Is your payload adequate?

From time to time people post about loading their motorhomes and about why they seem to have so little payload.  I have been doing a bit of digging, and hope this post may clarify what you need to be aware of when confronting what is, in reality, a quite complicated issue.

Manufacturers generally declare the loadings of motorhomes in accordance with BS EN 1646-2.  This is a European Standard, adopted by the British Standards Institute, and by the various national standards institutes of the other European states.  Thus, in Germany for example, it becomes DIN EN 1646-2.  This lays down the test loading criteria for motorhomes.  It is intended to ensure that what is sold as a motorhome can be so used, irrespective of where it was made, or sold.  Thus, a French, Italian, or German, motorhome should be built to the same standards as a British one.

The governing criteria are the Mass In Running Order (MIRO), and the Maximum Technically Permissible Laden Mass (MTPLM, but sometimes called Gross Vehicle Weight or Maximum Laden Weight).

The former (MIRO), is the weight (mass) of the vehicle, as manufactured, “including coolant, oils, fuel, spare wheel, tools, and driver”.  It usually relates to the basic version of the ‘van in question, so any options (engine/chassis upgrades, equipment “packs” etc), will increase the stated MIRO.  The weights of these options are usually found in the technical part of the brochure.  The mass of the driver is taken to be 75Kg.  This is augmented, in the case of motorhomes, by the mass of the Essential Habitation Equipment, “corresponding to fresh water and gas storage tanks filled to 90%”.  These loads may vary within ± 5%.  It is therefore prudent to assume the MIRO for your van will be 5% above that in the catalogue!

The latter (MTPLM), is the maxim weight to which the vehicle may legally be loaded, and is given (among other important loading information) on a plate attached to the “chassis” by the maker of the base vehicle and, in a number of cases, on a second plate attached by the motorhome maker/converter.  Where there are two plates, both should state the same values.  If they do not, one or other of the plates may be wrong, and any error should be corrected.  However, it is unlikely either plate will refer to MTPLM as such, so consult the motorhome and base vehicle handbooks for where to find these plates, and what the numbers on them mean.  While checking the plates, note also the maximum permissible loads for the front, and rear, axles; you will need these as well.  These are absolute limits, and must never be exceeded.

The payload, which is what interests us, is the difference between the two.  That is to say, it is the weight allowance for all our camping gear, clothing, food, bikes toys etc.  However, it is also from this allowance that the weight of any options on either base vehicle or conversion, such as awnings, bike racks, satellite dishes etc. must be deducted.

For test and Type Approval purposes (although seldom stated), there is a calculated allowance for passengers and general baggage, that must at least equal 75Kg per belted passenger seat (excluding driver), plus (10 kg × L) + (10 kg × N), where 'L` is the total length of the motor caravan in metres, and 'N` is the number of passengers, including the driver.  For this purpose, for Type Approved vehicles, only belted passenger seats count.  Thus, any seats without belts will not have been allocated a load allowance, ditto any berths in excess of the number of belted seats.  All this is intended to achieve is that when you buy a motorhome, it can reasonably function as a motorhome.  In other words, it is a minimum requirement.  It does not, therefore, and cannot, guarantee that it will be adequate for you, or for how you intend using it.  You will still need a healthy residual payload for options, additional equipment, bikes, awnings etc.  How much?

Well, based upon our own experience, what these figures would give is, very much, a minimum.  Our actual MIRO, from a weighbridge, is 2,737Kg, which compares quite fairly with the catalogue figure, adjusted for options, of 2,725Kg.  Our MTPLM is 3,400Kg and the ‘van is 6 meters long.  There are two of us: the van is a two berth fixed rear bed, with four belted seats.  Payload (MTPLM – MIRO) is 663Kg, which looks quite favourable at first sight.

The Type Approval calculation above would gives a load, at the van’s MIRO, with driver, three passengers and luggage etc, of 2,737 + 3x75 + 6x10 + 4x10 = 3,062Kg.  Our residual payload would thus be 3,400 – 3,062 = 338Kg.  Plenty, you might think?  Well, read on! 

I should preface the following figures by saying they are based upon 10-12 weeks trips, spring or autumn, so a variety of clothing and footwear is packed.  If you think the food weight looks high, I would only say that we do not “live off our hump”, but generally buy food as we travel, and that most of this weight is in the liquids.

