Bailey motorhomes advice and 760 Approach SE

[Brian Kirby]

Scrub that! It is an IVECO Citelis mini-bus base. The front grille "badge" and headlamps didn't gel with the usual IVECO Daily graphics, but it seems IVECO adopted a different front end design for the Citelis passenger range. That may indicate further modifications, possibly suspension mods aimed at passenger comfort, that may be worth checking. Might, or might not, be an advantage! :-)

[Derek Uzzell]

Barryd999 - 2022-05-09 4:06 PM

 

...Thanks Brian. I think the Bailey is on 16" wheels isnt it?...

 

This link is to a a 2012 Bailey brochure for Approach SE models.

 

http://www.southdownsmotorcaravans.co.uk/pdf/sdmc_2012_bailey_motorhome_brochure.pdf

 

The Technical Specification section gives the MPTLM as 3500kg (ie. a 'light' Boxer with AL-KO AMC rear chassis) and the tyre size as 215/70 R15 109Q. A 16"-wheel factory option for 'light' Boxers/Ducatos did not become available until the X290 variants began to be marketed in mid-2014.

 

As far as I'm aware, a Load Index of 109 (1030kg) is as high as a 215/70 R15 tyre-size goes. When the MTPLM of motorhomes with 15" wheels and 215/70 R15 tyres is 'uprated' (say 3500kg to 3850kg) it's commonplace to specify a rear-tyre-size change to 225/70 R15C allowing a Load Index increase to 112 (1120kg). It might be practicable to fit 16" wheels to a 2012 Approach SE and 225/75 R16C tyres with a Load Index of 121 (1450kg), but potential clearance issues in an Approach SE's rear wheel arches would then need to be investigated.

 

Regarding Iveco-based motorhomes, Hobby produced "Sphinx" models for a while (examples on these links)

 

https://www.motorhomedepot.com/vehicle/hobby-sphynx-725

 

http://www.southdownsmotorcaravans.co.uk/stock/2186/new-hobby-sphinx-i770ak-gwmc-motorhome-n2186_002.html

 

http://www.moranmotorhomes.com/motorhome_information/5450e8747d36e/Hobby-Sphinx-I-770-AK-GWMC

 

Phoenix also built motorhomes on an Iveco Daily chassis, but they'll be rarer than hens' teeth in the UK (and in LHD).

[Barryd999]

Thanks for that Derek and Brian although I am a little bamboozled by all your figures Derek and what they mean. Most of the Bailey 760SE's I have looked at (online) were plated at 3850kg. I spoke at length yesterday to the owner of the Bailey 760 SE that sent me his figures. He bought it ten years ago with just 800 miles on the clock so presumably already with a 3850kg plate on and he has happily driven it all over Europe ever since with not only a scooter on but a heavier Honda PCX which is 30kg heavier than my bike. Might be easier if I try and cut and paste some details from his spreadsheet which as you will see he really did properly. This is why its so valuable. If only we had this for every van.

 

From the pics attached you will see the plate, the Armitage calculator, his two before and after weighbridge tickets and all the stuff he had on board.

 

[Keithl]

Barry,

 

There is an error in the 'bailey maths' calculation sheet!

 

The sum of Existing Front and Rear axles is incorrect, it is 1,000 kg too light.

 

The final 'New overall' weight is actually correct as it is the sum of Existing F + R axles plus the added weight!

 

1,800 + 1,660 + 162 = 3,622 kg.

 

So I am not sure if the error has any effect on the calculation but just to make you aware.

 

Keith.

[Barryd999]

Keithl - 2022-05-10 10:02 AM

 

Barry,

 

There is an error in the 'bailey maths' calculation sheet!

 

The sum of Existing Front and Rear axles is incorrect, it is 1,000 kg too light.

 

The final 'New overall' weight is actually correct as it is the sum of Existing F + R axles plus the added weight!

 

1,800 + 1,660 + 162 = 3,622 kg.

 

So I am not sure if the error has any effect on the calculation but just to make you aware.

 

Keith.

 

LOL! Well spotted. Makes no difference though, just a slip up on the spreadsheet for the original total weight.

 

Its very similar to what I did back in 2008 although I didnt go into as much detail.

[Derek Uzzell]

Barryd999 - 2022-05-10 9:36 AM

 

Thanks for that Derek and Brian although I am a little bamboozled by all your figures Derek and what they mean...

 

 

The Bailey Approach SE model was built in three stages

 

1: Peugeot Boxer cab-unit

2: Addition of AL-KO chassis.

3: Bailey conversion of cab-unit + AL-KO chassis into a motorhome.

 

A completed Approach SE should carry a 'data-plate' for each separate build-stage, and - where weight-maxima are concerned - it's the data on the Bailey Stage 3 plate that supersedes weight-maxima values on the Stage 1 and Stage 2 plates.

