look symmetrical, so perhaps just the (inverted) lenses could be swapped over.

 

Based on the photo on my posting of 11 February 2019 6:27 PM above, the Pilote has LED DRLs in the front bumper, which suggests that the headlamps may not have LED DRLs. If that’s the case, at least it would keep down the cost of replacing the headlamps with left-dipping equivalents.

 

Whatever happened (or didn’t happen!) back in 2017, I agree with you that barcobird should be contacting the vending dealer and insisting that the vehicle be ‘legalised’ now and not next year close to MOT-test time.

 

I agree with everything you say Derek :-D You managed to submit your post while I was in the process of doing mine (lol)

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2019-02-13 6:40 PM

Brian

I don’t think there is any ‘confusion' regarding the UK-registration of rael’s motorhome - this is an ex-rental LHD Challenger “Vany” PVC that he personally imported from Germany in late-2018 and drove back to the UK himself. (His posting of 26 November 2018 10:01 PM here).........……...

I think we're probably at cross purposes, Derek. As I understood the portion of rael's post that I quoted, he was referring to barcobird's problem with headlamps and rear fog / reversing lights, and not problems in registering his own motorhome. It was not my intention to refer to rael's van, apologies if that was unclear.

 

I agree that the scooter rack probably makes a single, central, reversing light unworkable - I was unaware of the scooter rack at the time of writing. But in view of that, I assume it must also have a lighting bar and registration plate carrier on its rear, that will also need its lights reversed offside to nearside, and vice versa, between UK and the Continent? I believe it is common to wire these via a trailer socket. Barcobird hasn't mentioned any lighting on this, so I'm wondering if the rear fog light is replicated on that?

[Barcobird]

 

Brian Kirby - 2019-02-13 7:41 PM

I agree that the scooter rack probably makes a single, central, reversing light unworkable - I was unaware of the scooter rack at the time of writing. But in view of that, I assume it must also have a lighting bar and registration plate carrier on its rear, that will also need its lights reversed offside to nearside, and vice versa, between UK and the Continent? I believe it is common to wire these via a trailer socket. Barcobird hasn't mentioned any lighting on this, so I'm wondering if the rear fog light is replicated on that?

 

As far as I can see there is neither a fog or reversing light on the racks light board. This was also organised by the dealer *-)

[Brian Kirby]

There is a requirement under the Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 (unfortunately not fully up to date in the web accessible version) that where a vehicle "carries a load or equipment which obscures any obligatory lamp, reflector or rear marking", either:

"a the obligatory lamp, reflector or rear marking shall be transferred to a position on the vehicle, load or equipment where it is not obscured; or

b an additional lamp, reflector or rear marking shall be fitted to the vehicle, load or equipment."

 

Assuming the above remains extent, there is clearly a judgement to be made as to whether your rack with scooter on board would, in fact, obscure any of the obligatory rear lights on your Pilote. Might be worth checking though, and also if the regs have changed in that respect, just in case.

[colin]

Barcobird - 2019-02-13 7:53 PM

 

As far as I can see there is neither a fog or reversing light on the racks light board. This was also organised by the dealer *-)

 

Don't think I've ever seen a lighting board with a reversing light, but rear fog is common. A mistake that most seem to make is using triangular reflectors, these are for use on trailers only, I made my supplier change mine to rectangular reflectors.

[Derek Uzzell]

Colin

 

As you say, lighting boards for trailers may or may not carry a fog-lamp, but I’m not aware of a board specifically marketed to be attached to a scooter/bike-carrier having a fog-lamp. And - as you’ve observed - none of the commercially-available boards have a reversing lamp. Although the shape of the reflectors fitted on barcobird’s Pilote’s lighting board MIGHT be incorrect, the attached photo (copied from his forum Profile) strongly suggests that all of the motorhome’s rear lights on both sides will be fully visible, even with a scooter mounted on the carrier.

