we have a BMW 320d and are considering getting an Eldiss Avante 4 Berth as our 1st van. Any advice as to whether they would be compatiable?!
bmw
- Thread starter Sally4
- Start date
Sally try this link, if you want you can then go to the home page and re-enter some details for another car/caravan match. Dont forget this is only a guide. Hope this helps.
http://www.caravantrekker.nl/en/trekkrachtrapport.php
http://www.caravantrekker.nl/en/trekkrachtrapport.php
http://www.caravantrekker.nl/en/trekkrachtrapport.php[/quote
Sorry wrong link, try this and enter all your details.
http://www.caravantrekker.nl/en/index.php
The 320d has a maximum permissible towload of 1600kg which would be adequate for a 4 berth Avante with an MTPLM of around 1400kg, depending on the model. The weight ratio would be between about 87% for an automatic 320d estate car and 93% for a manual saloon. This wouldn't make it ideal as a tug but it would still be OK.
Lutz - no disrespect but you were quoted to me in another context on Our Website. The comments made are from me and I thought you may want to comment.
If you are quoting data from a source I tactfully suggest that you ought to refer to it. I also (tactfully) suggest that you add a disclaimer in case you do inadvertantly get something wrong
31 Jul 2005 04:55 PM "You are missing the point Clive, fine if you want to go ahead and sue, do so. What you don't have to do is broadcast the fact all over the forum. What happens next? Say for example, Lutz turns round in his usual helpful nature and recommends a type of tyre to someone. That tyre then ruptures with terrible consequences so that "someone" decides to sue Lutz for telling him to buy it. Far fetched? No, just another small step along the path you are travelling now. You say you like a good debate and that you can hold your own, use that skill to defend yourself and others. Legal action is like saying "ah, I can't take anymore they finally got to me". So have they? Have you given in and handed it over to the big boys?"
CliveV
31 Jul 2005 09:57 PM "Still disagree. The point you make is a good example of the flaw in your augument. I read some of Lutz's recommendations and get worried because the info he gives is not verified in any way. There have been examples where the info Lutz gives has been challenged by others.
If people want to put themselves and others at risk by not obtaining official data then that is their choice.
However if one of my family was injured due to sombody getting misinformation from an amateur on a Forum rather than getting proper advice from the manufacturer then what choice would we have then?
I have not missed your point - I understand what you are saying - I just do not think what you say has any validity.
What is said on this Forum is not above the law - if it is then the door is left open for any idiot to provide misinformation, abuse, hatred of any group with impunity. Therebis evidence in spades of late that some individuals are truly vindictive and will go to extreme lengths to get their "kicks".
I think Lutz is only trying to be helpful but he gives no reference as to where his information comes from - nor does he have a rider that states that this information is given in good faith but the author can take no responcibility for its accuracy. As a businessman I have to have such a rider on all our 'faxes and emails. Without it my Professional Indemnity Insurance would be invalid.
I also think doing what Lutz is doing - considering the increasingly litigeous world we live in - is either brave or foolhardy. I am not sure which."
If you are quoting data from a source I tactfully suggest that you ought to refer to it. I also (tactfully) suggest that you add a disclaimer in case you do inadvertantly get something wrong
31 Jul 2005 04:55 PM "You are missing the point Clive, fine if you want to go ahead and sue, do so. What you don't have to do is broadcast the fact all over the forum. What happens next? Say for example, Lutz turns round in his usual helpful nature and recommends a type of tyre to someone. That tyre then ruptures with terrible consequences so that "someone" decides to sue Lutz for telling him to buy it. Far fetched? No, just another small step along the path you are travelling now. You say you like a good debate and that you can hold your own, use that skill to defend yourself and others. Legal action is like saying "ah, I can't take anymore they finally got to me". So have they? Have you given in and handed it over to the big boys?"
CliveV
31 Jul 2005 09:57 PM "Still disagree. The point you make is a good example of the flaw in your augument. I read some of Lutz's recommendations and get worried because the info he gives is not verified in any way. There have been examples where the info Lutz gives has been challenged by others.
If people want to put themselves and others at risk by not obtaining official data then that is their choice.
However if one of my family was injured due to sombody getting misinformation from an amateur on a Forum rather than getting proper advice from the manufacturer then what choice would we have then?
I have not missed your point - I understand what you are saying - I just do not think what you say has any validity.
What is said on this Forum is not above the law - if it is then the door is left open for any idiot to provide misinformation, abuse, hatred of any group with impunity. Therebis evidence in spades of late that some individuals are truly vindictive and will go to extreme lengths to get their "kicks".
I think Lutz is only trying to be helpful but he gives no reference as to where his information comes from - nor does he have a rider that states that this information is given in good faith but the author can take no responcibility for its accuracy. As a businessman I have to have such a rider on all our 'faxes and emails. Without it my Professional Indemnity Insurance would be invalid.