 

You've provided a photo of a Stage 2 (Stufe 2) AL-KO data-plate showing a MTPLM weight of 3850kg, but if the Bailey Stage 3 data-plate carried a different MTPLM (eg. 3500kg) the vehicle's MTPLM would legally be the value on the Bailey plate (and on the motorhome's Bailey Certificate of Conformity).

 

Bailey's 2012 Approach SE brochure shows that the 740 model had a MTPLM of 3500kg as standard, whereas the similar-length but taller and heavier 760 model had a MTPLM of 3850kg (I'd not noticed this, but it was clearly essential to obtain any sort of credible payload).

 

However, that doesn't change the fact that the 740 and 760 were both built on a 'light' chassis with 15"-diameter wheels and 215/70 R15 tyres, not a 'heavy' chassis that had 16"-diameter wheels (to provide clearance for the larger front brake discs), larger tyres and beefed up suspension.

 

As Steve928 advised earlier, the 760's 4700mm wheelbase does significantly reduce the 740 SE model's long rear overhang, but it also increases the turning circle and the chances of 'grounding' the motorhome's underside between the axles.

[Barryd999]

Derek Uzzell - 2022-05-10 2:04 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2022-05-10 9:36 AM

 

Thanks for that Derek and Brian although I am a little bamboozled by all your figures Derek and what they mean...

 

 

The Bailey Approach SE model was built in three stages

 

1: Peugeot Boxer cab-unit

2: Addition of AL-KO chassis.

3: Bailey conversion of cab-unit + AL-KO chassis into a motorhome.

 

A completed Approach SE should carry a 'data-plate' for each separate build-stage, and - where weight-maxima are concerned - it's the data on the Bailey Stage 3 plate that supersedes weight-maxima values on the Stage 1 and Stage 2 plates.

 

You've provided a photo of a Stage 2 (Stufe 2) AL-KO data-plate showing a MTPLM weight of 3850kg, but if the Bailey Stage 3 data-plate carried a different MTPLM (eg. 3500kg) the vehicle's MTPLM would legally be the value on the Bailey plate (and on the motorhome's Bailey Certificate of Conformity).

 

Bailey's 2012 Approach SE brochure shows that the 740 model had a MTPLM of 3500kg as standard, whereas the similar-length but taller and heavier 760 model had a MTPLM of 3850kg (I'd not noticed this, but it was clearly essential to obtain any sort of credible payload).

 

However, that doesn't change the fact that the 740 and 760 were both built on a 'light' chassis with 15"-diameter wheels and 215/70 R15 tyres, not a 'heavy' chassis that had 16"-diameter wheels (to provide clearance for the larger front brake discs), larger tyres and beefed up suspension.

 

As Steve928 advised earlier, the 760's 4700mm wheelbase does significantly reduce the 740 SE model's long rear overhang, but it also increases the turning circle and the chances of 'grounding' the motorhome's underside between the axles.

 

Thanks Derek. Its that longer wheelbase and the significant shorter overhang that I think makes it possible to carry the scooter. Its exactly the same on my van despite it also being on 15" wheels and the lighter chassis. That said when we went to look at the Swift Esprit 496 on the 4250kg chassis you could see by looking at it that it was a beefier van. However the overhang was longer and according to Armitage the Alko extensions on that one were only capable of taking a bike up to 130kg whereas the extensions on the Bailey are capable of taking 150kg not that would matter as our bike is 100kg. I Cant find the bloody email now from them but he was talking of the capability over and above the rack. Anyway the Alko extensions on the lighter van (Bailey) have more weight carrying strength than the 4250kg heavier chassis van (According to Armitage).

 

I have pretty much ruled out any van that is not on the Alko chassis with a longer overhang. Armitage can fit them to the standard chassis but I believe it adds more weight and on most it will probably take them close or over the 60% legal limit in relation to the wheel base. Apart from the science, facts and figures it just doesnt look right. It actually does look like it would effect handling. The further the distance from the centre of the rear wheel to where the bike is of course hugely magnifies the weight.

 

So I think I am left with either taking a risk on a Bailey and the damp issues, Finding another Swift Esprit 496 or Bessaccar 496 or considering a heavy duty PVC with the wheels as close to the back as possible. The latter worries me a bit as its an unknown. How will it handle, will there be enough payload and can we live with a smaller van.

 

Its scuppered now this year. Ive given up once again and Hank the Tank will set sail in the next couple of weeks once again. On the plus side, I do have a brand new Honda vision to hang off the back. Just need a new van to go with it now. :-D

[simian]

Steve928 - 2022-05-07 11:37 AM

 

Bailey floors are a composite of upper plywood, expanded polystyrene insulation and a lower GRP skin, all with softwood framing.

