Can we really believe (AND RELY ON) what we read in Practical Caravan Magazine ?

[TheTravellingRooster]

Hi to you all out there. I hope that me return to the fold
has not been with an OTT topic. Having moved from West Lancashire up-to
Northumberland and a couple of health issues has caused serious
prioritising of time usage.
Here we go. Recently on another forum
there was reference to Tow-cars and testing and also to Caravans and
testing and the somewhat skewed results tat were being presented for our
digestion and above all OUR INTELLIGENCE.
There was a reference
to a 2007 Volvo V70 D5 SE and I recalled the Practical Caravan Magazine
had conducted a TOWCAR AWARDS 2007 and had included the Volvo V70 D5 SE
as a Class Winner. The class category was 1425kgs-1574kgs,Oh
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. See my point .... 5).
I searched through my old archives of potential tow-cars and found the very test in question.
It
does not define whether the test car was manual or auto or even
auto/geartronic but I believe from the image that it was manual.
Indeed the interior is the same as that of mine even down-to the built in Volvo telephone system.
Now to the point,or indeed several of them.
1).
You have the car listed as Kerbweight 1561kg, Mine, albeit a 163 bhp
2005(05) and geartronic is 1777kgs off a VOSA spec Dynamic Axle
Weighbridge.
2). You have the test car entered into the
1425kg-1574kg class,that is three classes below the true weight of the
car,it is hardly surprising that it is a class winner. Is it?
3).
You say that it pulled an 85% match, but 85% of you quoted figure of
1561 would have meant that the caravan was circa 1326kgs,no wonder it
was so quick from 30mph-60mph.What would it have been if it had have
been more accurately circa 1510kgs.
4). You even included the
stable-mate 2.0ltr V50 in the class category test,this could not
possibly have been a fair comparative,a much smaller and less powerful
car even if it had an 85% match to the weight of it.
5). I have
read very recently that your tests are done at the MIRA testing grounds
and that all of the cars are weighed on their weighbridge prior to
undergoing the TOWCAR AWARDS. How therefore can the car be listed as
having a kerbweight of 1561kgs when my car albeit a 2005 (05) model but
with Geartronic option not the Manual option be 1777kgs on a VOSA spec'
Dynamic Axle Weighbridge ? That is a difference of 216kgs !!!!
I assume that the kerbweight is as per your own slightly modified published definition of :-
.......the
car or other vehicle's weight with a 90% full fuel tank,all necessary
fluids,68kgs for the driver and 7kg luggage. This is the figure used to
calculate a towcar match.

Ignorance, can be Bliss,It is No Defence & not an
excuse,Stupidity can be expensive and when combined, they can be
disastrous.

 

[Parksy]

This topic was posted yesterday on the General message board. I have now deleted the identical topic from the General message board because multiple posting of the same material on different message boards would have led to replies being scattered between the two. Please do not open duplicate forum topics.

Parksy (Moderator)

 

[Surfer]

Poster was desperate for a reply!

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

Poster was desperate for a reply!

not going to happen not from the mag anyway, never does!! allthough several of the staff contribute on the forum, Answers to such questions are in short supply. re, FAO Doug King posted Nov 8th regarding using a trolly jack, we are still waiting, ditto 85% towing recommendations long debate several questions inc letters to the mag, "no response" so don't hold your breath T,R.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Poster was desperate for a reply!

not going to happen not from the mag anyway, never does!! allthough several of the staff contribute on the forum, Answers to such questions are in short supply. re, FAO Doug King posted Nov 8th regarding using a trolly jack, we are still waiting, ditto 85% towing recommendations long debate several questions inc letters to the mag, "no response" so don't hold your breath T,R.

Reply Deleted
For whatever reason you have looked through back issues of Practical Caravan magazine to find an article about the towcar awards of 2007 and you have decided to challenge the accuracy of the information in the article some five years after it was published.