 

At present barcobird’s UK-registered LHD Pilote has a mph/kmh speedometer, but the UK-nearside position of its fog-lamp should have been addressed before the motorhome was UK-registered.

 

It’s been assumed that the Pilote’s headlamps are the original right-dipping ones that - if so - should have been replaced by left-dipping versions pre-registration, but barcobird's earlier question “Is there an easy way of determining which headlights are fitted?” introduces an element of doubt.

 

Each Ducato X290 headlamp carries two H7 55W halogen bulbs - one for main-beam and the other for dipped-beam. When the lights are dipped the H7 bulbs that provide the ‘main beam’ extinguish, leaving just the H7 bulbs providing ‘dipped beam’ illuminated.

 

My LHD Ducato X290-based Rapido has the same design of headlamp as barcobird’s Pilote. The Rapido’s headlamps are left-dipping, as the the original right-dipping headlamps were replaced prior to UK-registration. When the Rapido’s headlamps are dipped, it is very obvious that the beam-pattern is oriented leftwards and a UK road’s kerb is well lit as a consequence. If the Rapido’s headlamps were right-dipping, the reverse would be true, with the beam-pattern strongly oriented to the right - a UK road’s kerb would be badly lit, but the on-the-right kerb of a Continental European road would be well lit. If barcobird has been driving at night abroad a far bit since buying the Pilote in early-2017 and not found his motorhome’s headlamps’ beam-pattern poor, then the Pilote almost certainlt still has right-dipping headlamps.

[Barcobird]

https://photos.app.goo.gl/BV9CYHNXP6XeWHQJ8

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/WzSc1cqVJYJqpaJH7

[Brian Kirby]

The easiest way to check the orientation of the headlamps is against a wall (at night, obviously). With the vehicle square to the wall the "up-kick" of the beam should be clearly visible. If it is on the right when viewed from the driving seat the lights are right dipping for right hand traffic, and if on the left, left dipping for left hand traffic.

 

Re the lighting on the scooter rack, barcobird's picture, helpfully reproduced by Derek, illustrates two things. First, that the right hand vehicle lights are all clearly visible but, second, that none of the left hand lights can be seen at all. To me, that raises the question of what is meant by "obstructed" in the Vehicle Lighting Regs. Were barcobird to find himself driving in fog at a time when his rear fog light was set for the opposite side of the road to that on which he was driving, it seems his rear fog light might well be invisible to following traffic due to the obstruction created by the scooter + rack.

 

I would not be happy in that situation, and would much prefer two rear fog lights on both van and rack, so that under all circumstances the rear of the vehicle would be as clearly visible as possible to following traffic. I accept that this may just be me, but the reversing light goes onto my "must have" list as something highly desirable, whereas the rear fog lights (and I much prefer two, as our vans invariably get driven both sides of the ditch) seems to me to be an essential safety feature irrespective of its legal status. If both sides can be "fog lit" it would also avoid the necessary tedium of having to fiddle with lights/wiring before driving abroad and again for UK MoT tests.

 

As the rack would in any case tend to obstruct a vehicle mounted reversing light, and with the rack (presumably) permanently fitted, plus there is a reversing light feed to the rear, my preference would be to mount a reversing light on the rack and extend the feed accordingly.

 

I have to say that barcobird seems not to have been well served by his supplying dealer, who seem not to have properly understood what was necessary for safety or legality.

 

I would just add that the rear "squat" of the vehicle, no doubt due to the weight of rack plus scooter on its already substantial rear overhang, is worryingly apparent on the picture. It leads me to wonder whether any form of suspension aid has been added, and if not, whether it should be? I have the uneasy impression that a deflated rear tyre might just drop the underside of the rack onto the deck! Has the rear axle load been checked in fully laden condition?

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian Kirby - 2019-02-14 11:01 AM

 

...Re the lighting on the scooter rack, barcobird's picture, helpfully reproduced by Derek, illustrates two things. First, that the right hand vehicle lights are all clearly visible but, second, that none of the left hand lights can be seen at all.