The wall panels sit on top of the plywood upper surface of the floor with bolts going upwards through the outer floor frame into threaded inserts in the walls (although occasionally they miss or cross-thread so a self-tapping coach screw is used instead, alongside the now-vacant bolt hole).

The one crucial difference between the SE range and later models is that on the SE the outer wall skin did not extend downwards over the floor - only the seal of the skirts to the walls prevents water running down the outside of the walls and into the floor. On all later models water getting behind the skirts will (should) run off the downward extension of the outer wall skin and fall to ground. Still not ideal but a big improvement.

 

Personally this one aspect would put me off the SE range.

Picture attached of rotten SE outer floor frame exposed by removing the skirt panel.

 

 

 

I really cannot believe the poor 'design' of that wall/floor junction. Wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the motorhome was of similar 'quality'. A hapless owner could expect a handful of years usage, Can't have been or are, many (any) of these SEs left on the road older than 5 years.

 

There doesn't even appear to be a water resistant coating on the ply edges, let alone a flashing strip let into the wall sole plate lapping the floor edge. Jeez, relying solely on a sealant joint between skirting and wall, and apparently nothing affording protection from the road must rank as

as about as low as its possible to get in the 'quality' ratings.

 

I reckon it's a photoshopped image put around by a European Motorhome manufacturer ;-)

[Barryd999]

It gets worse. I spoke to a very grumpy Auto Trail salesman yesterday from one of their dealerships up north. I said I was considering one of their brand spanking new Expedition 67 PVC's. He basically said good luck with that! (lol) If you can order one you will be lucky to get it by September he said. What set alarm bells ringing was his admission that the van manufacturers are struggling to get all sorts of parts and are using all sorts to put the vans together and I got the impression, cutting a lot of corners.

 

You have to wonder just what corners have and are being cut with new motorhomes in such demand since the pandemic and now the parts crisis.

 

 

[simian]

You'd be grumpy if you knew a year or two down the line you're going to be flooded with grumpy arse kicking customers making Warranty claims. :'(

[Brian Kirby]

Just back on the Bailey, because it's been puzzling me (I know!! :-)).

 

Bailey's website (for the Approach SE 760 Series 1: 2011 - 2013) gives an MTPLM (or MAM) of 3,850kg. They also quote a payload of 668kg, with an MRO of 3,182kg. The "dummy" MRO load is calculated as driver @75kg, 10 litres of water in the heater, 81kg of diesel, and 14kg of gas: 180kg in all. The van has a 100L fresh-water tank, and a gas locker sized for 1 x 10kg and 1 x 6 kg gas cylinders. Remember, this is the basic ex-works version, with no added options or wind-out awning. So, probable ex works weight of van (subject to the usual tolerances) = 3,850kg MAM – 686kg "payload" - the above 180kg "dummy" load = 3002 kg probable ex-works weight.

 

First, two assumptions. 1) That Steve's figure above for the wheelbase @ 4,700mm is correct (apologies Steve! :-)) 2) that the AlKo plate Barry reproduced above is from the Bailey.

 

I measured the on-screen distances between the wheel centres, the rear overhang (rear wheel centre to rear bumper), and the front overhang (front wheel centre to front bumper). I then applied the resulting ratios of rear overhang to wheelbase, and front overhang to wheelbase, to Steve's 4,700mm wheelbase figure. It won't be 100%, but should provide a working approximation.

 

Result: rear overhang 1,915mm, front overhang 582mm, so overall length 7,210mm. Bailey claim an overall length 7,519mm, so my "rough" measure is 302mm short. The differences are presumably due to some distortions in the photo (I know the true front overhang is approximately 900mm) My conclusion is that, assuming Steve's wheelbase figure is correct (apology again as above! :-)), and that the calculations somewhat understate the front overhang, I substituted the known front overhang figure for the calculated one, giving an overall length of 7515mm), leaving a rear overhang in the region of 2.0 metres. So (following a brief chat with Armitage’s), a scooter on a rack will have its CoG somewhere around 2.6 metres behind the rear axle centre, on a rack weighing about 40kg.

 

I the applied these weights and measurements to my load calculating spreadsheet.

 

Result? A 100kg scooter, on a 40kg rack (total load 140kg) attached to the rear of an AlKo chassis on a 7.5 metre long van with a 4.7 metre wheelbase and a 2.0 metre rear overhang, with the combined centre of gravity of both scooter and rack falling 2.6 metres behind the rear axle, will impose a 218 kg load to the rear axle while reducing the front axle load by 77kg.

 

This brings me to the second thing: that AlKo plate, and Bailey’s claim that the van has a 668kg payload and an MAM of 3,680kg. In practical terms, neither is true.