In practice, our actual fully laden weight, with fresh water tank and gas cylinders full, excluding bike rack and bikes, fluctuates between 3,275Kg and 3,320Kg!  Our residual payload thus hovers between 125Kg and 80Kg.  With bikes, if we can’t empty the toilet tank and buy some wine on the way home, this can reduce to 45Kg.  Are we profligate?  You judge.

Our normal added load of is made up of 45Kg of clothing (this includes waterproofs, fleeces, pullovers and walking boots as well as the usual under and outer wear), 40Kg of food and drink (fridge contents, milk, bottled water, some wine, fruit, vegetables, some tins, plus the usual dry packaged foodstuffs), 70Kg of general goods (towels, washing kit, cosmetics, soaps etc, general cleaning materials, laptop, books, guides and maps), and 80Kg of general camping kit (electric cable, water hose, tools, ‘van cleaning materials, levelling ramps, windscreen wash, cab screen cover, camping table and chairs).  Thus loaded, were we to carry our permitted two passengers, we should have to shed 25Kg to remain legal!

It is almost impossible to compile a rule of thumb loading allowance for a motorhome, there are too many variables.  However, I do not think we carry much excess, and even getting the load down to the above level involves some disputes as to what to take and what to leave.  We could travel with the water tank empty and only fill on arrival: however, we have found that this is not always practical.  We do not always empty the toilet or grey water tanks before leaving.  The former simply gallops through the chemical, especially if stops are short; the latter is not always possible.

All I would therefore say is this.  If the published MTPLM minus the published MIRO (the crude payload) is in the region of 650Kg, and there will be two of you, the ‘van is probably reasonably viable.  If the crude payload is much less than this, or if there will be more than two people using the ‘van, do your homework carefully before buying.  It would be quite possible for four people to be accommodated within 650Kg, I’m sure a number of people will post to say they do this without any difficulty.  However, in view of the various posts from people who do find their payload inadequate, it would be well worthwhile checking that you are not trying to get a quart into a pint pot before spending your money.

I hope this helps a bit.

Thanks for the research Brian. My own experience with my Rapidi 924 bears out you own experience. The 924 was weighed before our first trip to Spain with full tanks and one bicycle and stocked with food and all the usual bit and pieces for a two month stay and it weighed in at 3560kg; fortunately I'd had the foresight to specify the 3850kg payload. Both axles were within the permitted maximums but it was a bit of a surprise on a six metre van. The +/- 5% can be a substanstial part of the payload and is something to bear in mind when purchasing. In my opinion most vans are marginal on payload if fully loaded.

Bill Ord

Brian,

An excellent write-up of this difficult subject. I would add three comments:

1. A glance down the listings in MMM shows a lot of brand new motohomes with a lot less payload than you manage. Most 6-berth 'vans, even if they have 6 belted seats, will be unusable unless 4 of the passengers are very small infants!

2. It's worth checking this and getting it right as the UK police are currently having a motorhome purge. You may get stopped! A well-known member of the MMM team was on the way to the York Show last year.

3. If you have an accident and are overweight, your insurance company will probably still honour Third Party claims, but don't expect them to pay out for repairs to or replacement of your wrecked motorhome and its contents. This could be a loss of £20,000 or £40,000 or even more.

In other words, there is NO POINT IN PAYING OUT FOR A FULLY COMPREHENSIVE POLICY if you are going to drive overweight - they won't pay up on the claim! (Sorry for the caps, but the shouting is intentional!)

Brian, you do yourself an injustice, your advice doesn't help a bit it helps a lot and should be compulsory reading for everyone here. It is simply the best and most informative write up I have seen on this topic.

The alarming thing is how many new vans offer less than a 500k pay load in standard trim. Hymer, amongst other importers, are a long standing "villain" in this respect and irresponsibly offer the latest £60,395 B-Class 654 SL with just a 380k load capacity. How does that square with the regulations you have described? Now I know that one of the issues is the 3,500k licencing limits in Germany and I know that the chassis can be upgraded to increase the pay load but it doesn't alter the fact that this how the base model is spec'd and marketed - and I wonder how many UK buyers (particularly first time buyers) are told about this at the point of sale, and how many of our German friends are driving around in extremely dangerous vehicles. Arguably Hymer are not the worst offenders a glance at MMM model listing will show just how many manufacturers simply do not provide the information at all.