 

Snag is that barcobird’s latest photo (reproduced below) clearly shows that the scooter DOES obstruct the lowest of the Pilote’s rear lights on both sides :-( :-( :-(

[Barcobird]

Brian Kirby - 2019-02-14 11:01 AM

I would just add that the rear "squat" of the vehicle, no doubt due to the weight of rack plus scooter on its already substantial rear overhang, is worryingly apparent on the picture. It leads me to wonder whether any form of suspension aid has been added, and if not, whether it should be? I have the uneasy impression that a deflated rear tyre might just drop the underside of the rack onto the deck! Has the rear axle load been checked in fully laden condition?

 

Don’t get me started on that subject. I posted on here not long after I bought it, that’s another story entirely which I don’t want to get into now, I’m depressed enough already. I will say that many options have been suggested but the only system I can use because of the Alko chassis is the Alko Air Plus which would give me about 5cms for over 3 grand. It’s not possible to use the bellow type which you pump up. Needless to say the back end catches on the slightest incline which is crazy.

[Barcobird]

The more I think about this situation the more it leads me to the conclusion of the dealer not doing his job. I ordered an English spec LHD. All the sockets inside are English, so therefore all the exterior lights should be English spec *-) including the trailer board as they also organised the scooter rack.

[Brian Kirby]

Barcobird - 2019-02-14 2:25 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2019-02-14 11:01 AM

I would just add that the rear "squat" of the vehicle, no doubt due to the weight of rack plus scooter on its already substantial rear overhang, is worryingly apparent on the picture. It leads me to wonder whether any form of suspension aid has been added, and if not, whether it should be? I have the uneasy impression that a deflated rear tyre might just drop the underside of the rack onto the deck! Has the rear axle load been checked in fully laden condition?

 

Don’t get me started on that subject. I posted on here not long after I bought it, that’s another story entirely which I don’t want to get into now, I’m depressed enough already. I will say that many options have been suggested but the only system I can use because of the Alko chassis is the Alko Air Plus which would give me about 5cms for over 3 grand. It’s not possible to use the bellow type which you pump up. Needless to say the back end catches on the slightest incline which is crazy.

I seem to remember suggesting you checked with AlKo UK in your earlier string re the rack as, if I remember correctly, it is not an AlKo authorised product. Not wishing to add to your misery, but our previous van was on an AlKo chassis and there were quite stringent conditions regarding fitting racks/tow brackets to the chassis if the warranty was not to be compromised. Again if I remember, this had to do with Type Approval requirements which mean that a TA rack must be fitted to a TA chassis.

 

There are also UK Construction and Use regulations regarding the maximum projection behind the rear axle of vehicles, expressed as a ratio of wheelbase. The permanently attached rack would, I think, count as part of the vehicle, so the actual overhang may exceed what is permitted. If it does, it would give a strong indication why the rear ground clearance is causing problems.

 

I still think it would be wise to make these checks, as it is at least possible that the reason the rack is catching the ground is that it is an inappropriate rack.

 

I would also strongly suggest (unless you have already done this) that you take the fully laden (in full normal travelling trim, with everyone and everything on board, including gas, water, full fuel tank etc.) van to a weighbridge and see what the actual rear axle load is with the scooter on board.

 

With the tail riding as low as it does, you would be likely to get pulled over at a roadside vehicle check and, if the rear were significantly overloaded, ordered to shed the excess weight there and then. But, beyond that consideration, there is the possibility that if the actual rear axle load exceeds the permissible load, the rear tyres are also outside their safe limits, leaving them prone to overheating and possible blow-out.

 

If you find there is a problem with rear axle loading you could also take this up with AlKo, as it is possible the rear suspension might be able to be altered to cope with the excess load - although this may also require the rear tyres to be changed.

