Bailey motorhomes advice and 760 Approach SE

[Barryd999]

laimeduck - 2022-05-16 12:37 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2022-05-15 1:31 PM......................................

 

I have not had first hand experience of loading a scooter into a garage but I have on several occasions watched with some amusement and I have to admit at times slight smugness on Aires my fellow travellers struggling to get them in or out. Not impossible but a huge step back from what we have now which is just so easy its unbelievable.

 

 

I load our MadAss 125cc, 100Kg into the garage and can easily do it on my own. It's 5 mins Max, less if my wife helps.

 

I push the bike up the ramp backwards and because my left hand is on the front brake, can stop at any point. Once the rear wheel is on the floor of the garage I inch the bike up by rotating the front wheel with my right hand, either on the tyre or the solid spokes.

 

I think the problem with scooters is that the wheels are so small so you can't use them to help get the bike up the ramp. I think you have total control if you push the bike up backwards, and little control if you try to do it forwards. But with the spoked wheels of a Honda Vision I don't see it would be a problem at all. You would have to remove the rear view mirrors each load, but that's not a problem either.

I also ensure that the bike is as close to the front garage bulkhead as possible, to minimise the overhang problem.

The rear fixed double bed on the Benimar is moveable vertically. So when we are loading we have it high, then at destination we remove the MadAss and chain her to the towing eye, and the bed is lowered for normal use.

 

So in summary, I wouldn't discount putting your bike in the garage - with a bit of planning and some thought it works well - and of course is out of sight when stopped.

 

Jeremy

 

Thanks but I cant see me pushing a 100kg bike backwards up a ramp with my knees. Sounds like a recipe for disaster! Even if I could get my head around the layout change I think I might struggle at the moment at least with that procedure. Mrs D has categorically ruled out an over garage fixed bed anyway. I'm not keen but more open to new layout ideas.

 

The major advantage for me with the rack is just how easy it is to put the bike on and take it off because no effort is required whatsoever as you can rev the bike up its ramp onto the rack. A child could do it. Over seat clamp, strap through front wheel. Thats it. 1 min job.

[pepe63xnotuse]

Whilst I would personally go for a large RWD van conversion, over an over-bodied frontwheel drive "flimsy" coachbuilt, the fact is there aren't very many(any?) of the former available off-the-shelf..and as you(Barry) are now used to spending many weeks/months at a time in quite a large coachbuilt, I can't help but think that you would find something like a Sprinter quite claustrophobic ?

 

Some years ago we travelled to look at a lwb Iveco conversion (a Devon, of sorts?) , and it surprised us just how closed-in it felt.

It's tapering walls, lined with selfbuild-esque carpet and quite small windows made it feel very crammed.

 

If you were going to go the "bespoke" van conversion route, I think you would've wanted/known that was your preferred route some years ago?..

[Barryd999]

pepe63 - 2022-05-16 2:30 PM

 

Whilst I would personally go for a large RWD van conversion, over an over-bodied frontwheel drive "flimsy" coachbuilt, the fact is there aren't very many(any?) of the former available off-the-shelf..and as you(Barry) are now used to spending many weeks/months at a time in quite a large coachbuilt, I can't help but think that you would find something like a Sprinter quite claustrophobic ?

 

Some years ago we travelled to look at a lwb Iveco conversion (a Devon, of sorts?) , and it surprised us just how closed-in it felt.

It's tapering walls, lined with selfbuild-esque carpet and quite small windows made it feel very crammed.

 

If you were going to go the "bespoke" van conversion route, I think you would've wanted/known that was your preferred route some years ago?..

 

You might be right. On the odd occasions I have looked at them I have been impressed but then we kind of both look at each other and think "Too small". Some of the big PVCs are not much shorter than our van though but ive not seen one in the flesh.

 

I suspect we will end up with a Esprit or Bessaccar 496 at some point. There is always the humongous Autotrail Arapaho tag or the mighty Kontiki 649 tag but I would rather stick to two axles if possible. I would still consider the Bailey if I could find someone that has maybe remedied the dodgy floor skirts.

 

Whatever we end up with needs to be as spot on (for us) as this van has been as Ill probably keep it until we pack up motorhoming or until it falls to bits which ever comes soonest.