Finally while I'm on a rant, I think the trade press are doing us a disservice by not highlighting this situation in test reports. My view is that reviewers should decline to road test any model offerred to them with a pay load that doesn't measure up to guidance you've set out. They can comment on the habitation and build quality by all means, but should publically condemn the road worthiness of the vehicle in the form presented.

Rant over - thanks again Brian

Vernon

Brian,

An excellent write up.

Lets hope the MOD puts a link to the FAQ.

Don

Vernon B - 2007-01-05 12:33 PM Brian, you do yourself an injustice, your advice doesn't help a bit it helps a lot and should be compulsory reading for everyone here. It is simply the best and most informative write up I have seen on this topic. The alarming thing is how many new vans offer less than a 500k pay load in standard trim. Hymer, amongst other importers, are a long standing "villain" in this respect and irresponsibly offer the latest £60,395 B-Class 654 SL with just a 380k load capacity. How does that square with the regulations you have described? Now I know that one of the issues is the 3,500k licencing limits in Germany and I know that the chassis can be upgraded to increase the pay load but it doesn't alter the fact that this how the base model is spec'd and marketed - and I wonder how many UK buyers (particularly first time buyers) are told about this at the point of sale, and how many of our German friends are driving around in extremely dangerous vehicles. Arguably Hymer are not the worst offenders a glance at MMM model listing will show just how many manufacturers simply do not provide the information at all. Finally while I'm on a rant, I think the trade press are doing us a disservice by not highlighting this situation in test reports. My view is that reviewers should decline to road test any model offerred to them with a pay load that doesn't measure up to guidance you've set out. They can comment on the habitation and build quality by all means, but should publically condemn the road worthiness of the vehicle in the form presented. Rant over - thanks again Brian Vernon

It might be worth checking if the Hymer in question is, actually, built on a 3,500Kg chassis.  Some of the manufacturers, including I believe Hymer, build on a heavier chassis, but then plate it down for the reason you ahve given. 

Doesn't help if your license limits you to 3,500Kg, as many do, but for those decrepit enough to have a 7,500Kg license all you need is the new plate!

Thanks for the kind comments.

Mel E - 2007-01-05 12:20 PM Brian, An excellent write-up of this difficult subject. I would add three comments: 1. A glance down the listings in MMM shows a lot of brand new motohomes with a lot less payload than you manage. Most 6-berth 'vans, even if they have 6 belted seats, will be unusable unless 4 of the passengers are very small infants! 2. It's worth checking this and getting it right as the UK police are currently having a motorhome purge. You may get stopped! A well-known member of the MMM team was on the way to the York Show last year. 3. If you have an accident and are overweight, your insurance company will probably still honour Third Party claims, but don't expect them to pay out for repairs to or replacement of your wrecked motorhome and its contents. This could be a loss of £20,000 or £40,000 or even more. In other words, there is NO POINT IN PAYING OUT FOR A FULLY COMPREHENSIVE POLICY if you are going to drive overweight - they won't pay up on the claim! (Sorry for the caps, but the shouting is intentional!)

Thank you Mel.

Just on the point of roadside checks, I understand the French police will levy an on the spot fine if you are overweight.

If you are within, I understand 5% above the plated maximum, you suffer just the fine. 

If you are more than 5% over, I believe you have the opportunity to just pay the fine provided you reduce weight there and then, otherwise they will fine you and also impound your vehicle.  Bit of a problem, that, as it is also your home!

Don Madge - 2007-01-05 1:26 PM

 

Brian,

 

An excellent write up.

 

Lets hope the MOD puts a link to the FAQ.

 

Don

 

Way ahead of you!