 

In your original posting re your Pilote you reasonably said you had ordered the van, plus rack, via an accredited UK Pilote dealership and had relied on them, in conjunction with Pilote, to get the combination right. It is now beginning to appear that your confidence may have been misplaced, and that errors may have been made. Under these circumstances, I would check, confirm, and record these non-compliances (with evidence) and then present them to the dealer in writing (quoting your sources), so that instead of being able to claim that all is alright, he would be obliged to deal with them factually, and put right what is incorrect.

 

At present it seems the dealer has not complied with the minimum legal requirements for UK registration so far as front and rear lighting is required, and has not arranged compliant rear lighting for the scooter rack. Additionally, it seems he may well have fitted a scooter rack that compromises the AlKo chassis warranty, that has inadequate ground clearance, and in conjunction with the scooter, may well be causing rear axle overload (which would also negate the AlKo warranty), plus consequent rear tyre overload which in both cases are offences, as well as potentially dangerous.

 

In effect, he seems to have supplied you with a seriously compromised motorhome, that you may find when the actual loads (both axles plus MAM) are known, does not allow you to use it legally as intended. My reaction to what I have read is that it is now time to get all the ducks in a row, and then take them back to the dealer to resolve, including obtaining written assurance from AlKo as to their take on their warranty.

 

Whether through error or otherwise, my present impression is that you have been let down by the dealer and he should be given the opportunity to put things right. If he then can't/won't rectify them all, you may eventually have to consider taking legal advice on obtaining redress.

[Derek Uzzell]

Barcobird’s Pilote Galaxy 741G is built on a Fiat/AL-KO ‘heavy’ chassis (4400kg MAM?) so will have 16”-diameter wheels and 225/75 R16CP tyres. That specification OUGHT to be adequate to avoid overloading of the vehicle’s rear-axle and/or tyres even with a scooter on the rear rack, but obviously it would make sense to weigh the vehicle to check that this is indeed so.

 

The simple fact is that the Pilote 741G model is unsuitable for carrying a scooter on a rear-mounted rack. Neither a scooter-rack nor a bicycle carrier is offered by Pilote as a factory-fit option (presumably because the 741G has a very large rear ‘garage’) so the rack on barcobird’s Pilote will have been a dealer-fit.

 

The rack-grounding issue was discussed in depth in barcobird’s earlier postings

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Air-suspension/47157/

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Notch-/50328/

 

and the photos show that - even with the modifications that have been made to the original rack - grounding of the rack will be an ever present risk. An ‘air’ system could be fitted to the motorhome’s rear suspension, but this would need to be manually controlled to raise the vehicle’s rear end when (say) boarding a ferry unless barcobird were prepared to drive the Pilote always tail-high.

 

With hindsight, the dealer should have told barcobird that carrying a scooter on a rear-mounted rack was an unrealistic requirement if the intention was to own a Pilote Galaxy 741G, but that’s clearly not what happened. I remember asking a (very reputable) motorhome dealer what they did if someone was hellbent on buying a vehicle that the dealer wa pretty sure would probably be unsuitable for how the buyer said it was to be used. The answer was that they would try to dissuade the person from buying the motorhome but, if the buyer was insistent, what could they do?

[Barcobird]

Derek Uzzell - 2019-02-15 8:52 AM

With hindsight, the dealer should have told barcobird that carrying a scooter on a rear-mounted rack was an unrealistic requirement if the intention was to own a Pilote Galaxy 741G, but that’s clearly not what happened. I remember asking a (very reputable) motorhome dealer what they did if someone was hellbent on buying a vehicle that the dealer wa pretty sure would probably be unsuitable for how the buyer said it was to be used. The answer was that they would try to dissuade the person from buying the motorhome but, if the buyer was insistent, what could they do?

 

At no stage what is it even suggested a rack was not a good option. I asked if a scooter rack could be fitted and " no problem " was the answer. Presumably another "earner" !

[Keithl]

Will the scooter not fit in the garage and ditch the rack?

