Discussion thread: reply to the RSA

niloc1951

Slidey wrote: »

I can't remember the exact suspension set up but if it was like below I would put it as close to the front shackle on the spring.



The reason it is chained down is to stop the wheel from locking the rollers before its full braking force is achieved.

Slidey, I would suggest you acquaint yourself with design and capabilities of the chassis designed and supplied by AL-KO Kober for motor caravans ASAP, they are not at all like the type in your picture. If you fail to inform your opinion correctly you will run the risk of subjecting you or your employer to liability for a substantial repair bill for causing damage to one, or be held responsible for an accident resulting from failure following damage caused by chaining down.
It is obviously for good reason that AL-KO Kober advise in their users manual that they will not accept any responsibility for damaged or failure to their product resulting from attaching anything not approved by them to their product.
Your knee jerk reaction reaction to my earlier post by referring to it as 'bull****' is not helpful and quite inappropriate language to this discussion thread.

peasant

niloc1951 wrote: »

Your knee jerk reaction reaction to my earlier post by referring to it as 'bull****' is not helpful and quite inappropriate language to this discussion thread.

Easy now.
I find Slidey's input from a DOE testers point of view very welcome.
If anything his reaction has just shown that there may in fact be an issue with testing AL-KO chassis.
Since they are mostly used on newer motorhomes he quite probably hasn't seen one yet.

niloc1951

2 stroke wrote: »

Or was Motorcaravan category created at this time, to reduce the specs of equiptment in NCT centers, while still holding onto high VRT. Up till the time NCT testing legislation was being drafted, motorcaravans were road taxed as private cars and calls to reduce this motortax, fell on deaf ears. At that time, if they turned around and sent campers to doe centers, the lynch mobs would have been out. So the easy way out was to give the clubs more than they had hoped for and a new vehicle category was created. My road tax came down something like £300/year. I don't think anybody complained that we took a different path to the rest of europe, until recently.

The classification for 'motor caravans' as a distinct type of vehicle was instigated by the EU and has been included in EU documents pre-dating the Irish legislation, so they should have been covered.

niloc1951

peasant wrote: »

Easy now.
I find Slidey's input from a DOE testers point of view very welcome.
If anything his reaction has just shown that there may in fact be an issue with testing AL-KO chassis.
Since they are mostly used on newer motorhomes he quite probably hasn't seen one yet.

Point taken.
It is certainly useful to have input from a person involved in testing.
It is however disappointing that such comment is so offhandedly dismissive of others contributions, particularly when, with reference to Slideys own posted picture, the poster clearly is not correctly informed regarding the subject matter.

Slidey

*Deep breath*

My apologies for the profanity.

I have done a brake test on one of these and thought it had torsion bars but when I googled all I got was the leaf spring set up.

Unfortunately I test upwards of 50 vehicles a week so I had forgotten about the exact set up. I did however discuss this very issue over PM with someone and told them that there was an issue in getting a high enough brake reading for the emergency brake.

Anyway, I get enough crap doing this for a living and I figure it will be fairly one sided in here so with that I think I will bow out.

If there is any specific question you need answered with regards to the DoE you may PM me Peasant.

niloc1951

Slidey wrote: »

I did however discuss this very issue over PM with someone and told them that there was an issue in getting a high enough brake reading for the emergency brake.

I have yet to hear of a Transit, Ducato or Sprinter based motor caravan having an emergency brake system. Such vehicles only come with service brakes and parking brakes

BTW, Slidey, don't take offensive and stay around it's good to hear opinions from 'the other side'.

peasant

Can someone take a scan of the AL-KO chassis manual where it mentions the issues with affixings non-approved items in non-approved positionsand post it here.

might add some clarity

Slidey

niloc1951 wrote: »

I have yet to hear of a Transit, Ducato or Sprinter based motor caravan having an emergency brake system. Such vehicles only come with service brakes and parking brakes

BTW, Slidey, don't take offensive and stay around it's good to hear opinions from 'the other side'.

OK, I enjoy being the underdog every once in a while.



If for example you were to test an ordinary camper without chaining it down the front readings would probably be higher than the rears due to the weight of the engine. This would result in the rear axle readings being used as the emergency brake and more than likely they would not pass.

niloc1951

peasant wrote: »

Can someone take a scan of the AL-KO chassis manual where it mentions the issues with affixings non-approved items in non-approved positionsand post it here.

might add some clarity

While the advice talks about accessories, it is not unreasonable to expect AL-KO Kober to apply the same requirements to any fitments which impose stresses not sanctioned by them.

peasant

Slidey wrote: »

Now the reason I have put this up is to illustrate why we chain down.