 

First, the payload. Look at the shenanigans in their MRO calculation. No fresh water on board. No, not a drop. Driver weight 75kg. No-one else travelling. 81kg of diesel on board (a standard Ducato tank holds 90 litres = 76kg. Where the 81kg comes from I don’t know. Possibly because the fuel tank is taken to be 90% full = 81 litres, and Bailey think diesel has the same density as water! It don’t! ??) 10kg water in the heater? Fine. 14 kg gas. Possibly a 6kg cylinder @ 90% full? Total: 180kg. MRO – 180kg occupancy load = approx. ex works weight = 3002kg.

 

Realistically, at the beginning of a trip, full water = 100kg. Driver and passenger = say, 2 x 75kg = 150kg. Full diesel = 76kg. 10kg water in heater. Full gas with max cylinders in locker = 1 x 10kg cylinder and 1 x 6kg cylinder = say, 38kg (Flogas). Total realistic occupancy load: 374kg. So, ex works weight + realistic(ish!) occupancy load = 3002kg + 374kg = 3376kg, and MAM – occupancy load = available payload = 3850kg – 3376kg = 474kg (to be shared between potentially 6 occupants (excluding the weight of four of them)! No food, no clothing, no drinks, no books, no computers, games or W.H.Y. But, you can see why they need to claim that 3,850kg MAM.

 

Next up, the 3,850 MAM. It is, of course, a fiction. It is merely the sum of the max permissible front axle load of 1,850kg and the max permissible rear axle load of 2,000kg. It is a virtual impossibility to load any vehicle so that both axles are simultaneously loaded to their respective maxima. To achieve that you’d need a weighbridge to play on while you loaded it, and as soon as anything got moved one axle would overload while the other got lighter. That is why commercial vehicles are invariably plated to less then the sum of their axle maxima. It is the reason why the standard Ducato, with its 3,500kg MAM, has a maximum front axle load of 1,850kg and a maximum rear axle load of 2,000kg.

 

I can’t find information on the actual, ex-works, axle loads of this van. If anyone has taken one to a weighbridge in ex works condition, it would be interesting to know the results. But, be that as it may, adding in the region of 220kg to the rear axle load, where the rear axle limit is 2,000kg, is going to leave a very slim margin for occupants, clothing, bedding, food, liquids and all the other usual clutter.

 

All I can offer as a comparison are the actual, weighbridge, axle loads on our previous, 6.75 metre long Hymer exis-1 578. Ex-works weight 2,824kg (no-one on board, only jack etc and spare wheel present, full fuel tank). Front axle load 1,508kg, rear axle load 1,316kg. Added load for occupants (143kg), gas (56kg), and water (100kg), brought this up to 3,201kg. Front axle load 1,632kg, rear axle load 1569kg. Our “cutter” (i.e. everything else) brought the total to 3,492kg. Front axle 1,635kg, rear axle 1,860kg. All legal (just!), officer! ?? But, everything is only ever simultaneously full at the point of departure. Thereafter fuel, gas, water, soap and detergent, food & drinks, are all consumed and replenished as we travel, so we never again have them all simultaneously full until the next trip.

 

So, could I have added 218kg to that 1,860kg fully laden rear axle load, and remained within its max 2,000kg limit? Er, no, not by 78kg, I couldn’t! In fact, I could only just have carried the scooter plus rack if mounted directly above the rear axle! Different vans, different results, of course. But any van in the region of 7.5 metres long on a SEVEL base is pretty much bound to have a similar length rear overhang. Given that, to avoid overloading the “light” rear axle and tyres, either one would have to travel light, or have the rear suspension and tyres uprated or, far simpler and probably cheaper (if you can find one that you like!), just go straight for the “maxi chassis” with its 2,400kg rear axle limit.

[Derek Uzzell]

The 4700mm wheelbase is correct for the Bailey Approach SE 760.

 

The 4700mm figure is referred to several times online (including a mention that the figure had been provided by Bailey themselves when an enquiry was made).

 

The AL-KO chassis that results in that wheelbase length has also been employed by Swift. This 2017 forum thread may be worth reading - particularly Steve928's posting of 7 November 2017 10:18 AM

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Bessacarr-Air-assist-suspension/48150/

 

 

 

 

[Barryd999]

But he did have both a driver and a passenger Brian, its on the spreadsheet and the weight of the van with him, his partner and all their gear with the bike and rack on is well within the limits with 250kg to spare.

 

ok so its 1920 on the back so only 80kg left which is why he is running around with no water I guess. Well I would do the same unless I am going wilding and not very far but our tank is forward anyway. He should have maybe stored some heavy stuff in the Luton which is what I do. Our van is perfectly balanced.