Link

Most excellent write up Brian - although you miss one important point my biddy. None of the payload stuff is legaaly binding (very few convertors ad-here to the standards) and motor homes do not have to be type approved - yet!

fred and alice

fred grant - 2007-01-05 8:45 PM Most excellent write up Brian - although you miss one important point my biddy. None of the payload stuff is legaaly binding (very few convertors ad-here to the standards) and motor homes do not have to be type approved - yet! fred and alice

Fred

I'm not entirely sure you are right about the numbers adhering to the Type Approval requirements.  Certainly it is true that converters do not legally have to work to EN 1646-2, but many do, among them, to my knowledge, Hymer, Dethleffs, Burstner, Knaus and Hobby.  BS EN 1646-2 is a code of practice, and you are right, compliance is not a legal requirement.  However, it exists as a measure of what has been certified an acceptable minimum standard across Europe.  There is no reason why a manufacturer could not exceed its requirements, but it would surely be a rash one who strayed far below them.  What defence could he offer if challenged?  That he thought he knew better?  I think most will be complying, even if they don't actually want to say so.

Type Approval is in fact required for vehicle regsitration of all volume produced vehicles and all production from the above manufacturers is, to my knowledge, Type Approved. 

However, when trying to choose a motorhome from among the enormous number on offer, the niceties of EN 1646-2, or Type Approval compliance, are surely of less importance than your actual payload, and whether it is adequate.  What I was trying to show, is that whereas the legislation is a step in the right direction, it would be foolhardy to rely upon it to guarantee an adequate, workable, payload.

Problem is, if the payload is inadequate you are more liable to overload your vehicle, and that, emphatically, is illegal!

Brian

Can I just add a few comments to you excellent post.

As you say MIRO includes Fuel, coolants, oil, necessary tools and driver weight 75KG.

However some manufacturers include gas cylinders and fresh water tank either full or 80% in their MIRO.

This can have the effect of making it appear that a particular motorhome has a lower payload for accesories and personal effects than than one not including them, when in fact it could be higher.

I beleive that it is covered in EC Directive92/21/EEC. Comparing like for like a vehicle calculated to to 92/21/EEC can have an average MRO mass of approximately120 kg greater than a motorhome calculated to BSEN 1646-2.

Therefore when comparing payloads one should take into account which method the manufacturer has used .

As an aside, we once had a motorhome which when weighed showed plenty of spare payload, but an overloaded back axle, before adding two bikes. This was due to the manufacturer placing water tank, gas cylinders, battery, fridge, bathroom and kitchen, BEHIND the back axle. No amount of redistribution of personnal effects could correct it.

Doug

Not only illegal but down right dangerous to you, your passengers and most importantly to other road users.

It is a real pleasure to read the Pro Mobile and Reisemobile mags in Germany. When they test a 'van they not only give the payload but also show where any load can be put in a 'van including the weight at each wheel. They also slate any 'van which does not come up to standard.

When looking at a 'van it is not only the available payload one must look out for but where that payload can be accomodated. I have seen 'vans which had a reasonable payload but it has been, say, up front where there was no storage space but the 'van has had a massive garage or under bed storage area where the rear axle was already at it's limit.

Remember if you drive a vehicle on the road which is dangerously loaded the responsibility in law will be yours and it will do no good saying that was how the 'van was sold to you!

ps as you will see by the time I was writing this whilst trigrem was posting his but it just proves the point - Trust no one - particularly a motorhome manufacturer with your payload!

My A

answer to the original subject that was a question is NO.

A very intersesting thread, and one which I agree should be much more highlighted on any revieiws.

The new Fiat is a good example though - there seems to be 'light' and 'heavy' chassis, plus a varity of engine options, and a lot of manufacturers appear to go for the 'light 3300/ 2.2JTD engine' as the 'base ' from which to start.

We were/are looking at a Burstner, and being fully aware of the capacity required for 'personal' stuff, I checked very carefully from the brochure, and was quite amazed how little leeway there seemed to be at first when adding a few 'options'...although I do not think the weight givin in the brochure for Fiat cab Aircon could possibly be anything like the 30k suggested......! The Marano T595 appears to start from a lowly 430K, although that does allow for calculations by Burstner which already include the driver, 90%water and fuel, 2x11k gas (aluminium cylinders?),tools and cables

However on checking out the position, it seems the brochure is somewhat complicated, and by simply optioning for the 3500k chassis you immediately gain considerably, although of course to get a 'sensible' engine it is necessary to go to the 2.3JTD. This appears to take up about 15k from the extra you aquire on the 3500 chaassis.

It's ok, I feel, but still needs careful watching, but should give around 550-600k after adding some options, like the awning.

I am amazed however at the very lowly payload figures quoted on some of the motorhomes in the MMM listing, and surely when using these with a family, must be very marginal, and this is what ought to be hihglighted by the testers I feel.