The good news is ...in a camper you won't have to use chains.

Just fill all tanks (fresh and waste water) with water, invite your colleague and have a cup of tea together in the back of the van and relax while it's on the rollers.

I'f you're really lucky the camper is so heavy already with full tanks that you could even have that cup of tea all by yourself

Oh yeah ...thanks for the explanation as well

Slidey

Oh yeah, it works both ways, being overweight on any one axle is an automatic fail.

peasant

niloc1951 wrote: »

While the advice talks about accessories, it is not unreasonable to expect AL-KO Kober to apply the same requirements to any fitments which impose stresses not sanctioned by them.

Well in that bit they seem to be mostly worried about product liability.

That chassis is so full of weight saving holes, you might get into trouble if you tried to fit a non AL-KO towbar or motorbike carrier

peasant

Slidey wrote: »

Oh yeah, it works both ways, being overweight on any one axle is an automatic fail.

That's the beauty about tanks ...you can always let some water out again and get it just right


Seriously ...there are some campers out there (particularly newer models) that have been fitted with so many mod-cons and heavy (but good looking) furniture that when you load them with the allowed amount of passengers the manufacturer recommends to only fill the tank to 10% capacity (as otherwise you'd be well over the 3500 kgs)

to get back on topic ...you could easily sling your chains over the torsion beam on the ALKO chassis (pic above) couldn't you?

That should take the strain no bother

peasant

On the topic of the letter:

some more input is needed on items 5, 6 and 7

never mind the good weather ...getting writing!

niloc1951

peasant wrote: »

to get back on topic ...you could easily sling your chains over the torsion beam on the ALKO chassis (pic above) couldn't you?

That should take the strain no bother

Extracts from AL-KO amc Handbook
'....jacking points are located in the shock absorber mounts.....' and 'Never jack up the vehicle by the rear axle....'
IMHO the same advice would apply to exerting a downwards pressure, the slighted bend it what after all is only a hollow tube will alter the camber of the rear wheels, and then what :eek:

Lets cut to the chase here, the basic problem is the RSA's persistence in attempting to treat 'motor caravans' with a DGVW greater than 3.5t as HGV's for testing purposes. Their position on this is contrary to the requirements of Directive 2009/40/EC and also at variance to the European Norm.
It is interesting that they (RSA) have failed to quote in their Public Consultation document any other country where such vehicles are tested using HGV methods.
Our efforts should be directed at ensuring that LGV/car procedures are used as set out in the Directive and spend less effort in trying to get the wrong procedure modified.

As regards breaking efficiency testing, motor caravans are just like cars when presented for testing in that, if their tanks are full, the only additional weight which they will be carrying during normal use will be passengers, and personal effects.
By their nature motor caravans will have their chassis/axles loaded to at least 80% of the DGVW ex factory, and often more.

Examples
Hobby on Transit 350, DGVW 3,850kg. Travel ready weight 3,218kg = 83.6%
Hobby on Ducato/AL-KO Tandem Axle, DGVW 4,500kg. Travel ready weight 3,696kg = 82.1%
Hobby on Iveco Daily, DGVW 5,200kg. Travel ready weight 4,183kg. = 80.4%

Travel ready weight is, "The weight of the vehicle in ready-to-drive state corresponds to the weight of the empty vehcile, including lubricants, on-board tools, spare wheel (repair kit where appropriate), fuel (100%), extra battery, all standard factory-fitted equipment and 75 kg for the driver in additon to the basic equipment. Basic equipment comprises the weight of the fresh water and gas containers, which are filled to 90% of their capacity."

Irishgoatman

With regard to an earlier posting about the testing of motorhomes in the past, I was talking to the RSA in Ballina yesterday (Fri. 9th) and according to them it has always been the case that any private vehicle that was too large to be tested at a NCT centre had to be tested at a DOE centre.

When I asked how we were supposed to know this I was told, and I quote, "The NCT would have told you that when you tried to have it tested there, after all, all vehicles have to be tested regardless of whether they are private or commercial". And to be perfectly honest, I was told this when I bought my 'van last year and rang the NCT but I chose to conveniantly forget/ignore it, especially as when I re-registered it and paid the VRT and taxed it as a motorhome no mention was made by anyone of having it tested.

Has anyone ever been asked to produce a test cert. when taxing their 'van? I think not.

peasant

niloc1951 wrote: »

Extracts from AL-KO amc Handbook
'....jacking points are located in the shock absorber mounts.....' and 'Never jack up the vehicle by the rear axle....'
IMHO the same advice would apply to exerting a downwards pressure, the slighted bend it what after all is only a hollow tube will alter the camber of the rear wheels, and then what :eek:

Hopefully ALKO will answer my mail and point that out as well ..on headed paper.