 

He also includes clothes. The only thing I cant see is laptops etc but he has more than enough payload left anyway.

 

The proof of it working of course is that he has done it without problem for ten years! Same here with mine for 14 years.

 

However I absolutely agree that until you weigh the van before and after you cannot be certain which is often a stumbling block with dealers.

[Brian Kirby]

I assume the "spreadsheet" is the one attached to your 10 May 09:36 post, Barry? The .pdf version can only be viewed as a picture, so it is unclear whether there are any calculated values on the original, but from what I could see, it seems to be no more than a list of what was in the van at the times of his two visits to the weighbridge.

 

The "tickets" are a bit difficult to read, but it seems the "no scooter" version gives an overall weight of 3,460kg (1,800kg front and 1,640kg rear - so 20 kg out, which is odd) while the "scooter" version gives the overall as 3,640kg (1,680kg front and 1,920kg rear, so 40kg out, which is even odder! :-)).

 

The difference between the two overall weights is 180kg, but there are also differences between the van load on each occasion, so direct comparison isn't possible. However, the actual weight of rack + scooter is 162kg, so the 18kg difference is presumably accounted for by those other load differences.

 

It seems the weighbridge is somewhat insensitive, and that the operator took the axle loads separately, rather than doing the all up weight first (A) and then the rear axle with the front axle just off the platform (B) so that the machine calculated B-A to give the front axle load, which at least avoids anomalies due to the machine's inaccuracies.

 

It's a shame he never got the van weighed empty, with full fuel and no-one and nothing on board, to establish the starting point.

 

Having said that, although there is a list of contents, it seems rather slender. I'm not claiming superiority, but our van load list contains 252 individual items, each weighed! From his weights, it seems he travels very light compared to us. For example, 20 kg of foodstuffs against our 40kg. Maybe we also go for longer trips. My load list is aimed at catering for 10 - 12 week trips.

 

We almost invariably set off with full fresh water and fuel. My spreadsheet includes full gas whatever we actually have on board. The other contents are more or less constant but any variations will be deductions, as the list is deliberately a "worst case", designed only to guarantee loaded legality. Including ourselves, gas and fresh water, we add 560kg to the "empty" van. I check the "laden" spreadsheet against a well maintained electronic weighbridge at a local builder's yard, and the same weighbridge to get the initial "unladen" van and axle loads that underpin the spreadsheet calculations. I've been refining the spreadsheets since early 2006, modifying them as we've changed vans. It has "growed" a bit since the first van, when it was only 350kg, I really can't think why! :-).

 

So it seems we just take more stuff than you do, which explains why we'd definitely need a maxi chassis if we wanted to carry a scooter. As Rich used to say, no right or wrong ways, just different. :-)

[Barryd999]

Brian Kirby - 2022-05-12 1:17 PM

 

I assume the "spreadsheet" is the one attached to your 10 May 09:36 post, Barry? The .pdf version can only be viewed as a picture, so it is unclear whether there are any calculated values on the original, but from what I could see, it seems to be no more than a list of what was in the van at the times of his two visits to the weighbridge.

 

The "tickets" are a bit difficult to read, but it seems the "no scooter" version gives an overall weight of 3,460kg (1,800kg front and 1,640kg rear - so 20 kg out, which is odd) while the "scooter" version gives the overall as 3,640kg (1,680kg front and 1,920kg rear, so 40kg out, which is even odder! :-)).

 

The difference between the two overall weights is 180kg, but there are also differences between the van load on each occasion, so direct comparison isn't possible. However, the actual weight of rack + scooter is 162kg, so the 18kg difference is presumably accounted for by those other load differences.

 

It seems the weighbridge is somewhat insensitive, and that the operator took the axle loads separately, rather than doing the all up weight first (A) and then the rear axle with the front axle just off the platform (B) so that the machine calculated B-A to give the front axle load, which at least avoids anomalies due to the machine's inaccuracies.

 

It's a shame he never got the van weighed empty, with full fuel and no-one and nothing on board, to establish the starting point.

 

Having said that, although there is a list of contents, it seems rather slender. I'm not claiming superiority, but our van load list contains 252 individual items, each weighed! From his weights, it seems he travels very light compared to us. For example, 20 kg of foodstuffs against our 40kg. Maybe we also go for longer trips. My load list is aimed at catering for 10 - 12 week trips.

 

We almost invariably set off with full fresh water and fuel. My spreadsheet includes full gas whatever we actually have on board. The other contents are more or less constant but any variations will be deductions, as the list is deliberately a "worst case", designed only to guarantee loaded legality. Including ourselves, gas and fresh water, we add 560kg to the "empty" van. I check the "laden" spreadsheet against a well maintained electronic weighbridge at a local builder's yard, and the same weighbridge to get the initial "unladen" van and axle loads that underpin the spreadsheet calculations. I've been refining the spreadsheets since early 2006, modifying them as we've changed vans. It has "growed" a bit since the first van, when it was only 350kg, I really can't think why! :-).