[pepe63xnotuse]

I won't pretend to be "up to speed" on what models are what nowadays..but arent Bessacarrs just Swifts? (like Elddis are/ were Compass?)

 

What has it come to, when the likes of a Swift is one of the few options you feel you have let? ... (lol)

[simian]

 

Remedy for the dodgy floor/wall junction, is reseal the skirt, (well away from prying eyes) or that TV bloke Dom? and then flog the van.

[Bulletguy]

pepe63 - 2022-05-16 2:30 PM

 

If you were going to go the "bespoke" van conversion route, I think you would've wanted/known that was your preferred route some years ago?..

Like this bloke who did his entire self build conversion himself. No faffing around mithering over moped weight and where to stick it. He has a motorbike which goes on the roof and built a crane to winch it off 'n on! (lol)

 

 

and if you want to see inside;

 

Self build is the only direction to go if you want everything as you want it, otherwise every van layout is a compromise.

[simian]

Bulletguy - 2022-05-16 4:04 PM

 

pepe63 - 2022-05-16 2:30 PM

 

If you were going to go the "bespoke" van conversion route, I think you would've wanted/known that was your preferred route some years ago?..

Like this bloke who did his entire self build conversion himself. No faffing around mithering over moped weight and where to stick it. He has a motorbike which goes on the roof and built a crane to winch it off 'n on! (lol)

 

 

and if you want to see inside;

 

Self build is the only direction to go if you want everything as you want it, otherwise every van layout is a compromise.

 

I find most selfbuilders are like myself, in that they are always finding something else to tweak change or improve. I took 3 months to 95% complete my present van, having more time would have no doubt produced better results. I used a very rapid method of lightweight furniture construction utilising readily available materials, emphasis was to be off travelling Morocco, northern Algeria rather than spending the winter in blighty.

 

Just installed a 5kW Chinese diesel heater, didn't plan for that 25 years ago, had to put the hot air outlet and grille through a door, if it went wrong just a bit of Japanese veneer ply, some frame edging a spare couple of hours and mistake remedied. I wonder if I'd dare to do the same if it was a new Concord or Morelo?

[Barryd999]

Bulletguy - 2022-05-16 4:04 PM

 

pepe63 - 2022-05-16 2:30 PM

 

If you were going to go the "bespoke" van conversion route, I think you would've wanted/known that was your preferred route some years ago?..

Like this bloke who did his entire self build conversion himself. No faffing around mithering over moped weight and where to stick it. He has a motorbike which goes on the roof and built a crane to winch it off 'n on! (lol)

 

 

and if you want to see inside;

 

Self build is the only direction to go if you want everything as you want it, otherwise every van layout is a compromise.

 

Very clever. I have seen huge barges in France with a similar larger crane set up for lifting a car on and off. Mind you I would be half way to the beach or wine bar by they time he got that off the roof. :D

[Barryd999]

pepe63 - 2022-05-16 3:00 PM

 

I won't pretend to be "up to speed" on what models are what nowadays..but arent Bessacarrs just Swifts? (like Elddis are/ were Compass?)

 

What has it come to, when the likes of a Swift is one of the few options you feel you have let? ... (lol)

 

The 496 Esprit and Bessaccar 496 are basically the same van and of course you are correct, Bessaccar is Swift. I think they were always supposed to be a bit more "luxurious". There is a difference in the payload though. I think the Swift 496 is 957kg and the Bessaccar about 30 kg less. Maybe they get posher door knobs or something.

 

Swift get a bad rap but maybe because they sell a lot of motorhomes in the UK. Bound to be a few duff ones but Ive had 14 years use out of mine and its now 26 years old and its done exactly what I wanted it to do which is mainly carry the bike and give us the layout we really wanted. I also like it because its basic, stuff breaks but its generally easy and cheap to fix, I can even do some of it myself. Lack of parts for the base vehicle and just the increasing age is really the only thing thats forcing me to finally upgrade. Not many people get their first van right but I certainly did.

 

I have to resolve this though now one way or another and if I am keeping this next van 15 or 20 years I really want to compromise as little as possible as ill always be comparing it to the old one.