I also think doing what Lutz is doing - considering the increasingly litigeous world we live in - is either brave or foolhardy. I am not sure which."
Not quoted Clive, Lutz was used as an example of the helpful side of the forum and is not just limited to Lutz.
Clive, I have some sympathy for your concerns considering your negative experiences but I think we are all sensible enough to appreciate that recommendations expressed here in this forum are from caravanner to caravanner and not official statements to consumers that bear any legal weight in a court of law. The information that I give is based on the best possible data available to me and I will always be willing to quote my sources if challenged (as I have done so in the past). To minimize the danger of giving incorrect information, I use figures directly out of the manufacturers' websites, wherever possible. Most car manufacturers have the data tucked away somewhere in their websites, with caravans it's sometimes a bit more difficult. That's why I usually avoid giving specific recommendations on caravans.
I work as an engineer in the car industry and have direct access to all regulations covering vehicle construction, towing, etc.. A good friend of mine is the development engineer who carries out the tests to determine towloads for all GM Europe products and the design release engineer responsible for towbars sits in the office right next to me. I can therefore be reasonably confident about the accuracy of the information that I give.
However, no matter how careful I am in my research I cannot totally guarantee accuracy beyond the shadow of doubt (what if the particular manufacturer's website that I got the information from was not up-to-date, for example?).
I just try to be as helpful as I can to people who have difficulty in getting the information they are looking for but in the end, in case of critical issues, it would always be wise to recheck with the manufacturer and ask for confirmation in writing. After all, that's one of the reasons why they have Service Departments.
I work as an engineer in the car industry and have direct access to all regulations covering vehicle construction, towing, etc.. A good friend of mine is the development engineer who carries out the tests to determine towloads for all GM Europe products and the design release engineer responsible for towbars sits in the office right next to me. I can therefore be reasonably confident about the accuracy of the information that I give.
However, no matter how careful I am in my research I cannot totally guarantee accuracy beyond the shadow of doubt (what if the particular manufacturer's website that I got the information from was not up-to-date, for example?).
I just try to be as helpful as I can to people who have difficulty in getting the information they are looking for but in the end, in case of critical issues, it would always be wise to recheck with the manufacturer and ask for confirmation in writing. After all, that's one of the reasons why they have Service Departments.
I certainly never doubted your desire to be helpful - this come accross in spades. I still would recommend that you add a disclaimer. You are vulnerable without one especially as you are quoting specific infor for a particular car. This is the one we use when advising on tax issues
"The information and advice given is based upon the authors understanding of current UK Tax legislation, custom and practice. Legislation and its interpretation is subject to change and therefore whilst every effort has been taken to ensure accuracy, no absolute guarantee can be given."
Your responce to Sally is worth noting - suggesting a 93% weight ratio is "OK" could cause problems if Sally goes out and stuffs the whole lot into a wall. I really do think a disclaimer stating that if she does tow at this limit the responcibility is hers and hers alone.
But it is your choice - you may be wise to get some proper advice on this subject tho'.
Hope you take this in the spirit in which it was written.
Clive
"The information and advice given is based upon the authors understanding of current UK Tax legislation, custom and practice. Legislation and its interpretation is subject to change and therefore whilst every effort has been taken to ensure accuracy, no absolute guarantee can be given."
Your responce to Sally is worth noting - suggesting a 93% weight ratio is "OK" could cause problems if Sally goes out and stuffs the whole lot into a wall. I really do think a disclaimer stating that if she does tow at this limit the responcibility is hers and hers alone.
But it is your choice - you may be wise to get some proper advice on this subject tho'.
Hope you take this in the spirit in which it was written.
Clive
Point taken, Clive. But if there is such an issue of legality here, then it would be worthwhile PC putting a blanket disclaimer over all contributions to the forum and not to leave it to each respondent to have to do it for him/herself. However, I think it would be difficult to make any legal claims against any false recommendations given anyway because the persons cannot be traced so long as nicknames are used and no addresses given.
Going to the specific case of my response to Sally's question, I cannot see any problem in suggesting that a weight ratio of 93% would be OK so long as 100% is legal if approved by the manufacturer and even more than 100% if the licence was issued before 1st Jan 1997 or with a respective B+E licence. Even with a 85% guideline, 93% can hardly be construed to be abnormal or even dangerous practice if necessary due care is taken.
Going to the specific case of my response to Sally's question, I cannot see any problem in suggesting that a weight ratio of 93% would be OK so long as 100% is legal if approved by the manufacturer and even more than 100% if the licence was issued before 1st Jan 1997 or with a respective B+E licence. Even with a 85% guideline, 93% can hardly be construed to be abnormal or even dangerous practice if necessary due care is taken.