No problem with that, Nigel Donnelly is aware of this topic and if either he or David Motton decide to reply to your points they will do so if and when they have the time and the opportunity.
Mistakes and discrepancies arise from time to time and I'm sure that the editorial staff of Practical Caravan magazine are happy to address or to correct such issues whenever possible but please bear in mind that in common with every other magazine Practical Caravan magazine prints a standard disclaimer, part of which reads:
'Every care is taken in compiling the contents of the magazine, but we assume no responsibility in the effect arising therefrom...'

Your reply to Surfer and Colin has been removed from the message board because it was in breach of forum ettiquette and also the terms and conditions for the use of this forum by members.
Your comments breached Rule 3 of Forum Etiquette which states:
You may not transmit material that discloses personal matters concerning any person or that is defamatory
The comment also breached Rule 4 which states:
You may not transmit complaints about named companies or caravan parks. Such individual issues should be taken up with the company direct.
The Terms and Conditions were also breached, Clause 3/10 states that you agree not to use the Practical Caravan forum:
to disseminate any material which does or may bring Haymarket or any of
its brands or subsidiaries into dispute or in any way damage their reputation

Parksy (Moderator)

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Hi Parksy. I am indeed sorry that I had contravened to such an extent but I had actually picked up on the mention of the lack of response to the trolley jack issue.
It is a well known fact an Editor is ultimately responsible for the content that goes into their (by title of Editor) magazines/journals/publications and I as such and I am completely unaware whether this particular issue and in particular directly relating to the article that I have highlighted has ever been brought up before.
I am not so naive as to believe that this article, albeit from 2007 has gone unchallenged before. Is it possible that it has been left to become a 'Sleeping Dog" ?;just like the Trolley Jack puppy that is now an unconscious dog.
I have had more than a passing interest in this particular article than perhaps most other might have simply because I have what is near enough the same vehicle but with the Auto/Geartronic option.
The discrepancy between the published weight and what I know my own car to be is enormous.
Mistakes and discrepancies are one thing but apparently the weight was verified at the test site and as I recall it has never been amended nor pointed out in subsequent publications of the magazine as to it being an erroneous account of events.
If I may reiterate,the magazine is on general sale to a buying public and is essential reading for Newbies and Total Novices,surely that in itself warrants absolute accuracy in the Weights and Measures that are publicised ?

 

[Parksy]

Hi TR
There's no problem with disputing facts or figures which are published either on the forum by fellow members or in the magazine articles written by editorial staff.
Neither the magazine or the forum can guarantee that the facts or figures shown in any forum post or magazine article are 100% accurate which is why all publications of that nature carry a disclaimer notice.
We can't compel editorial staff to reply to forum posts, they are aware of your comments and it is for them to decide whether or not to enter the discussion.
I couldn't leave your earlier comments on the forum because unfortunately they came across as a bit insulting or contemptuous, perhaps because you appear to be dissatisfied with a previous reply from the Towcar editor David Motton.
I'm sure that you hadn't deliberately intended to break any rules but I have to let you know the reasons behind any moderator editing, it always looks worse than it is when it's written down though.
This forum would definitely benefit from more Practical Caravan editorial input, but quite often the Practical Caravan editorial staff shy away from entering into dialogue with forum members because some of the exchanges have at times past seemed a bit hostile or aggressive from some forum members, even though they probably hadn't meant things to be that way.
This is why I keep an eye on forum posts which ask direct questions of the editorial staff, if we can maintain a friendly positive approach then perhaps our queries about magazine articles may be answered more readily.

 

[twindaddy]

I deal with kerbwights quite a bit through my employment/trade - the specification of individual vehicle can change the kerbweight dramatically. Items that are sometimes optional to standard spec like Heated Seats, Heated Screen, Auto gearbox, leather, Nav and audio systems can easily had a lot of Kg's to the listed 'standard' varient of the same car.

To give an example, one of the vehicle I worked with today quotes 1595kg and 1685kg depending on HP/transmission and spec.

Hope that helps!