And yes, you're right ...the more I think about it the more we should insist that we get a dedicated motorcaravan test and not the proposed mix and match of different tests.

niloc1951

Irishgoatman wrote: »

With regard to an earlier posting about the testing of motorhomes in the past, I was talking to the RSA in Ballina yesterday (Fri. 9th) and according to them it has always been the case that any private vehicle that was too large to be tested at a NCT centre had to be tested at a DOE centre.

When I asked how we were supposed to know this I was told, and I quote, "The NCT would have told you that when you tried to have it tested there, after all, all vehicles have to be tested regardless of whether they are private or commercial". And to be perfectly honest, I was told this when I bought my 'van last year and rang the NCT but I chose to conveniantly forget/ignore it, especially as when I re-registered it and paid the VRT and taxed it as a motorhome no mention was made by anyone of having it tested.

Has anyone ever been asked to produce a test cert. when taxing their 'van? I think not.

Not doubting your account of you experience for a moment but this is the reply I got from the NCTS when I tried to book my motor caravan in for an NCT test.
"Thank you for your recent enquiry. Unfortunately this type of vehicle is not tested by NCTS. Please contact The Department of Transport – Vehicle Standards Section for further information on the testing of your vehicle."

Irishgoatman

niloc1951 wrote: »

Not doubting your account of you experience for a moment but this is the reply I got from the NCTS when I tried to book my motor caravan in for an NCT test.
"Thank you for your recent enquiry. Unfortunately this type of vehicle is not tested by NCTS. Please contact The Department of Transport – Vehicle Standards Section for further information on the testing of your vehicle."

It sounds as though you were contacting them by email?

I rang them and spoke to a living being, as opposed to an automaton.

Aidan_M_M

Bill is opposed completely to Motorhome testing , which IMO is nonsensical . I work in the trade , and it scares me some of the trade ins I see , merrily being taxed and legally driving our roads . And some younger than 10 years old!

Slidey , thanks for your input , I hope you aren't offended by any comments as we need to see the situation from a tester's view too .

Realistically folks , if we get our MHs tested to the NCT schedule , in DOE Centre , we'll be doing ok .

niloc1951

Aidan_M_M wrote: »

Bill is opposed completely to Motorhome testing , which IMO is nonsensical . I work in the trade , and it scares me some of the trade ins I see , merrily being taxed and legally driving our roads . And some younger than 10 years old!

Slidey , thanks for your input , I hope you aren't offended by any comments as we need to see the situation from a tester's view too .

Realistically folks , if we get our MHs tested to the NCT schedule , in DOE Centre , we'll be doing ok .

As Aidan says, we MUST have our motor caravans roadworthiness tested. ALL road going vehicles are required to be tested by EU Directive, it's just our authorities are a bit late to the game in relation to motor caravans and they are not sure of the rules, but we must join in, there's no escape. Let's just hope they play by the rules as laid down by the ref (EU).

niloc1951

Irishgoatman wrote: »

It sounds as though you were contacting them by email?

I rang them and spoke to a living being, as opposed to an automaton.

I would suppose 'a living being' typed the reply I got by email

peasant

niloc1951 wrote: »

Let's just hope they play by the rules as laid down by the ref (EU).

I wouldn't put too much faith into the EU regulation as the be-all and end-all of all further discussion.
That EU thingy is just a guideline with a fairly broad brush stroke.

The German guidelines for the test of "Wohnmobile" (= motorcaravan) for example have three different categories with three different intervals

Wohnmobile < 3,5 t Nach 36 Monaten bei Neufahrzeugen, dann alle 24 Monate (first after 3 years, then every two years)
Wohnmobile 3,5 - 7,5 t Alle zwei Jahre in den ersten sechs Jahren, danach jährlich (bi-annual for 6 years, annual thereafter)
Wohnmobile > 7,5 t jährlich (annual)

So that differs quite a bit from the EU thingy ...but they've been doing it this way for years and the EU hasn't come down on them like a ton of bricks yet and I'm quite sure that the French or Dutch do it entirely differently again.

Aidan_M_M wrote: »

Realistically folks , if we get our MHs tested to the NCT schedule , in DOE Centre , we'll be doing ok .

realistically, if someone comes thundering down a steep hill behind me in something like this:

I'd feel much better knowing that his air brakes have been tested according to the HGV schedule and not the NCT schedule (which doesn't know about air brakes)


I think the main issue of concern at the moment are motorhomes that are over 3.5 tons but still built on a van basis (and possibly with an ALKO chassis as well)
I'd be happy if we could get LGV test criteria up to 7.5 tons and HGV criteria thereafter

Slidey

Aidan_M_M wrote: »

Realistically folks , if we get our MHs tested to the NCT schedule , in DOE Centre , we'll be doing ok .