Err, lads, Sally is trying to get a reply to her question here, not listen to you two ranting on in a personal bun fight. Can we please stick to the original question. Thank you.
Err! Mick - read Lutz's responce!!
I thought it coverred the basics? I am only suggesting a disclaimer to protect Lutz in the event he gets something wrong.
As for "bun fight" - I am a bit busy right now - call me next week.
I thought it coverred the basics? I am only suggesting a disclaimer to protect Lutz in the event he gets something wrong.
As for "bun fight" - I am a bit busy right now - call me next week.
Yes that's fine, but we don't then need 4 extremely long replies from yourself and Lutz that are basically just the pair of you arguing between yourselves about past entries. I expect Sally lost interest after the first few lines. I suggest that if you want to argue with Lutz's original entry, that you add it as a Comment, you can then go off and argue between yourselves, and not take up the whole thread. If you then come to an agreed conclusion that will be of interest to others, then add it to the main thread.
Thats great! You criticise me and Lutz for having a conversation specifically concerned with Sallys original question (for which I think Lutz answerred it as succintcly as possible)and for which we have, as adults, agreed to differ on a couple of points.
So you feel you have the right to butt in and accuse us of having a "bun-fight" and Lutz not answering Sallys question?
Perhaps you would like to explain why you felt the need to put your oar in when the thread was finnished anyway??
You are accusing us of doing exactly what you have just done yourself?
For Gods sake leave it out - the last thing we need is another debate on who is allowed to say what!
This is a Forum!!! People chat - its what it is there for. If you do not like it why are you here?? If anybody has just made an irrelevent posting it is you, not myself or Lutz.
That's it, now you've got the idea
OK, to answer your questions:Thats great! You criticise me and Lutz for having a conversation specifically concerned with Sallys original question (for which I think Lutz answerred it as succintcly as possible)and for which we have, as adults, agreed to differ on a couple of points.
- The conversation between you two was started by the question, it wasn't answering it. Lutz had already done this in his first reply.
So you feel you have the right to butt in and accuse us of having a "bun-fight" and Lutz not answering Sallys question?
- Can't 'butt-in' in a forum Clive, it's open conversation. If you're having a private discussion as you've implied then the Comments area is the place to be. Like we're doing now.
Perhaps you would like to explain why you felt the need to put your oar in when the thread was finnished anyway??
- Because too many threads of late have ended up in serious arguments that have totally detracted from the main question. Lutz's first reply answered Sally's question. The next four long paragraphs were on the morals of legal grounds about making quotes on the forum. Sally probably not in the slightest bit interested in this. Perhaps a discussion on it's own under Website would be the place for this one. The thread is only finished when the last reply is added, not when you've decided. If you mean that your discussion was finished (how can we tell?) then fine. Why get shirty with me then? Just give a light hearted comment such as, "It's OK we've finished now
". Don't take it so seriously.You are accusing us of doing exactly what you have just done yourself?
- No, the two are totally different.
For Gods sake leave it out - the last thing we need is another debate on who is allowed to say what!
- ROFL. Et tu Clive
This is a Forum!!! People chat - its what it is there for. If you do not like it why are you here?? If anybody has just made an irrelevent posting it is you, not myself or Lutz.
- So I'm not allowed to join the forum conversation then? Calm down Clive.
Anyway, you're busy aren't you.
Mick
In case you missed it :-
"Your responce to Sally is worth noting - suggesting a 93% weight ratio is "OK" could cause problems if Sally goes out and stuffs the whole lot into a wall. I really do think a disclaimer stating that if she does tow at this limit the responcibility is hers and hers alone.
But it is your choice - you may be wise to get some proper advice on this subject tho'.
Hope you take this in the spirit in which it was written.
Clive"
Lutz did take it in the correct spirit.
Not sure how you took it?
In case you missed it :-
"Your responce to Sally is worth noting - suggesting a 93% weight ratio is "OK" could cause problems if Sally goes out and stuffs the whole lot into a wall. I really do think a disclaimer stating that if she does tow at this limit the responcibility is hers and hers alone.
But it is your choice - you may be wise to get some proper advice on this subject tho'.
Hope you take this in the spirit in which it was written.
Clive"
Lutz did take it in the correct spirit.
Not sure how you took it?
Clive, whether Sue tows at 93% or 100% or 85% or anything else it is always her responsibility and hers alone. Only if somebody suggests that she may tow more than what is legally permitted and she follows such a recommendation would she have any chance of recourse in case of an accident. Probably only then if the advice was given by someone in the business like a dealer who can be expected to make definitive statements and not by some hobby caravanner here in this forum.
Thanks for all your advice and help guys. Just to let you know I had our local dealer check the 'stats' today on Towsure and the results came out at 87%. But if the car does end up embedded in a wall it'll the husbands fault 'cos he'll be driving!!
Facebook
Twitter