[laimeduck]

Barryd999 - 2022-05-16 6:34 PM

 

Swift get a bad rap but maybe because they sell a lot of motorhomes in the UK. Bound to be a few duff ones but Ive had 14 years use out of mine and its now 26 years old and its done exactly what I wanted it to do which is mainly carry the bike and give us the layout we really wanted. I also like it because its basic, stuff breaks but its generally easy and cheap to fix, I can even do some of it myself. Lack of parts for the base vehicle and just the increasing age is really the only thing thats forcing me to finally upgrade. Not many people get their first van right but I certainly did.

 

I have to resolve this though now one way or another and if I am keeping this next van 15 or 20 years I really want to compromise as little as possible as ill always be comparing it to the old one.

 

I reckon you could be answering your own question here Barry? Why not spend a shed load of money ( but less than a new van that won't do what you want) on upgrading and future proofing Hank the tank?

Better the devil.you know and love?

 

[Barryd999]

laimeduck - 2022-05-16 9:00 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2022-05-16 6:34 PM

 

Swift get a bad rap but maybe because they sell a lot of motorhomes in the UK. Bound to be a few duff ones but Ive had 14 years use out of mine and its now 26 years old and its done exactly what I wanted it to do which is mainly carry the bike and give us the layout we really wanted. I also like it because its basic, stuff breaks but its generally easy and cheap to fix, I can even do some of it myself. Lack of parts for the base vehicle and just the increasing age is really the only thing thats forcing me to finally upgrade. Not many people get their first van right but I certainly did.

 

I have to resolve this though now one way or another and if I am keeping this next van 15 or 20 years I really want to compromise as little as possible as ill always be comparing it to the old one.

 

I reckon you could be answering your own question here Barry? Why not spend a shed load of money ( but less than a new van that won't do what you want) on upgrading and future proofing Hank the tank?

Better the devil.you know and love?

 

LOL! Thats kind of what I have been doing for nearly then years now! :D I would like to get over to the Alps and Pyrenees and further afield again and I just dont have the same confidence in the old bus anymore. Its fine for tootling around the UK but you have some major issue out in Slovenia or Italy and are stuck for parts its game over. It wont last forever sadly.

[Brian Kirby]

I think, from all that you've said Barry, that you're suffering from a dilemma largely of your own making. Your Achilles' heel is that layout.

 

The question is whether you see the layout as the highest priority, in which case you are left with a very small number of, mostly UK manufactured, choices - and an even smaller pool of suitable, available, vans with that layout, or whether you can identify which aspects of the layout you most value, and which you could do without (or possibly accept in a different form). After all, simply stated, you can only buy what has been made, and shopping for long UK made vans on AlKo chassis is bound to be restrictive.

 

The layout dictates a long van which, due to limited wheelbase choices, also implies a longish rear overhang. The added weight of scooter plus rack then dictates a chassis extension capable of taking the load of scooter + rack (hence, in the apparent absence of alternatives, the need for the AlKo chassis), but also dictates a higher than normal rear axle load.

 

Your preference is to retain the rack rather than carry the scooter inboard, which you find better for loading, which is unfortunately less good for rear axle load.

 

The dining area elongates the van by ignoring the possibility of using rotated driver's/passenger's seats. The washroom could be a bit more compact. The U shaped lounge could be somewhat shorter. The kitchen area is also quite generous. And, suddenly, you're at 7.5 metres long, and about 8 metres with the scooter rack. Back to the drawing board? ;-)

[Barryd999]

Brian Kirby - 2022-05-21 7:35 PM

 

I think, from all that you've said Barry, that you're suffering from a dilemma largely of your own making. Your Achilles' heel is that layout.

 

The question is whether you see the layout as the highest priority, in which case you are left with a very small number of, mostly UK manufactured, choices - and an even smaller pool of suitable, available, vans with that layout, or whether you can identify which aspects of the layout you most value, and which you could do without (or possibly accept in a different form). After all, simply stated, you can only buy what has been made, and shopping for long UK made vans on AlKo chassis is bound to be restrictive.

 

The layout dictates a long van which, due to limited wheelbase choices, also implies a longish rear overhang. The added weight of scooter plus rack then dictates a chassis extension capable of taking the load of scooter + rack (hence, in the apparent absence of alternatives, the need for the AlKo chassis), but also dictates a higher than normal rear axle load.

 

Your preference is to retain the rack rather than carry the scooter inboard, which you find better for loading, which is unfortunately less good for rear axle load.

