Canopy/Awning advice please

Wouldn't consider not having a canopy, even though we have moved to a caravan. We now have a very lightweight one and at temps here in France at 30c + you need it.

thanks, TT

its, always a difficult 'call' to post something like I did when a poster comes on with a line like....'I've just bought a new lovely xxxxx MH. any issues?'.....

i wish we got more posts that start with....'I'm considering.......' 

payload, or lack of it, is as much an issue in MH threads as caravan ones.....it's whether it can be managed or not, without too much compromise.

folk who come from caravanning and are used to chucking the kitchen sink into their towcar forget that the vehicle they now have to chuck it into already has one.....

We've motorhomed for many years and have been on tour in Europe since May. In hot weather an awning is an absolute necessity ... both as shade from the sun and to keep the van cool. Its also very handy if it rains as it gives you a shelter to get shoes on and off out of the rain without tracking mud into the van.

I would recommend getting tie down straps as well. These run from the front of the awning (or support legs) to an anchor in the ground and stop the awning flapping around if there is strong wind.

I'd leave buying one however until next summer ... the worst of the heat is gone now and you do need to dry the awning out before winding it back, if its been raining.

Enjoy!

Assuming you are touring in summer and stay at one place for more than a day you will want to eat outside with table and chairs. You may want some kind of mat depending on the terrain. A canopy will provide a  sun shelter and keep rain off of your outside equipment so I would say it is quite important. It takes only a couple of minutes to erect and provides some privacy.

Sounds expensive though and watch out for payload. Continental motorhomes are notorious more misleading on weight capability.

"Continental motorhomes are notoriously more misleading on weight capability."

Hitch, want to help me put on this one? in what way, misleading?

most of the continental manufactuters, including the rapido mentioned in this thread, make it clear that the MIRO allows for 20l water.

i looked up some Autotrail and Swift details in a similar thread last week and they both include NO water in the their MIRO figures.

i don't think either is misleading if this info is easily available (usually tucked well away from casual researchers), however I'd say the two major UK manufactureres are darn right 'sneaky' in calculating their figures in this way.

some larger vans (larger than in the OP) from Swift are over 8m (8.11m) and yet can be had on a 3.5t chassis with just over 200kg of 'payload' with no water on board.

with a passenger and a full tank of water these vans are all but illegal (almost certainly compromised on the rear axle) before anything else is loaded.

to give an unsuspecting customer the idea that he can drive away an 8m van on a 'car' license and have years of happy touring is 'misleading' in my book.

the models in question should not be available in the form being sold and are not fit for (motorhoming) purpose, IMHO.

what annoys as much are 'reviews' (by 'experts') of vans which say things like 'payload is tight, upgrade to 3650kg' which does nothing to resolve the rear axle issue...

on a 3.5t chassis, just about any coachbuilt over 7m needs careful managing.....

7.5m is really pushing it and requires very 'light' travelling.....

over 8m is asking for trouble....

Hi BB,

You didn’t expect me to bypass this one did you?!     I know you use the term “some” in this case, but that “some” overall is not a good example of Swift 8m+ vans.   Maybe just one new Bessie, the 599!    The other Bessie’s in this range of 8.11 vans are MTPLM of 3850.  

My 8.06m has a full length Alko chassis stretching to the end of my 8m van, with reasonable user payload and MTPLM of 4250!    Some, actually, one, but not all!

BillC

Happy to be corrected. I have been looking at several continental vans which all seem to be offering the impossible but if some UK makes are the same then they are all guilty. After all, to advertise, say, 100 litre water capacity and then say effectively that you can’t actually use it except when stationary is somewhat misleading.

Maybe I was spoiled with Autosleeper offering over 500kg  payload when tank full.

 hi Bill, yes, on the face of it, I picked the 599 as its glaringly bad....however there are several other larger Bessie vans that are plated at 3850kg. however this is just a smokescreen...

whilst the overall payload appears to be far more 'generous', the 3850kg set up is only the light chassis 'maxed out' using the 1850kg (front) and 2000kg (rear) axle weights.....

so. from the axle perspectives, the margins do not change....and with these large vans, with large overhangs its that 2000kg limit that will breach first.

my own van was plated at 3850 on the light chassis, but our van has a shortish overhang and a A class cab which makes the front/rear weight distribution more balanced.

even running at around 3400kg (race. trim) we are nowhere near axle limits and the extra 350kg of payload could be made use of....not possible with these larger overhung layouts...

im still happy to run at 3.5t for the time being but I have plenty of options, with 120kg spare on the rear and 250kg on the front, another 350kg would make a usable difference...

i totally agree that any van of these proportions should be on the 'heavy ' chassis'....(like your own, as you say).

what's good in that case is that, for someone needing to run a van at 3.5t the 'heavy' van can be downplated yet retain the extra capacity of those increased axle weights....

a simple change that would alleviate many of the potential rear axle issues.....

i believe AS runs its 6.36m PVC versions with the increased axle weights and can be specced to 3.5t for older (or younger) drivers...

even these can be tricky at 3.5t due to longer overhangs...

there are two downsides that come to mind...

firstly, cost.....this would add to any vehicle thus equipped (over a light equivalent).....but by how much I can't say.....probably varies by manufacturer....

secondly, weight....the heavy chassis comes with larger 16" wheels, has larger brakes and meatier construction which adds around 40kg to the MIRO.

while potentially dealing with the axle weight issue, this then puts the focus back on the overall weight, where running at 3.5t now becomes 40kg more difficult....

there is no one answer to this, but I do feel that particular vans, like the 599 and similar can put customers in a very tricky position of they aren't fully on top of understanding the issues and pitfalls.

im also sure that many dealers don't get into the necessary conversations with potential customers early enough in the process as it would scare the hell out of them.....

happy travelling, Bill

just having another look...the 597 Lounge auto (two travelling seats) has only 195kg on the 3500 chassis, again no passenger, no water...(need to allow another 165kg).....so, 30kg left but rear axle limit almost certainly blown.

the 597 and 599 (both four travelling seats) actually weighs 50kg and 30kg more respectively (the extra weight of the travelling seats) so effectively have only 145kg/165kg 'payload'

so how can (effectively) the same van with the same chassis but weighing 50kg more for the seats and 100kg extra for two kids possibly be carried legally?

...the answer is, they can't.

now the sneaky bit...

they have exactly the same chassis, with the same physical axle limits but have been 'paper upgraded' (no physical changes) to 3850kg providing an extra 350kg of 'payload' to 'allow the carrying of extra passengers'.

but the same rear axle was already maxed out on a similar van before the extra 150kg was added.....

hmmmmm......how does that work?

im wondering if these vans were weighed, factory fresh with fuel, gas, driver, passenger and water, whether the would actually still be legal (rear axle) with nothing else in them...?

next time I'm at Highbridge I might ask them to get the weighing pads out.....

Off topic but relevant in the discussion.

the tyre pressures quoted on the door pillar of the Rapido will probably given as 70psi.  Thes pressures can make the ride and handling quite harsh and tooth rattling.

it would pay to contact the tyre manufacturers (probably Michein) quoting the max axle loads quoted on the plate under the bonnet. (Probably 2000 kg rear 1850kg front) and ask what the pressures should be for the size and grade of tyres fitted.  

If get weighed at a weigh bridge, you ,hopefully will have lower axle weights. So quoting those would do no harm.

You may find that the pressures can be dropped giving a much smoother ride.  

My pressures are 65 front 70 rear.  Before I changed tyres the were 60 front 65 rear.  Made quite a difference in the ride over the 70 as recommended by Fiat.

Rgds