Thankyou Brian Excellent.

May I add that due to a change in tow car I am looking to change M/H, A Burstner 747 came to mind due to payload and garage.

I am amazed to find that I cant find the train weight, I have emailed Burstner UK who havent replied so TEL them, they are ringing back on Monday because they DIDNT KNOW. Spoken to a couple of dealers who didnt know, and tried to get out of it by asking what I wonted to tow and whistfully looking above my head and and replying "should be alright". The brochure does not give a train weight for the 747. ( On one particular model the brochure shows it towing a car loaded on a trailer while exclaming it as a 2000kg towing capacity, yet the tech spec doesnt show anything)

I wonder how many of us are driving around out of limits, if the salesman and importers dont their products can we really be expected to, because when we bought, we didnt know the questions and it seems even when we do, we cant get the answers. I believe the whole question of payloads etc are conviently keapt in the dark by the trade.

Excellent posting Brian and some good research has gone into it, well done. Takeaflight, the train weight will be on the vehiles VIN plate and if the 747 you are looking at is on the Ducato I'm pretty sure it will be 5500KGs. One point that lots of people don't realise is that when a chassis is upgraded from 3500KGs to 3850KGs (or more) the extra capacity is taken from the towing capacity in effect. For example, a Ducato based motorhome on a 3500KG chassis with a train weight of 5500KGs can tow 2000KGs (in theory). upgrade the chassis to 3850KGs though and the train weight stays at 5500KGs so you can now tow 1650KGs.

If the 747 you are looking at is on the Iveco Daily chassis then you will probably have a better train weight and towing capacity.

D.

Boy oh boy! you guys don’t shirk from the difficult subjects!

Most people just shrug there shoulders when you mention payload or being overweight. Lots are guilty of this, from car owners and particularly in my experience caravan owners as well as Motorhome owners.

Most laugh it off and take the gamble, until they get a blow out on a motorway or can not brake in time or can not control vehicle adequately because of overloading. I saw a motorhome in Tunnel car park last summer which had collapsed straight through the rear axle.

Recently licence restricted to 3500 kg as I am diabetic now on insulin. I could not find anything suitable with a decent payload for a family of 4. Had given up hope on a hightop model as most had payloads well below 300 kg.

Until I discovered the Euramobil profila 660HB on Ford chassis. A lightweight construction design, better windows then Hymer (recent German quality tests Euramobil came 5th Hymer 15th) GRP shell, aluminium frame. No wood, no screws, they use a bonded construction similar to light aircraft.

Interestingly with double floor (alcove model only) which is heated and offering good storage, pretty good in this price range. Plus they are winterised with an EN 1646 classification.

This model has a payload of 450 kg which is good for the size of vehicle with a double floor as well. Awning is standard equipment saving another 40 kg . Have added a few extras, roof air (38 kg) extra battery etc… so will have to be careful. But if I travel with very little water should be just about alright.

I know payload still falls short of recommendations in this tread but at least I am trying. I think it is unfortunate that it takes a German manufacturer to take a lead as usual in offering something usable for a family within 3500 kg . Plus I have saved over £8000 buying a LHD model (Westcroft UK dealers :-S )

JudgeMental can you give us the source of your quality rankings that referred to Hymer and Euromobile?

Thanks Vernon

Hi Vernon

it was on the german magazine "Promobil" website.

regards Eddie

Takeaflight - Do check carefully the Burstner 747 payload position as in my experience they are very heavy on the front axle, to the extent that they have special heavy duty, non Fiat, front springs to combat this. Having said that the weight still remains of course.

Our previous 747, with only two-up and the rear garage loaded to its maximum weight, and therefore levering weight off the front, had next to no payload left on the front axle. Conversely, the overall payload still left was in the region of 400kg. Where one was supposed to put additional family however is anyones guess as the seating is front biased. In my opinion the stated overall payload of 1200kg+ for this van was pure fiction in practise.

Of course I have to be careful myself in giving this advise and so I should point out that the above only refers to my own vehicle, others of the same model may, or may not, be the same. Also the weighbridge, the one at Handcross on the A23, much used by the traffic police and by me on numerous occasions, my be faulty - but I think not.

