Towing speed !

Thirsty though. Much more relaxing to trundle along at 60.

It’s never been clear with a MH if the unladen weight which matters is that of the original vehicle/cab chassis or of the converted vehicle.

The literature with our last coachbuilt MH stated it’s all up weight as 3500kg, the payload as 450kg and the U/L weight as 3050kg. Therefore, I concluded it’s the U/L weight of the converted vehicle which counts for road traffic law.

Similarly, the figures for the current PVC MH show the same formula. All up weight 3500kg, payload 670kg, U/L weight 2830kg.

(NB. The last two figures are from memory and might not be spot on.)

...TW, arent those brochure figures MIRO rather than U/W?

the normal 'calculation' would be MTPLM - MIRO (not U/W?) = Payload.

otherwise, your payload would have to be reduced by driver, passenger, gas, (sometimes) water etc...the normal items that are included in a MIRO figure?

its the 'grey' area between U/W and MIRO that makes U/W hard to accurately deduce...

From the AS website for the Warwick Duo

Weights
MTPLM -3500 kg
MIRO* - 2857 kg
Maximum User Payload** - 643 kg
Essential Habitation Equipment - 10 kg

BB, the following is taken from our AS handbook.

MTPLM 3500 kg
MIRO 2857 kg
User payload 643 kg

User payload includes -
1 person at 75 kg
Essential equipment 10 kg
Personal effects 80kg
Usable payload 478 kg
Additional equipment weight will reduce the usable payload.

I read this as meaning that the unladen weight is the AS ex-works converted weight with the vehicle in its minimum usable state. Others may disagree.

In the handbook for our previous MH, the unladen weight was actually stated as 'unladen'.

The "Mass in Service" of my Marquis Majestic 125 is 1635Kg according to the V5. I've had it up-plated to 3500Kg although the all-up weight with  75% fuel but empty water the other day came in at 2700Kg. Even subtracting the fuel, me and the stuff we have put in doesn't get it anywhere near the'Mass in Service' figure, so what that is based on is anyone's guess.

dwlgll20 correctly referenced the difference between kerbweight and unladen weight.

MIRO (or mass in service), however, is something different yet again. It includes 75kg for the driver and sundry items, but only a 90% full fuel tank instead of completely full. The biggest difference, though, is that mass in service only includes the minimum of factory fitted options to make it a legally saleable vehicle in the market in question. It therefore rarely reflects the actual weight of the vehicle which is almost invariably higher. The only figure which can really be considered representative is the 'actual mass of the vehicle', but this term did not appear until EU directive 1230/2012/EU came into being and even then it only shows up (if at all) as item 13.2 in the Certificate of Conformity.

So (as BB said) its going to be difficult for PC plod to know if a MH travelling at 70 on a motorway is doing it legally or not. And, I suppose, speed cameras won't either.

just thought, what about number plate recognition the police have, will this have the unladen/MIRO/kerbweights stuff on it and automattically flag this up ?  (like no tax)

Also another question, a caravan on a 60mph single carriageway road, and travels naughtily  at 58mph, will a speed camera pick up the fact that it's towing and take a pic? 

To the best of my knowledge, the manufacturers are under no obligation to provide kerbweights or unladen weights, so I don't know where the powers-that-be would get their information from. Only details of MIRO (and since recently, 'actual mass of vehicle') are required.

it just shows how 'unstandard' the manufacturer data is...

unladen weight, mass in running order, mass in service (essentially the same so why not use the same nomenclature?) etc are all used across the market place...

even the MIRO (which Lutz states, must be provided) varies by brand.

a few years ago, i thought i knew exactly what the MIRO included, it was something like....

driver (nominal 75kg), 90% fuel, 90% fresh water, one full gas cylinder, EHU lead and a few other bits and bobs...

one really 'naughty' practice these days is to not include any fresh water, thus (apparently) increasing the payload by 100kg or so...this is sometimes 25% of the payload on a typical 3.5t MH....

still, the manufacturers 'get away' with this by printing a tiny disclaimer at the bottom of page 98 of their brochure....

i cant believe that, even for NCC member manufacturers, we cant get a standard on something as important (well, i thought it was important) as this.....

no wonder buyers are having problems....some, very expensive, but totally avoidable.

thanks, and in the grand scheme of things maybe the police should have better things to do than wonder about MH going at or under 70mph