 

This would also bring the scooters weight forward and help with rear axle loading. As well as losing the weight of the rack.

 

Keith.

[Barcobird]

Keithl - 2019-02-15 9:23 AM

 

Will the scooter not fit in the garage and ditch the rack?

 

This would also bring the scooters weight forward and help with rear axle loading. As well as losing the weight of the rack.

 

Keith.

 

Yes it would is the straight answer.

 

BUT what a pain in the butt ! Mauling a scooter into a confined space is not my idea of fun. Everything else we carry in the garage would have to be packed around it meaning every time you want the scooter you would have to empty everything out.

When something is requested and paid for you expect it to do what it's designed to do and also within the law. This is another reason I requested the heavier chassis.

[Barcobird]

Things get better :$

 

I have just measured from the centre of the front and back wheels which is 407 cms taking 60 % of that gives me the allowable overhang. The centre of the rear wheel to the back of the motor home is 244 cms.

 

That in my calculation is bang on so the factory has it right (lol)

 

The only problem I see now is the rack :$ Thats added 62cms so presumably it’s illegal.

 

So apart from the lights the dealer has cocked this up as well >:-)

[Derek Uzzell]

There is an alternative formula to the ’60%-of-the-wheelbase’ rule that allows a significantly longer rear overhang. I’ve copied the following from a posting I made in 2012:

 

(Summarised) overhang rules are as follows:

 

For cars and heavy motor cars (eg. motorhomes) the maximum permitted rear overhang of the body beyond the wheelbase must not exceed 60% of the vehicle's wheelbase.

 

In the case of a two-axled vehicle, the overhang is measured from the centre line of the rear axle.

 

In the case of a three-axled vehicle, overhang is measured from a point 110 millimetres to the rear of a point midway between the centres of the two rear-most axles.

 

The wheelbase itself is measured from the centre of the front axle to the point from which overhang is measured.

 

ALTERNATIVELY, when a vehicle pulls away from a stationary postion on a 12.5 metre radius, the maximum distance its rear may swing out must not exceed 0.8 metres.

 

The application of this alternative formula has resulted in some two-axled motorhomes ending up with a rear overhang in excess of 70% of wheelbase.

 

(If you want some light reading relating to the 'alternative' formula, refer to Directive 97/27/EC.)

 

There’s also the question of whether something tacked on to the back of a motorhome is relevant to the rear-overhang calculation - essentially, whether the thing is ‘permanent’ (when it counts) or not (when it does not.)

 

My understanding is that if something (say, a rear-mounted platform) could be removed without requiring tools to do this, it would not be considered ‘permanent’ and would not count overhang-wise. Conversely, If the platform were firmly bolted to the motorhome, it would be considered ‘permanent’ and should count. Not sure what the regulatory position is when a load-carrier can fold-down or slide rearwards.

 

In your case, even though the scooter-rack has extended the motorhome’s length by 62cm and the rack is considered to be ‘permanent’, it may still be the case that the vehicle is still ‘legal’ when the ALTERNATIVE formula is applied.

 

Rear-overhang calculation is largely a red herring - the dealer’s sin of omission was, when you asked if a scooter-rack could be fitted, the dealer’s reply was literal. Fitting a scooter-rack to a Pilote 741G could be done without any great difficulty, but the rack when fitted would inevitably be vulnerable to grounding. If the dealer had said “Fitting a rack’s OK, but it would probably ground", you might well have chosen not to have a rack.

 

 

 

[Barcobird]

Derek Uzzell - 2019-02-15 1:33 PM

 

There is an alternative formula to the ’60%-of-the-wheelbase’ rule that allows a significantly longer rear overhang. I’ve copied the following from a posting I made in 2012:

 

(Summarised) overhang rules are as follows:

 

For cars and heavy motor cars (eg. motorhomes) the maximum permitted rear overhang of the body beyond the wheelbase must not exceed 60% of the vehicle's wheelbase.