 

So it seems we just take more stuff than you do, which explains why we'd definitely need a maxi chassis if we wanted to carry a scooter. As Rich used to say, no right or wrong ways, just different. :-)

 

I Dont think there is a way to attach the spreadsheet properly Brian so I just posted a couple of screen shots. Its still a way more comprehensive and detailed attempt at doing the maths than any I have ever seen. I think most weighbridges will be a bit out, maybe 10 or 20 kg from my research. I think they are more designed for weighing much heavier loads but its clear they are in the right ball park and well within in the limits. He certainly did a more accurate job than I did.

 

I know you keep talking about the maxi chassis being better and able to take more weight but unless the manufacturers payloads are out by miles having the heavier chassis does not necessarily mean more payload. 690kg I think we said on the Bailey on a 3850kg chassis but many vans I have looked at on the heavier chassis have much less with the exception of the Swift Esprit 496 and Bessaccar 496. Maybe they put heavier components and fixtures and fittings on the heavier vans and Swift just never bothered with the 496 I Dont know.

[Brian Kirby]

I know. Trying to understand that basis of motorhome manufacturer's weights has always been a complete pain. Before we bought our first van, so probably some time back in 2004, I had an exchange of e-mails, on the subject of weights and axle loads, with George Collings, who was then the MMM technical editor. In the end I asked George why on earth the manufacturers didn't simply plant all motorhomes on the maxi chassis. His reply was, in terms, you may well ask! :-)

 

Look at the Bailey. On the maxi chassis it would have 2.1 tones front axle and 2.4 tonnes on the rear axle, and could reasonably be plated at anywhere between 3.5 tonnes and 4.2 tonnes, while remaining within the design load limits adopted by Fiat etc for the chassis. So why on earth prejudice a perfectly good van by planting it on an unsuitable chassis and then trying to sell it as being something it isn't. What is the advantage? By selling it as a 3.85 tonne MAM van they exclude anyone who doesn't hold a cat C licence so what have they gained? The maxi chassis is a standard item, as is the heavy AlKo licence. It is true that specifying the maxi costs more than the alternative, but relative to the cost of the finished van the extra is hardly significant. Bought in bulk, and used as the base for all coachbuilt vans, I'd imagine the comparative extra cost would be further reduced. No need to cater for the few with special orders, just down-plate for those who don't have a cat C licence. It wouldn't work for the Approach SE 760 in any case, as there would be pretty well no payload! What would they lose? It's nuts!

 

Re the spreadsheet, I know it can't be attached as such. I wasn't criticising it, only responding to what I could see. I also appreciate that the maxi chassis is no guarantee of an enhanced payload. In the end the payload is the difference between the MAM and the actual ex works weight of the van.

 

Forget MRO: it's a can of worms that is abused by manufacturers to massage their vans to appear to have payloads that, in practice, they (mostly!) don't. The Bailey version for the Approach SE 760 is one of the worst examples I've come across.

 

What your informants spreadsheet really illustrates is the extent to which he was prepared to compromise to carry his scooter within his MAM. I can only say that I admire his flexibility - and that I wouldn't have been so accommodating. But you've probably already guessed that! :-D

 

How you make your present van, on what I think you said was a 3.4 tonne chassis, work within a 1,900kg rear axle limit is completely beyond me, but I'm glad that it does. The problem with comparisons is that we are all do different things, for different reasons, in different ways so, in the end, the comparisons don't offer much help. But for peace of mind and simplicity, I still think you need that maxi chassis! :-D

[Barryd999]

Brian Kirby - 2022-05-12 7:52 PM

 

I know. Trying to understand that basis of motorhome manufacturer's weights has always been a complete pain. Before we bought our first van, so probably some time back in 2004, I had an exchange of e-mails, on the subject of weights and axle loads, with George Collings, who was then the MMM technical editor. In the end I asked George why on earth the manufacturers didn't simply plant all motorhomes on the maxi chassis. His reply was, in terms, you may well ask! :-)

 

Look at the Bailey. On the maxi chassis it would have 2.1 tones front axle and 2.4 tonnes on the rear axle, and could reasonably be plated at anywhere between 3.5 tonnes and 4.2 tonnes, while remaining within the design load limits adopted by Fiat etc for the chassis. So why on earth prejudice a perfectly good van by planting it on an unsuitable chassis and then trying to sell it as being something it isn't. What is the advantage? By selling it as a 3.85 tonne MAM van they exclude anyone who doesn't hold a cat C licence so what have they gained? The maxi chassis is a standard item, as is the heavy AlKo licence. It is true that specifying the maxi costs more than the alternative, but relative to the cost of the finished van the extra is hardly significant. Bought in bulk, and used as the base for all coachbuilt vans, I'd imagine the comparative extra cost would be further reduced. No need to cater for the few with special orders, just down-plate for those who don't have a cat C licence. It wouldn't work for the Approach SE 760 in any case, as there would be pretty well no payload! What would they lose? It's nuts!