 

The dining area elongates the van by ignoring the possibility of using rotated driver's/passenger's seats. The washroom could be a bit more compact. The U shaped lounge could be somewhat shorter. The kitchen area is also quite generous. And, suddenly, you're at 7.5 metres long, and about 8 metres with the scooter rack. Back to the drawing board? ;-)

 

Well I am pretty sure the Esprit and Bessaccar 496 are up to the job as is the Bailey if you can get one thats maybe had the skirt issues addressed but yes its a small selection. Bailey appeals as it has the shortest overhang and the two 496's appeal as the overhang is slightly longer but the payload is huge.

 

You can of course build your own van as we have already discussed but whether we will get on with even a large PVC I dunno. Ill end up with one of those four options though I reckon, its just a matter of when.

[Brian Kirby]

That's what I thought you might say! :-D

 

Just on payload, be very careful what you believe! First, check exactly what is included in the manufacturer's declared MRO (as they all tend to declare unrealistically high figures), paying particular attention to whether any chassis or converter's options are included (they usually work on the most basic specification of the van, with no options fitted), and then add only a driver at a nominal 75kg, probably no fresh water, and quite possibly a 6kg gas cylinder 90% full (say 15kg including the self-weight of the cylinder).

 

My preference is to strip out all the manufacturer's occupation load figures, so as to arrive at something like what the van weighs as it leaves the factory gate, and then add back what you know you'll add in terms of occupants, water, and gas. The difference between that and the MAM is then your "working" payload. What, of course, almost none of them tell you, is what the actual axle loads are in that condition, for which a weighbridge trip is required.

 

On vans of that length/wheelbase/overhang, your 140kg scooter and rack alone are inevitably going to add about 220kg to the load on the rear axle, while taking about 80 kg off the front axle load. So, I can only reiterate what I’ve said before: with the standard Ducato etc. “light” (3,500kg MAM) chassis, and its 2,000 kg max rear axle load, you’ll need to be very careful not to exceed the permitted rear axle loads.

 

Difficult, isn’t it? :-S

[Keithl]

Barry,

 

Have you tried looking for anything built on the 3 Tonne Mercedes Sprinter chassis? In standard single rear wheel format it has a maximum permitted rear axle load of 2,240 kg so would seem far more suitable for adding a scooter and rack.

 

We have a TowTal towbar on our AT purely as a rear bumper but it extends back from the original Sprinter chassis towbar mounting points under the AT added floor extension and has a plated download of 85 kg but I don't know if this could be increased by suitable strengthening???

 

Something to look at maybe?

 

Keith.

[Barryd999]

I dont think I have Keith. I have always looked at the vans based on the extended Alko Chassis mainly because of generally the reduced overhang and because Armitage Trailers advise these are best for fitting the racks. I believe the latest rack from Armitage does not require a tow bar with the later Alko Chassis so there is a big weight saving there.

 

Yes Brian a trip to the weighbridge is the only way to tell however dealers are often reluctant to do this but in the case of both the Bailey and the Esprit I have weights from actual owners. I know you are sceptical about the Bailey figures but having seen the spreadsheet I am confident that it would be ok, its just the worry of the skirt defect. On the Esprit it has a claimed 950kg user payload and the chap who owned the one I almost bought weighed it himself on his own weigh pads with his gear in and reckoned he had 750kg left to play with. However he did not do individual axle weights so I would still like to see those figures for that van. It would have to be very badly designed though not to have enough free on the back axle with those kind of figures. The weight distribution however as said once you load the back is easier on a van with a Luton as you can counter the extra weight on the back by putting more weight up front in the overcab such as in our case a couple of folding mountain bikes and / or the Kayak. This is how I balance my current van.

 

I think the next step for me is to find another 496 (either Swift or Bessaccar) and persuade whoever is selling it to get it weighed but I am still willing to look at other models. We are off away next week though so once again its on the back burner unless we come across one on our travels (Staying in UK)

[Brian Kirby]

Barryd999 - 2022-05-24 8:55 AM

.............................................

 

Yes Brian a trip to the weighbridge is the only way to tell however dealers are often reluctant to do this but in the case of both the Bailey and the Esprit I have weights from actual owners.

