Payloads

Wow We were looking at the Vigo to exchange for our Affinity but having read these posts I think we will not consider one.

Another point that adds to the concerns and needs looking at is that some makers allow themselves a plus and minus tolerance on the quoted MIRO; not all these days thankfully some don't have the +.

However, there is no such + tolerance on the axle rating or plated MTPLM so a plus MIRO tolerance can bite into the actual payload.

Say the maker quotes just +/- 2% on a MIRO of 1500kgs, that's another 30 kgs of that 150 odd kgs, a massive 20% off it, gone before the van leaves the factory. And when looking 10 years ago some were giving themselves more than 2%.

It is a minefield for those not savvy.

I had written into my last contract agreed weights so the actual payload was not less than Xkgs, requiring the van to be weighed on load cells. It was way out the wrong way, so the MTPLM was up rated to a mutually acceptable value but still below the contracted figure.

I believe that the allowable tolerance of the miro is+/- 5% which means the 1500kg nominal weight could be 75kg heavier that effectively half a typical payload. 

The fact that a battery is not included is in my opinion a disgrace. A modern caravan British caravan,is unusable without a battery therefore it should be included.  To be fair an allowance for gas is now included in the miro calculation. But I can see where the actual weight is specified, a lot of manufacturers state in the small print of their brouchure state that is included but not what weight.   Lunar last year as an exception quoted 7kg iirc which isn't much. 

It would make sense from the consumers point of view for each new caravan to be supplied with an individual weight certificate.   But that's not going to happen. 

The obvious solution is for manufacturers to guarantee that the quoted payload is the minimum one would expect. Whilst it would let you know exactly what you were getting it still doesn't address the inadequacy of them.

...or for dealers to weigh the caravan/MH for the customer as part of the preliminary discussions....weighing pads are relatively cheap for a dealer to have available.

FYI, +/- 5% on a 3000kg MIRO MH is 150kg....thats a hefty chunk to lose off (say) a 300-500kg payload, especially when MIRO now (conveniently) is bereft of any water in the fresh tank, and youll need to put your OH somewhere......so, thats another 175kg lost before you actually put anything in it.....not good if you only started with 300kg.. .you're already over weight.....

not only that, there is no allowance for any of those lovely 'eaxtras/packs' that are sooooo attractive.....or solar panels, or sat systems.....even TV installed by the customer will do damage to payload.

our van had around 300kg of packs/extras on it.....so easy to tick the box....., so difficult to manage payload.....

As I understand it. There is a formula for minimum payload and it is also an eu regulation. 

It is 10L+10N+30kg where L is the length in meters of body and N is the number of berths. So for example if there was  5m, 4 berth caravan the minimum payload is 50+40+30= 120kg.  If there was a caravan with a declared miro of 1300kg and a mptlm of 1420kg.  If the actual miro weight was +5% the actual payload would only be 55kg. Therefore would the caravan still be compliant?

Maybe the caravan club could comment?

Only joking of course,  I've got more chance of being elected next Pope than CC getting involved. 

Back to the OP. The maximum axle load must assume that load is equally distributed across it. Presumably if all the weight is placed on one side   Then if the axle wheels are weighed then if it could be within the total load but if you weigh each wheel individually perhaps one side could be grossly overloaded. 

Boff: your last point is interesting.  The Bailey Unicorn has, over the offside wheel, gas locker, kitchen unit with storage for food and cooking utensils, cooker and microwave.  I asked Bailey whether there is a pattern of the axle failing on the offside but they claim not.  I remain sceptical.

If it's any consolation.  But I have thinking about the weight distribution of our van and it is probably worse   Like yours it is a single axle transverse bed   Unlike yours it has both the kitchen including the fridge and the bed on the same (near) side.   I am going to be quite paranoid now  

. 

Seems to me the manufactures are producing vans not fit for purpose, how do we get representation for the consumer, even the CC don't help. Its all about selling the product at any cost, sooner or later the consumer will vote with its pocket and cease to buy, where will the industry be then, like all the rest shut down. But why we keep buying and not challenging it will still plod on

By looking further than the décor and style when seeking to buy, look in detail at the weight plate and the specification, including the tolerances and be prepared to simply walk away from those not selling workable vans.
I do feel too many of us only look at what we want to, not the fundamentals that we need to and are seduced by the aesthetics of the package. As a generalisation, the reaction we get from sales people indicates we want information they are rarely if ever asked to provide.

Sadly, that has precluded buying UK made vans and will continue till there is a mindset change in the “industry” to give the engineering fundamentals due importance. Not to suggest here all the continentals get it "right"!

I live in hope as I would far rather spend here.