 

Re the spreadsheet, I know it can't be attached as such. I wasn't criticising it, only responding to what I could see. I also appreciate that the maxi chassis is no guarantee of an enhanced payload. In the end the payload is the difference between the MAM and the actual ex works weight of the van.

 

Forget MRO: it's a can of worms that is abused by manufacturers to massage their vans to appear to have payloads that, in practice, they (mostly!) don't. The Bailey version for the Approach SE 760 is one of the worst examples I've come across.

 

What your informants spreadsheet really illustrates is the extent to which he was prepared to compromise to carry his scooter within his MAM. I can only say that I admire his flexibility - and that I wouldn't have been so accommodating. But you've probably already guessed that! :-D

 

How you make your present van, on what I think you said was a 3.4 tonne chassis, work within a 1,900kg rear axle limit is completely beyond me, but I'm glad that it does. The problem with comparisons is that we are all do different things, for different reasons, in different ways so, in the end, the comparisons don't offer much help. But for peace of mind and simplicity, I still think you need that maxi chassis! :-D

 

I think you are probably right regarding the maxi chassis moving forward. I believe there is something inbetween though. I am pretty sure some of the Kontikis were 4000kg or maybe 4005kg oddly. Less payload on paper than ours though.

 

Does seem pretty daft building anything that has to be over 3500kg on anything less than the 4250kg chassis though, its just a pity when they do they seem to use it all up anyway on a lot of the vans.

[Derek Uzzell]

A Ducato-based motorhome with a 4005kg MTPLM would have been built on an 'ordinary' Fiat Maxi chassis, not on an AL-KO chassis.

 

(I notice that you been agonising for more than 6 years on various motorhome forums over what to replace "Hank" with . You are going to have to bite the bullet at some stage...)

[simian]

Derek Uzzell - 2022-05-13 7:48 AM

 

(I notice that you been agonising for more than 6 years on various motorhome forums over what to replace "Hank" with . You are going to have to bite the bullet at some stage...)

 

It's the internet innit. So much conflicting advice given with so little qualification, no wonder people prevaricate. All I can say is that if I was aware of of that Bailey floor/wall junction bodge I'd run a mile. Because I ascertain near the top of motorhome owners' concerns if not top, is the presence of damp, or alternatively evidence of the near certainty of future damp ingress. I reckon I could live with 2nd or 3rd choice layout rather than chance sniffing a musty waft of wet rot or worse, dry rot.

[Derek Uzzell]

https://tinyurl.com/2p94htsj

[Brian Kirby]

I've been digging around for what I could find that might be workable alternatives to consider. I took 2012 as the base year because it was the model year of the Bailey.

 

Just looking for available/downloadable brochures/catalogues from reasonably reputable makes that gave length/width/height info plus MAM and claimed payload with a reasonable explanation of how payload was calculated. All have models on maxi chassis that are about the physical size of the Bailey.

 

First good hit was the Laika Kreos and Ecovip ranges (Hymer group). Archived 2012 catalogues downloadable from Southdowns Motorhomes website.

 

Hymer are a possible, but needed too much model searching as I couldn't find a 2012 catalogue that covered the lot with technical details.

 

Final hit was Auto-Trail, who get top marks for the detail in their (downloadable from their website) 2012 brochure that gives MAM & individual axle loads, plus payloads and how they are calculated. Apache 700, plus any of the Frontier range except the Navajo. You can also see how the usable payloads diminish on a 4,250kg MAM chassis as the vehicle length increases! There are quite a few that seem of the right physical size with an adequate payload.

 

Fill yer boots!! :-D Earlier year brochures are also available from both Southdowns and AT.

 

So, if you find the 2012 prices are too high, you should be able to check the specs in earlier years to see if the essentials are still there, and then look for those years as well. Good luck!

[Barryd999]

Brian Kirby - 2022-05-13 1:10 PM

 

I've been digging around for what I could find that might be workable alternatives to consider. I took 2012 as the base year because it was the model year of the Bailey.

 

Just looking for available/downloadable brochures/catalogues from reasonably reputable makes that gave length/width/height info plus MAM and claimed payload with a reasonable explanation of how payload was calculated. All have models on maxi chassis that are about the physical size of the Bailey.