 

I know you are sceptical about the Bailey figures but having seen the spreadsheet I am confident that it would be ok, its just the worry of the skirt defect.

It's not so much that I'm sceptical about the actual figures, Barry, but that I'm sceptical about the picture of the van's usability that they present. That is to say I don't doubt their accuracy, just that the picture they paint is misleading, especially that the usable MAM is 3,850kg. On paper, doing the calculations the way they have done them, yes, but in real life, not achievable! It is marketing hype over-ruling physics! 'Nuff said! :-D

 

On the skirt, there seems to be a possible segway around the problem. Steve' first post above said "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". I took that to mean that the later models (but how much later?) should have the floor panel protected from run-off water. If true, albeit probably at a higher price, it seems going for one of the later models might remove those doubts. However, there's still the "light" chassis to evaluate!

 

On the Esprit it has a claimed 950kg user payload and the chap who owned the one I almost bought weighed it himself on his own weigh pads with his gear in and reckoned he had 750kg left to play with. However he did not do individual axle weights so I would still like to see those figures for that van. It would have to be very badly designed though not to have enough free on the back axle with those kind of figures.

.................................

I have no doubts that the 496s are the better vans from a payload and general usability point of view. They have the right underpinnings. Their shortcoming, as you have already discovered, is their longer rear overhang with its greater effect on rear axle loading (which, however, if it works for the 2,000kg "light" chassis, should be comfortably within bounds with the 2,400kg "maxi" chassis), the slightly increased grounding risk at the rear, exacerbated by the extra length and weight of the rack, and the possible risk that the pendulum effect becomes noticeable. On that last point I would imagine - but it's pure guesswork - that the stiffer and better damped "maxi" chassis would tend to deal with that better than your present van or the "light" chassis.

 

Do you have any weighbridge tickets for your present van? As the others are broadly similar, could you not use that as a model to build a spreadsheet to calculate how the Bailey or Swift models might perform? Ideally, you need the axle loads unladen, and the axle loads laden, and a clear idea of what was actually in the van, and where, on both occasions. You should then be able to substitute the new permissible axle loads for present permissible axle loads, and the new wheelbases and rear overhangs for the present wheelbase and rear overhang. It won't be perfect, but it should give a clear enough indication of whether you're in the right place or not with Bailey or Swift.

 

I have one (now in its fourth incarnation) which I have used as a load check for our vans. I've weighed everything that goes in, and allocated it to the various cupboards etc in the van, so that each cupboard etc automatically accumulates weight as each item is designated a place. Each cupboard is given a centre point location relative to the rear axle, and each axle has a weighbridge derived value in "unladen" state, so as each item is positioned its impact on each axle can be seen, with the cumulative, fully laden, impacts on both axles becomes clear when all items are stowed. It took a while to build, but changing vans only requires a trip to the weighbridge empty, the naming of the cupboards, a bit of measuring, and the allocation of the contents to their respective homes. Finally, a second trip to the weighbridge to prove the result. So far, it has proved accurate to within weighbridge tolerances. Then, any change to what goes where, or what is carried, can be checked by simply using the spreadsheet. Its a five sheet, 72kb, spreadsheet, currently in Excel .xlsx format. Any help? Let me know. :-)

 

I think the next step for me is to find another 496 (either Swift or Bessaccar) and persuade whoever is selling it to get it weighed but I am still willing to look at other models. We are off away next week though so once again its on the back burner unless we come across one on our travels (Staying in UK)

 

Enjoy your trip! :-D

[Barryd999]

Brian Kirby - 2022-05-24 1:14 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2022-05-24 8:55 AM

.............................................

 

Yes Brian a trip to the weighbridge is the only way to tell however dealers are often reluctant to do this but in the case of both the Bailey and the Esprit I have weights from actual owners.

 

I know you are sceptical about the Bailey figures but having seen the spreadsheet I am confident that it would be ok, its just the worry of the skirt defect.

It's not so much that I'm sceptical about the actual figures, Barry, but that I'm sceptical about the picture of the van's usability that they present. That is to say I don't doubt their accuracy, just that the picture they paint is misleading, especially that the usable MAM is 3,850kg. On paper, doing the calculations the way they have done them, yes, but in real life, not achievable! It is marketing hype over-ruling physics! 'Nuff said! :-D

 

On the skirt, there seems to be a possible segway around the problem. Steve' first post above said "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". I took that to mean that the later models (but how much later?) should have the floor panel protected from run-off water. If true, albeit probably at a higher price, it seems going for one of the later models might remove those doubts. However, there's still the "light" chassis to evaluate!

