Two drop down bed options

[Tony.Mon]

Hi, all. 👋

First post; we don't yet have a motorhome but will do by the end of the year, so I'm in the research phase (the one before the compromise phase).

So due to my snoring (can't hear it myself, dunno what the problem is😇) we've decided that we want two beds, one at each end. But I get a bit claustrophobic in smaller spaces, so when we saw a unit with two drop-down beds that seems a good place to start, as it leaves more usable space during the day.

I tried searching on here but without success- most of the links seem to be about repairing drop-downs - not very reassuring- and a quick play with AI didn't help much either. I see that some models have an option of a second drop-down, and that may be why. 

The list I have so far is:

Bailey 75-4DL

Benimar Mileo 282

Burstner Lyseo 9with the second optional drop down) and 

Rimor Evo 77 Plus.

Are there any more I should consider? And (this might be my first daft question- (of many, probably)- can a motorhome be retro-fitted with drop down beds? 

If there's already a thread covering this, a link would be handy, to save repeating info twice. 

Cheers, Tony

[Derek Uzzell]

Welcome to the Out&AboutLive forums, Tony.

Best to disregard the possibility of retro-fitting a drop-down bed and (to the best of my knowledge) there are no earlier threads on this forum that have discussed your requirement (and, quite likely, not on any other motorhome forum either).

A Roller-Team Zefiro Sport might be worth considering. This is a big motorhome with a large 'fixed' double bed over the cab at the front and a large drop-down double bed over a huge garage at the rear. It's something of a specialised design (with the massive garage being a unique selling-point) but it does maximise the distance between the two beds.

[Robinhood]

It won't be for everyone, but one possibility is an 'A' Class with a fixed rear (single or double) bed, and a drop-down bed at the front. The fixed rear bed loses some of the "openness" of the layout, but the "A" class front is considerably less claustrophobic than a standard cab.

Plenty of models with this layout, both new and used.

[colin]

A better option might be a Snore Wizard. Being at the opposite end of a motorhome might be the worst option, as none are that big, and your partner won't be able to elbow you when you snore.

[Adiebt]

A cheaper more practical option would be for the suffering recipient of the snoring to have bespoke earplugs made . 
I took this  option and they work a treat .

[Tony.Mon]

Thanks for the replies so far! 

She already has the earplugs, I use a throat spray and a nose spray, and in our superking sized bed at home it's good enough. But in a smaller bed; not so good, hence my preference. 

It was an outside chance (of a retrofit option), but "you don't ask; you don't get". I was thinking more on the lines of a motorhome that has a second lift bed option, but where it wasn't specified from the factory, like the Burstner model I mentioned above, which I think is the TD 744. 

Please keep your ideas coming...

[laimeduck]

Get a stand alone awning...one sleep in van t'other in awning. OK on sites but a trifle difficult on a carpark? Alternatively, fit a tow hook and tug a small caravan. I don't think you'll get far enough away from each other in the same motorhome!

(or simply change the wide model? Tee hee!)

[Brian Kirby]

Be careful!  🙂  These are all large vans, so I assume your driving licence is appropriate for vehicles over 3,500 kg plated weight.  I say this because your list is a bit of a mix regarding MAM/payload.  One offers an MAM of 3,500kg with payload calculated by deducting MRO from MAM to arrive at what, IMO, is a woefully inadequate payload for a van of this size.  Another offers an MAM of 4,400kg, which seems much more appropriate for a van of this size.  One offers an MAM upgrade to 3,650kg, but that will not be reflected in the max load that each axle can legally support, meaning it will be highly liable to overload one or other axle when fully loaded.  The remaining van was somewhat coy (even in the catalogue) about MRO and MAM.

My point is that MAM minus MRO is a poor guide to what, if any, payload may remain when the van is been loaded for a real world trip.

Payload is a bit of a minefield, but one that will repay investigation.  For example, MRO tends to include fuel tank 90% full, Gas bottle (possibly one only) at 90% full, and water tank with only 20 litres loaded.  So, one needs to get the technical specifications for each vehicle, and then double check what they actually include within MRO, making no assumptions such as: "the gas locker has capacity for two gas bottles, so the MRO is bound to include two bottles 90% full.  No it ain't!!

Also, be aware that UK gas bottles are usually 13kg capacity steel, whereas German bottles are commonly 11kg capacity aluminium.  Doesn't sound much, but if the manufacturer quotes MRO on the basis of one 11kg aluminium bottle at 90% full, and the gas locker has capacity for two 13kg steel bottles, and all you can get are steel bottles, a good chunk of your payload has just disappeared - even assuming that the gas locker on a German van will accommodate the fatter, taller, 13kg UK steel bottle - which some do, but is not guaranteed! 

For example, if the gas locker is large enough to take two 13kg steel bottles, but MRO has been calculated with only one 90% full 11kg aluminium bottle present, and you then elect to carry two 13kg steel bottles, which will inevitably start off full, your payload will take a 40kg hit.