 

[Lutz]

I hate to complicate matters even more, but nowadays it is rare for any manufacturer to quote kerbweights in the way the term 'kerbweight' is defined. Usually, the figures that they call kerbweight are actually 'Mass in Running Order' or MIRO for short, or Mass in Service, as it's called in the V5c certificate. There are differences in content.
That aside, it is rare for actual 'kerbweights' not to be more than published data. This is because published figures are often based on the base vehicle without any factory fitted options.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

I deal with kerbwights quite a bit through my employment/trade - the specification of individual vehicle can change the kerbweight dramatically. Items that are sometimes optional to standard spec like Heated Seats, Heated Screen, Auto gearbox, leather, Nav and audio systems can easily had a lot of Kg's to the listed 'standard' varient of the same car.

To give an example, one of the vehicle I worked with today quotes 1595kg and 1685kg depending on HP/transmission and spec.

Hope that helps!

Hi twindaddy. Dress this up all you like,the quoted kerbweight put the car into a classification that was way way way below the actual weight and appropriate classification of that vehicle.
The truth of the matter is simply that there was a gross editorial error,now blame this on who the hell you like but the buck stops with the Editor and or Sub editor. Proof reads are a breed pending extinction and proof readers with a technical knowledge of what they are reading are like the Doe Doe.
The particular Towcar details that I have highlighted are so far from reality that it is actually not even representative of the actual vehicle that I have,albeit mine is an Auto/Geartronic variant and has exactly the same internal appearance in the cockpit view.
These vehicles have supposedly been weighed at the Testing Grounds and entered into a specific class of Towcar Award.
The car is so far away from a realistic weight (mine as a typical build example) is is not even the same vehicle on paper.
Marginal weight differences can be explained away by different trim and equipment variations but not to the extent of the one that I have identified,and especially as the SE specification as such is 'Fully Loaded';as is mine.

 

[Surfer]

Wouldn't it be preferable to list a current car and not one 5 years old as at that point two type of kerbweight were being defined. A kerbweight with no fluids or passengers and the other asa Lutz described. I think the latter is the only one sued these days.
If you want to be picky why not point out to the caravan club the many descrepancies in kerbweights between vehicles or perhaps knock the website designers of "Whattowcar.com"? It is highly likley that even the manufacturer's publicised kerbweights may be incorrect. Try and find out the kerbweight of a Vauxhall for example. They do not publish them either on the website on on their literature unless they have started to do so very recently. You need to check the VIN plate on the vehicle for axle weights and Gross Train weights.

 

[JonnyG]

knock the website designers of "Whattowcar.com"?

From what i remember, that site is/was a dutch site,and therefore any kerbwieghts given there were based on cars sold there and not here in the UK.
I think what the original poster is getting at is the actual tests and how they are applied one would assume PC mag who go to great lengths to do towing test with a sort of scientific appitude towards measurements ie Gs pulled in gear times slalom course mpg ect ect, and yet the so called 85% rule which is the basis of all these tests seems to be somewhat haphazardly appllied occassional.
or have i mis understood his grievance...

 

[Lutz]

Whether the Whattowcar site lists data for the Dutch or the UK market is largely irrelevant. Either way their data can only be a rough guide. Weighing the car will give you the actual weight but not the kerbweight. There is no definitive source of information for kerbweight, only Mass in Service, which is quoted in the V5c certificate.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Wouldn't it be preferable to list a current car and not one 5 years old as at that point two type of kerbweight were being defined. A kerbweight with no fluids or passengers and the other asa Lutz described. I think the latter is the only one sued these days.
If you want to be picky why not point out to the caravan club the many descrepancies in kerbweights between vehicles or perhaps knock the website designers of "Whattowcar.com"? It is highly likley that even the manufacturer's publicised kerbweights may be incorrect. Try and find out the kerbweight of a Vauxhall for example. They do not publish them either on the website on on their literature unless they have started to do so very recently. You need to check the VIN plate on the vehicle for axle weights and Gross Train weights.