If it is under 3.5t it is basically an identical test. Infact it is probably easier to pass a DoE than it is to pass an NCT.

With regards to anything over 3.5t, and I know I am going to win no friends here, but what you have is a truck with curtains and a place to cook your grub. It has already been stated that an exemption from the tacho and speedlimiter laws will be given though I think that if you were to get a new chassis cab now the speedlimiter will be factory set.

I understand that people with the al-ko chassis may be a worried about potential damage but I would imagine any other van based camper will have had its van counterpart tested without issues before.

All mini buses (even those below 3.5t) are tested to HGV standard including VW transporters, Renault Trafics and Toyota Hiaces and I haven't broken anything yet.

The only real issue I forsee is with the glazing. TBH there is a Daily I know that has house style double glazing in it in the accomodation area. :eek:

peasant

Slidey wrote: »

With regards to anything over 3.5t, ... what you have is a truck with curtains and a place to cook your grub.

not really

The vast majority are vans, based on Ducatos, Transits or Renaults (them being the cheapest chassis) or slightly upmarket, based on Sprinters/Crafters or Ivecos and weighing in at 3.8 to 4.2 tons.

Any real heavyweights will be the exception rather than the rule.

(see here ...new campervans over 3.5 tons: http://suchen.mobile.de/fahrzeuge/searchresults.html?pageNumber=3&__lp=17&scopeId=MH&sortOption.sortBy=price.consumerGrossEuro&sortOption.sortOrder=ASCENDING&makeModelVariant1.searchInFreetext=false&makeModelVariant2.searchInFreetext=false&makeModelVariant3.searchInFreetext=false&maxPowerAsArray=109&maxPowerAsArray=KW&vehicleCategory=Motorhome&segment=Motorhome&siteId=GERMANY&negativeFeatures=EXPORT&damageUnrepaired=NO_DAMAGE_UNREPAIRED&export=NO_EXPORT&customerIdsAsString=&minConstructionYear=2010&licensedWeight=MORE_THAN_3500_KG&lang=de)

peasant

Slidey wrote: »

I understand that people with the al-ko chassis may be a worried about potential damage but I would imagine any other van based camper will have had its van counterpart tested without issues before.

a separate reply for this issue.

I'd be very surprised, if there was even one commercial van in the whole of Ireland with an ALKO chassis.

These chassis are pretty expensive and only really get fitted to campervans (and maybe the odd parcel van or dedicated vending van).

The ALKO chassis does several things:

It is lower, so it increases the interior height
It is wider, so gives better stability
It is lighter, so allows for heavier fittings at the same max weight

They come in single axle, double axle and different lengths but they all have one thing in common ...they are fitted quite a bit lower to the front end of the donor vehicle than the original chassis.

Slidey

Right well truck is a little strong a word but if they were a van they would have to undergo a HGV test, no exceptions.

I have a LWB 4.6t Sprinter for my nixers and it has to undergo a HGV test and needs a tacho and a speedlimiter fitted as well as a weight plate.

Same as this



An equivalent Sprinter with a motorhome on it would be longer, wider and higher and would weigh more 90% of the time. (except yesterday when I had a truck engine in the back along with all my tools and oxy/acy plant )

Slidey

peasant wrote: »

a separate reply for this issue.

I would imagine you are right and that is why I stated that any other camper etc etc.

I would still be of the opinion that putting slings (not chains) around the torsion bars would do no harm.

The point was made that the don't allow you to jack from there. There is a number of reasons for that.
1) It would need a lot of 'rise' from a jack as you would have to lift all the travel in the suspension before the wheel would start to leave the ground.
2)The bar is round so a jack like a bottle jack would be very likely to slip
3)If you were fully laden you would end up taking all the weight off the other axle as well as the one you are jacking.

The difference to pulling it down is that the weight of the vehicle is already on the axle, All that is needed to be pulled is the additional weight to reach the GW. This might only be a few hundred Kilos spread over 2 chains pulled by 2 rams that are piped in parallel to keep the pull even

peasant

Slidey wrote: »

I would still be of the opinion that putting slings (not chains) around the torsion bars would do no harm.

Looking at the picture, I'd be of the same opinion.
Hopefully the good folks at ALKO headquarters will answer my inquiry to this regard.


(You really wouldn't want some idiot to sling the chains through a hole in the crossbars though, would you? (and perhaps accidentally apply a little too much force as well, while he's at it))

Slidey

I'd say you would be left with a awkward customer liaison if you were to do that