 

In the case of a two-axled vehicle, the overhang is measured from the centre line of the rear axle.

 

In the case of a three-axled vehicle, overhang is measured from a point 110 millimetres to the rear of a point midway between the centres of the two rear-most axles.

 

The wheelbase itself is measured from the centre of the front axle to the point from which overhang is measured.

 

ALTERNATIVELY, when a vehicle pulls away from a stationary postion on a 12.5 metre radius, the maximum distance its rear may swing out must not exceed 0.8 metres.

 

The application of this alternative formula has resulted in some two-axled motorhomes ending up with a rear overhang in excess of 70% of wheelbase.

 

(If you want some light reading relating to the 'alternative' formula, refer to Directive 97/27/EC.)

 

There’s also the question of whether something tacked on to the back of a motorhome is relevant to the rear-overhang calculation - essentially, whether the thing is ‘permanent’ (when it counts) or not (when it does not.)

 

My understanding is that if something (say, a rear-mounted platform) could be removed without requiring tools to do this, it would not be considered ‘permanent’ and would not count overhang-wise. Conversely, If the platform were firmly bolted to the motorhome, it would be considered ‘permanent’ and should count. Not sure what the regulatory position is when a load-carrier can fold-down or slide rearwards.

 

In your case, even though the scooter-rack has extended the motorhome’s length by 62cm and the rack is considered to be ‘permanent’, it may still be the case that the vehicle is still ‘legal’ when the ALTERNATIVE formula is applied.

 

Rear-overhang calculation is largely a red herring - the dealer’s sin of omission was, when you asked if a scooter-rack could be fitted, the dealer’s reply was literal. Fitting a scooter-rack to a Pilote 741G could be done without any great difficulty, but the rack when fitted would inevitably be vulnerable to grounding. If the dealer had said “Fitting a rack’s OK, but it would probably ground", you might well have chosen not to have a rack.

 

 

 

I’m pretty sure Derek if I am stopped by the police they will use one method, tape measure wheel to wheel x 60% *-)

 

Incidentally I have contacted Alko direct and asked if a non Alko scooter rack fitted to their chassis would invalidate the guarantee. They told me to ask the dealer ! (lol)

[Brian Kirby]

Barcobird - 2019-02-15 2:53 PM..................….

1 I’m pretty sure Derek if I am stopped by the police they will use one method, tape measure wheel to wheel x 60% *-)

 

2 Incidentally I have contacted Alko direct and asked if a non Alko scooter rack fitted to their chassis would invalidate the guarantee. They told me to ask the dealer ! (lol)

1 Yes, it seems the simple wheelbase x 60% rule is comprehensively infringed by the rack. The alternative test would be a bit tricky to set up, 'though I guess it might be testable by scale drawing!

 

2 Disappointing response! When I contacted AlKo UK technical in 2014 there was only one advisor in the department. His name was Alan Sanders. I don't know if he is still there, but try asking for him by name, as I don't think he would have given that kind of answer - he was very helpful! I have a direct dial number for him. If you would like it PM me and I'll pass it on.

 

BTW, did you get an AlKo handbook with your van? I'm pretty sure that is where I saw the stricture about not adding unauthorised accessories to the chassis. The warranty had (2013) the same duration as the motorhome.

 

It also gave quite detailed instructions regarding greasing the rear axle trailing arm bushes which, as I recall, needs to be done every year (irrespective of when the Fiat bits are serviced) using the correct grease. There was a service record page on which the mileages and dates for the greasing were to be entered. To do this job, the rear wheels had to be clear of the ground. If not greased appropriately the bushes wear prematurely, and replacement is a costly exercise.

[Barcobird]

 

Brian Kirby - 2019-02-15 6:09 PM

BTW, did you get an AlKo handbook with your van? I'm pretty sure that is where I saw the stricture about not adding unauthorised accessories to the chassis. The warranty had (2013) the same duration as the motorhome.