I agree with the general consensus in the postings that the subject of motorhome payloads is a scandal in this country and noone seems to want to do anything about it, least of all the motorhome press who make out that they represent us. Do peoples lives mean nothing anymore?

RonB - 2007-01-06 2:30 PM

 

the subject of motorhome payloads is a scandal in this country and noone seems to want to do anything about it

 

An oft-quoted piece of advice on mechanical design is

“Add lightness and simplicate”.

In the same vein, the first of many acronyms I had to learn as a trainee computer programmer 40 years ago was

KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Sadly, no motorhome manufacturer that I know of has heard of either of them.

If they removed some of the unnecessary complication, and therefore weight, we would have more payload.

A striking example is my pet aversion, the electrically-operated doorstep - which some MMM testers regard as “essential” (Huh??). They are heavy, expensive and failure-prone especially exposed as they are to dirt kicking up off the road. We bought a little plastic step from the £ shop, which weighs only a few ounces and serves equally well, while also being completely failure-proof.

What about the vast, domestic-style cookers-with-ovens which we are told are essential for us Brits? They must weigh about 150 lbs – maybe more. How those stupid French and Germans live without them nobody seems able to imagine. Here's a clue: replace one with a double skillet, which weighs 3.5 lbs and does the job as well if not better, and you will add 147 lbs to your payload!

And knock a few hundred £s off the price. Sorry, I forgot, British motorhomers are all too rich to care.

We all lug around two electrical systems, one 12v and one 220v, to do essentially the same tasks. Why? All you need is a small inverter running off the vehicle system and feeding the hookup circuit, with a switch so you can run the inverter off the leisure battery when the engine is not running. And a selector to stop the brain-dead trying to run off inverter and hookup simultaneously.

It works for me, and it saves many lbs and many £s.

Ironically, my base vehicle has a plated MAUW of 6.6 tonnes – so I don't need to care!

Hi Bill,

"add lightness and simplicate" ? Yes as long as you don't go as far as Graham Chapman of Lotus fame whose race cars regularly fell apart before the finish line!

Electric step against plastic step? We used to use a plastic step, on hard standings it would skid around and was downright dangerous, on soft grass it could sink in and become dangerous, I've seen some whose legs have collapsed, definitely dangerous. I recently replaced a permanent step on my motorhome with an electric double step and save 35 KGs of weight. Mind you the old step was a DIY (previous owner) job made out of 2"X2" 1/4" angle iron!

I'll stick with the leccy step thanks, its a godsend. ;-) Surely the whole point about motorhomes is they can be whatever you want not necessarily what someone else wants (within legal constraints of course).

D.

Another relevant acronym I learned when 1st working with computers was RTFIS (pronounced artefis) - stands for Read The F?*%ing Instructions Stupid! - So many people do not look at the instructions or information on their 'vans and just go ahead and load their vehicles on the basis of "well theres a space so I may as well fill it". Yes I know that some manufacturers don't put the info up front but there are a lot of folk out there who don't even look.

I have met folk who when setting off for a Euro trip fill their 'vans with all the Brit goods they can fit in just in case they can't get it over there. - Have you ever weighed a case of baked beans!

One demountable I saw on a one ton pick up was so overloaded the springs were bent in the wrong direction and the axle never left the bump stops between the UK and Spain!

Frankkia - 2007-01-06 7:21 PM

I have met folk who when setting off for a Euro trip fill their 'vans with all the Brit goods they can fit in just in case they can't get it over there. - Have you ever weighed a case of baked beans!

 

One demountable I saw on a one ton pick up was so overloaded the springs were bent in the wrong direction and the axle never left the bump stops between the UK and Spain!

Tell me about it!

I know someone along with ALL the food takes ALL water and soft drinks (missus won’t drink that Spanish stuff!) for 3 week summer trips. Then there is the garden equipment, patio table, chairs and parasol, gas heater (just in case) and massive barbeque (for entertaining silly!) and spare fridge from garage (for all the drinks of course!). And his best mate folded his caravan two years ago (don’t know how that happened!) And believe me that’s only the start....

Just finished with 5 years of Demountable camper ownership and a summer trip was a challenge with 4 of us. But we were reasonably economical travellers, carried no water and only 2 folding bikes (hired 2 locally when necessary).

People manage with a rucksack and travel around the world for a year, so it can be done.

Happy camping!