Similarly with the fresh water tank.  MRO commonly calculated with 20 litres stocked. but if you elect to travel with a full, 100 litre, tank, a further 80 kg of payload has now gone - and you've added no food, clothing, toiletries, bedding, camping gear, toys, bikes etc. etc.

Also be aware that the ubiquitous wind out awning is unlikely to have been included in the MRO unless the van comes as standard with one fitted - and even then I'd check!  What I'm really saying is that with vans of the size you're apparently contemplating, for practicality, you really need an MAM comfortably in excess of 3,500kg or 3,650kg. 

Manufacturers tend to offer large, comfortable looking vans, that can be driven on a normal car licence, because that is what much of the market demands.  The outcome is that many of these vans are illusory, and are impractical other than for short trips in mid summer.   Then, as their owners begin to realise that they've bought a rather expensive vehicle that doesn't do what they wanted, they frequently look to get their MAM uprated.  This is possible, and a significant number do it, but the outcome often  remains unsatisfactory because it is the underlying chassis that is inadequate for the higher loads.

So, for practicality, and the avoidance of "buyer's remorse", I'd say look also for vans with an MAM around 4,000 kg, or that offer a factory chassis upgrade to around that figure.  For the Fiat base this will invariably mean opting the the "heavy" chassis.  Don't be put off by the notion that its ride and handling will thereby be degraded as, from experience, the opposite is the case.  It is built to accommodate the extra load and,  compared to the light chassis, is more compliant, stable and "wallow" free.

All my opinion, of course; others will doubtless disagree.  🙂 

Edited August 1 by Brian Kirby

[Tony.Mon]

Great advice, Brian- thanks!

For anyone else in the same position as me, I found this article explaining MAM and MOR (and other relevant numbers) very helpful:

https://omcmotorhomes.co.uk/motorhome-weights-guide-plates-payloads-explained/

Edited August 2 by Tony.Mon

[Brian Kirby]

You're welcome Tony, and well found for the linked article.  The article does, however, risk causing some confusion as the use of the terminology is a bit "unsteady", but overall it is usefully comprehensive.

One thing it does not mention is that there is a legally accepted tolerance on manufacturer's published MIRO figures of 5%.  Whereas that doesn't sound much, it can have a significant impact on the resulting payload figure.  Bear in mind that the 5% tolerance applies to the published MIRO of the van, so if the one you end up with happens to be at the margin of the 5% tolerance, it will result in quite a dent in your usable payload when compared to what you might calculate based on MAM (which has no upward tolerance) minus the published MIRO.  The tolerance arises because much of the fabric of a motorhome comprises materials that invariably vary slightly in weight.  For example timber, the actual weight of which naturally varies due to differences in density and moisture content even for samples of the same species.  Similarly GRP components can vary slightly in weight between samples of the same component due to the method of production, and so on...............

When selecting a van one can only use the published data as a guide, and IMO it is wise to assume MRO will be 5% over the published figure when assessing what is left for working payload.

You will know whether your driver is over or under 75kg and similarly the weight of any passengers, so can easily adjust the payload figure to suit.  Regarding items such as fuel tank at 90% full, substitute the weight of a full tank.  Similarly the 90% gas cylinder nonsense.   For water I have always assumed a full tank in preference to the silly 20 litres figure - which is intended purely to boost the claimed payload.

It is worth checking the size of the gas locker to be sure it will accommodate the ubiquitous 13kg steel UK propane cylinders since, as previously stated, these are both taller and greater in width than may be assumed on some imported (notably German) vans.  On a van of the size you are looking at, I personally wouldn't contemplate anything with space for less than two cylinders, and would calculate payload on the basis that both would be full.

The weight of any optional extras that are fixed to the van (as in the article, awning, bike rack etc.) will also count against payload.

When you've made those adjustments what is left is what you will take with you in terms of food, liquids, clothing, footwear, toiletries, towels, pets, bedding, mains connection cable/s, levelling ramps, toys, sports gear, water hose/s, tools, etc. etc.

If it helps, our own experience as a couple has been, over 4 vans, starting in 2005, that the combined weight of those items was in the region of 300 - 350 kg.  We took bikes on our earlier trips, but not the significantly heavier e-bikes.  About 90% of our trips were in central and southern Europe, between early April and late June, and again between Late August and mid-October, so "shoulder" season, with the greatest climatic variations being due to altitude and latitude.  If you might travel earlier or later in the year, then it may be wise to assume some increase in weight for extra cold weather gear.  The result should turn out to be somewhat cautious, but consider the advantage of having spare capacity when returning home - all those souvenir knick-knacks etc plus, possibly, depending on where you go, the odd bottle or 12 of various tempting liquids, etc. etc.  

Hope the above helps more than it confuses!  🙂