 

It also gave quite detailed instructions regarding greasing the rear axle trailing arm bushes which, as I recall, needs to be done every year (irrespective of when the Fiat bits are serviced) using the correct grease. There was a service record page on which the mileages and dates for the greasing were to be entered. To do this job, the rear wheels had to be clear of the ground. If not greased appropriately the bushes wear prematurely, and replacement is a costly exercise.

 

First I've heard about Alko handbook, so that's something else I have to sort out!

The "owners manual" we received from Pilote is next to useless as well, in fact when at the factory and they did a water ingress test he said there should be a book for them to stamp which we've never had !

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2019-02-15 8:52 AM

Barcobird’s Pilote Galaxy 741G is built on a Fiat/AL-KO ‘heavy’ chassis (4400kg MAM?) so will have 16”-diameter wheels and 225/75 R16CP tyres. That specification OUGHT to be adequate to avoid overloading of the vehicle’s rear-axle and/or tyres even with a scooter on the rear rack, but obviously it would make sense to weigh the vehicle to check that this is indeed so...…………...

There is a "ready reckoner" for rear axle load on Armitage's website that seems to work reasonably well. Link here: http://tinyurl.com/y4ypyfvk

 

Just scroll down the page until you get to the READY RECKONER and click on that, and it will open a simple Excel spreadsheet. I've tried it out and it seems to work well. (Warning, you may have to enable editing to do this, with accompanying warnings about importing viruses.)

 

Don't bother with anything other than row 7, and then enter only the wheelbase, the rear overhang (measuring to the centre of gravity of the scooter when mounted on the rack - I used 2790) in the appropriate columns, plus the weight of scooter plus rack (they suggest 60kg) in the column headed "Weight of new load (kg)" (I entered 180kg: 60kg for the rack plus 120kg for the scooter). For these values, I got a rear axle load of 303.39kg.

 

The "heavy" rear axle has a max permissible load of 2,400kg, so the scooter alone (using my probably worst case figures) reduces this to about 2,110kg. If heavier items are carried in the garage, plus half the total load carried between the axles, in a van of this size, I suspect the actual, fully laden, rear axle load will be fairly close to its maximum.

 

The ideal, as stated before, would be to fully load the van with scooter and all passengers, toys, pets, water, fuel, food, liquids etc. etc. - exactly as for a trip, and take it to a weighbridge to see what the scales say.

 

This is not really a dealer fault, but it is wise to check the fully laden state of the van against its legal limits - especially on large vans with lots of inviting cupboards to accommodate lots of useful stuff! :-D It is surprising how it all adds up.

[Barcobird]

Brian Kirby - 2019-02-15 7:12 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2019-02-15 8:52 AM

Barcobird’s Pilote Galaxy 741G is built on a Fiat/AL-KO ‘heavy’ chassis (4400kg MAM?) so will have 16”-diameter wheels and 225/75 R16CP tyres. That specification OUGHT to be adequate to avoid overloading of the vehicle’s rear-axle and/or tyres even with a scooter on the rear rack, but obviously it would make sense to weigh the vehicle to check that this is indeed so...…………...

There is a "ready reckoner" for rear axle load on Armitage's website that seems to work reasonably well. Link here: http://tinyurl.com/y4ypyfvk

 

Just scroll down the page until you get to the READY RECKONER and click on that, and it will open a simple Excel spreadsheet. I've tried it out and it seems to work well. (Warning, you may have to enable editing to do this, with accompanying warnings about importing viruses.)

Hi Brian, the ready reckoner doesn't appear to be on their website any more. I have been to a weighbridge today and the vehicle fully laden with water, fuel, two people, scooter and various bits and pieces weighed 4500kgs. The weight on the back axle was 2880kgs, this is all a bit technical for me, Would you or Derek mind confirming if this under the permissible weights, you mentioned a maximum permissible load of 2400kgs ?