Hi Surfer. Firstly,this is not nor was not an issue or point about a current model and if you read my opening post again you will realise just that.
Secondly,it is about a car that I know rather a lot about,indeed the car that I have only differs by the gearbox and possibly mine having a factory fitted sun roof otherwise it is the same vehicle.
The Caravan Club data base is as much use as a wet paper grocery bag,that is my opinion and it is based on a total lack of being able to find my 1996 Volvo V70 T5 CD Auto and the 2001 Elddis Crusader SuperSirocco.
What really amused me at the NEC a couple of years back was the CC Official that insisted that I was using the wrong search criteria and promptly set about showing me how. Guess what ?,he could not get a result either, Ho Ho Ho.
I don't need to knock the websites of any if not most of the others because I know from experience,don't bother.
Even the Holy Grail of data for matching is totally unreliable and some of the figures that were flagged up for my T5 were so far out that they were not even funny,5 different results for the one car and a very specific one at that. All of the details were entered on each occasion but even the nearest was not correct.
What has the Vin Plate got to do with the Kerbweight? it only gives front and rear axle maximum loads and the train weight and the gross train. Deducting one from the other will give the maximum braked towing weight,this is 1800kgs.
The issue behind my opening post (it has still had no response from the powers that be,unless it is being typed out while I am doing this) is the utter misrepresentation of a vehicle that was not only a Class Winner but was listed with a kerbweight that was so far from factual that even that begged at minimum,a correction notification.
I surely, must not be that only one that has spotted this 'Error'.
It only came about when I stumbled upon the article that I had cut out of the magazine prior to sending the remainder to the recycle centre back in 2007.
That article/copy was a Gross Misrepresentation of two basic facts,the Class Winner in a class that it was not accurately determined and the published kerbweight was so far below a realistic one that it was grossly inaccurate in itself.
I have been informed by a member on another Caravan Specific Forum that he was present at most if not all of the Towcar of The Year Awards at the proving grounds and had watched the vehicles being weighed.
The magazine publish the kerbweight definition in their own pages and yet they this car could not possibly have been the weight that was quoted (1561kgs).
This is not the first time that I have taken issue with articles/test reports in the printed magazine. The last time the response was a very unsatisfactory one and especially when considering the sector of the magazine buying public that it is aimed/published for.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

knock the website designers of "Whattowcar.com"?

From what i remember, that site is/was a dutch site,and therefore any kerbwieghts given there were based on cars sold there and not here in the UK.
I think what the original poster is getting at is the actual tests and how they are applied one would assume PC mag who go to great lengths to do towing test with a sort of scientific appitude towards measurements ie Gs pulled in gear times slalom course mpg ect ect, and yet the so called 85% rule which is the basis of all these tests seems to be somewhat haphazardly appllied occassional.
or have i mis understood his grievance...

Hi Jonny. No,you have it spot on but it goes further than that. It includes totally erroneous detail and a vehicle in an inappropriate class of towcar,it could not possibly have done anything else but win.
The magazine has a Duty of Care and within that; not to misrepresent when it comes to the vital statistics that dictate toward the reader details that will form the basis of decisions assentially for Newbies/Beginners for safe towcar/caravan matching.
On this occasion if the caravan was 85% of the published kerbweight it would have been circa 1326kgs. My car as already pointed out is 1777kgs on a VOSA spec bridge and at the premises of the bridge manufacturer,installer.and service company. The 85% of kerbweight of my car would produce a recommended caravan MTPLM of 1510kgs.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Whether the Whattowcar site lists data for the Dutch or the UK market is largely irrelevant. Either way their data can only be a rough guide. Weighing the car will give you the actual weight but not the kerbweight. There is no definitive source of information for kerbweight, only Mass in Service, which is quoted in the V5c certificate.

Hi Lutz. The cars were reported as being weighed on site at the proving grounds buy a member of another forum.
The kerweight definition as published in the magazine is what 'Joe Public' would expect compliance with.or at-least I would, as a starting point when & for making decisions about a towcar that I knew nothing about.
Newbies/Beginners need accuracy,not details from a comic such as the Dandy & The Beano.
This is a magazine that has influenced generations of caravanner's,surely it has a Duty of Care to ensure accuracy when publishing weights and measures that are the basics and basis of Beginner/Newbie decision making,never mind just for the general reading public.