 

First good hit was the Laika Kreos and Ecovip ranges (Hymer group). Archived 2012 catalogues downloadable from Southdowns Motorhomes website.

 

Hymer are a possible, but needed too much model searching as I couldn't find a 2012 catalogue that covered the lot with technical details.

 

Final hit was Auto-Trail, who get top marks for the detail in their (downloadable from their website) 2012 brochure that gives MAM & individual axle loads, plus payloads and how they are calculated. Apache 700, plus any of the Frontier range except the Navajo. You can also see how the usable payloads diminish on a 4,250kg MAM chassis as the vehicle length increases! There are quite a few that seem of the right physical size with an adequate payload.

 

Fill yer boots!! :-D Earlier year brochures are also available from both Southdowns and AT.

 

So, if you find the 2012 prices are too high, you should be able to check the specs in earlier years to see if the essentials are still there, and then look for those years as well. Good luck!

 

Thanks Brian. Yes the Autotrail Apache looks good on paper. I considered one but then I posted on the Autotrail owners group on Facebook a few years back about it and was told that the none Alko extensions they use are only rated to 100kg loading so no good as the rack will be 30-40kg and the bike 100kg. I took their word for it of course (The internet again eh) and stopped looking at them.

 

 

[simian]

Some Autotrail models of yore have chassis extensions consisting of nothing much more than welded handy angle. To be fair, and if I remember correctly, they did prohibit or at least advise against the fitting of a tow bar. The second or subsequent owner may not be in possession of the handbook (or wherever the info was contained) and blithely unknowingly bolt on a tow bar/ball mounted motorbike rack.

I suppose the first speed hump hit at speed was likely to sort the handy angle vans from properly sized C section and RHS models.

 

As for ramping a lightweight motor scooter/bike up to an Iveco floor that can be quite problematical, with a 700mm + rise.

ramp length may need to be be impractically long, depending on how much you resemble Arnie.

 

I used to ramp a 200kg M/bike to 850mm floor height, but needed a 2 part ramp. Starting the bike and powering up wasn't an option

100bhp and one slip and it would have been a quick exit through the windscreen.

 

So now it's rear rack (telescoping to allow back doors to partially open), with lightweight M/bike @ 500mm.

[Barryd999]

Derek Uzzell - 2022-05-13 7:48 AM

 

A Ducato-based motorhome with a 4005kg MTPLM would have been built on an 'ordinary' Fiat Maxi chassis, not on an AL-KO chassis.

 

(I notice that you been agonising for more than 6 years on various motorhome forums over what to replace "Hank" with . You are going to have to bite the bullet at some stage...)

 

I think its longer than that Derek. I bet I can find a thread or two on Facts from maybe ten years ago! (lol)

 

This is as close as I have ever got though with the Esprit 496 that got sold from under us. The main issue I have found when I have been "earnestly" looking is getting dealers to play ball. As soon as you start asking about payloads and the possibility of weighing the van they dont want to know. Thats made even worse in a sellers market like it is now. Its why finding an actual owner with all the weight information on the Bailey having gone through the process was like Gold to me.

 

The Esprit and Bessaccar 496 seems to be the only option if we want the same layout as we have now but despite its 4250kg Alko chassis and its massive 950kg payload I still would like to see the front and rear axle weight figures from an actual weighbridge.

 

Yes we are going to have to bite the bullet pretty soon but its just not that simple.

 

[Barryd999]

simian - 2022-05-13 2:11 PM

 

Some Autotrail models of yore have chassis extensions consisting of nothing much more than welded handy angle. To be fair, and if I remember correctly, they did prohibit or at least advise against the fitting of a tow bar. The second or subsequent owner may not be in possession of the handbook (or wherever the info was contained) and blithely unknowingly bolt on a tow bar/ball mounted motorbike rack.

I suppose the first speed hump hit at speed was likely to sort the handy angle vans from properly sized C section and RHS models.

 

As for ramping a lightweight motor scooter/bike up to an Iveco floor that can be quite problematical, with a 700mm + rise.

ramp length may need to be be impractically long, depending on how much you resemble Arnie.

 

I used to ramp a 200kg M/bike to 850mm floor height, but needed a 2 part ramp. Starting the bike and powering up wasn't an option

100bhp and one slip and it would have been a quick exit through the windscreen.

 

So now it's rear rack (telescoping to allow back doors to partially open), with lightweight M/bike @ 500mm.

 

That kind of confirms what I just posted above regarding Autotrail. I think the Arapaho tag axle is ok, the newer one at least but ideally I dont want an 8.5 metre van which will become 9 metres with the bike on. I also have heard not so good things about them build quality wise also

 

I know there are a fair few vans that can carry bikes in the garage but then we compromise on the layout we want.

 

You say you are carrying a bike on a rack. What van do you have?