 

On the Esprit it has a claimed 950kg user payload and the chap who owned the one I almost bought weighed it himself on his own weigh pads with his gear in and reckoned he had 750kg left to play with. However he did not do individual axle weights so I would still like to see those figures for that van. It would have to be very badly designed though not to have enough free on the back axle with those kind of figures.

.................................

I have no doubts that the 496s are the better vans from a payload and general usability point of view. They have the right underpinnings. Their shortcoming, as you have already discovered, is their longer rear overhang with its greater effect on rear axle loading (which, however, if it works for the 2,000kg "light" chassis, should be comfortably within bounds with the 2,400kg "maxi" chassis), the slightly increased grounding risk at the rear, exacerbated by the extra length and weight of the rack, and the possible risk that the pendulum effect becomes noticeable. On that last point I would imagine - but it's pure guesswork - that the stiffer and better damped "maxi" chassis would tend to deal with that better than your present van or the "light" chassis.

 

Do you have any weighbridge tickets for your present van? As the others are broadly similar, could you not use that as a model to build a spreadsheet to calculate how the Bailey or Swift models might perform? Ideally, you need the axle loads unladen, and the axle loads laden, and a clear idea of what was actually in the van, and where, on both occasions. You should then be able to substitute the new permissible axle loads for present permissible axle loads, and the new wheelbases and rear overhangs for the present wheelbase and rear overhang. It won't be perfect, but it should give a clear enough indication of whether you're in the right place or not with Bailey or Swift.

 

I have one (now in its fourth incarnation) which I have used as a load check for our vans. I've weighed everything that goes in, and allocated it to the various cupboards etc in the van, so that each cupboard etc automatically accumulates weight as each item is designated a place. Each cupboard is given a centre point location relative to the rear axle, and each axle has a weighbridge derived value in "unladen" state, so as each item is positioned its impact on each axle can be seen, with the cumulative, fully laden, impacts on both axles becomes clear when all items are stowed. It took a while to build, but changing vans only requires a trip to the weighbridge empty, the naming of the cupboards, a bit of measuring, and the allocation of the contents to their respective homes. Finally, a second trip to the weighbridge to prove the result. So far, it has proved accurate to within weighbridge tolerances. Then, any change to what goes where, or what is carried, can be checked by simply using the spreadsheet. Its a five sheet, 72kb, spreadsheet, currently in Excel .xlsx format. Any help? Let me know. :-)

 

I think the next step for me is to find another 496 (either Swift or Bessaccar) and persuade whoever is selling it to get it weighed but I am still willing to look at other models. We are off away next week though so once again its on the back burner unless we come across one on our travels (Staying in UK)

 

Enjoy your trip! :-D

 

I think the Bailey approach 760 SE was only made from 2012 to 2013 (I think). The Swift and Bessaccar 496 highline was 2014-15 (again I would have to check). Not sure if all those Baileys in that short run are the same or whether they rectified the skirt issue on the last run of them. Would be useful to know though.

 

As said though I have the detailed before and after spreadsheet for the bailey and it was within the limits but I also agree the 4250kg chassis will be better but then there is the slightly longer overhang on the Espirt. The niggle at the back of my mind is Armatige reckon the Baileys Alko extensions are all able to take 150kg extra weight but from the photos of the Esprit he reckoned they were different Alko extensions and only rated to 130kg but he said thats above and beyond the rack weight so more than enough for our 100kg scooter. I didnt really understand why he said that figure included the rack.

 

As said for piece of mind I would like to get a 496 to a weighbridge just to be sure. I would say as long as there is 300kg free on the back axle it will be fine. I suspect it may be more than that if my friend weighed one fully laden and still had 750kg free! Will it effect the handling? even with the overhang a 100kg bike on a 4250kg van, I doubt it.

 

I have a ticket for mine from yonks ago and one from the weighbridge in Switzerland. We were actually 60kg over on Switzerland but still under 3500kg which is what they were checking for.