 

[Lutz]

Hi Lutz. The cars were reported as being weighed on site at the proving grounds buy a member of another forum.
The kerweight definition as published in the magazine is what 'Joe Public' would expect compliance with.or at-least I would, as a starting point when & for making decisions about a towcar that I knew nothing about.
Newbies/Beginners need accuracy,not details from a comic such as the Dandy & The Beano.
This is a magazine that has influenced generations of caravanner's,surely it has a Duty of Care to ensure accuracy when publishing weights and measures that are the basics and basis of Beginner/Newbie decision making,never mind just for the general reading public.

That the cars were weighed on site at the proving ground forum doesn't mean that the weights measured were the kerbweights. They may have been the actual weights of the test car as submitted, but not the kerbweights.
It is unacceptable that magazines define kerbweights any different to the way the car industry does. A definition only makes sense if there only one common definition that is understood and agreed to by all.
With few exceptions, car manufacturers do not normally document kerbweight anywhere so any reference to kerbweight can only be a rough guide.
Kerbweight is specific to each and every vehicle so it is absolutely impossible to quote anything more accurate than a rough guideline without reference to a particular vehicle. A magazine is therefore not in a position to publish accurate kerbweights that are valid for all cars of the same model and it would be self-deceptive to expect them to do so.
Besides, for the purpose of calculating weight ratios, it is not that important that the figure is that accurate, anyway. For an average outfit, a 50kg error either way is only going to affect the weight ratio by less than 3% and nobody is going to notice such a small difference in practice. Accuracy is only important for the purpose of checking whether a Category B licence is legal for a particular outfit or not. In that case, the powers-that-be will rely on the figure in the V5c certificate, regardless of what magazines, brochures or the owner's handbook may say.

 

[Surfer]

I think TR misses the point that the figures given by PC, CC and most other organisations are guidelines only and the only figures that count are the VIN plate figures on the car when you are stopped by the police. Maybe when they weighed the vehicle the driver waas over or under weight.
If any one is foolish enough to believe what is written in magazine and on websites is gospel, then maybe they should not be owning a car. TBH I do not know what the OP wants from PC or any of the other organisations. LOL!

 

[Lutz]

You are basically correct, Surfer, but kerbweights are not plated and the only documented unladen weight is the Mass in Service stated on the V5c certificate.

 

[JonnyG]

Hi lutz, Hi surfer.. i think you are both getting too techi on this thread and missing what i believe is the piont in question.
It doesnt matter what any vin plate or V5 states, as regards to these "what towcar of the year awards/tests, as one would assume these actual towcars are weighed prior to the test and duly set up to tow at 85% of the cars Acual weight,[if that car is is permitted to do so] and then also put into the proper weight catogory/class for what is considered to be the fairest way to test all the entries..If this isnt being done in all cases then the tests are not a accurate portrail of towcars towing at 85% and matched to other similar weighted cars as descibed by PC as it method of testing......

 

[Lutz]

But the recommendation is based on kerbweight, not actual weight. If the clubs weigh the vehicles prior to the test and base their towload on 85% of that they are inconsistent with their own advice and should revise the recommendation accordingly.
Frankly, I think tests conducted at 85% are not representative either, because so many caravanners do not follow that recommendation. It would make a lot more sense to test at the maximum permissible load that is specified for the car, or perhaps at 100% weight ratio if the limit is higher. Then, the results that would be achieved at 85% can only be even better.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I do not recall or have access to the 2007 test TR referees to but I do wonder if some of the the details have got lost in translation.

It struck me that 1561kg kerbweight is quite low for the stated car, and using a A leading car data website it lists the 2007 V70 D5 SE as having kerbweights between 1755 and 1854kg depending on specific model.

I was playing with the figures and based on the kerbweights listed above, the 85% towing weights would range from 1492 to 1576kg. The magazines figure of 1561 sits within this range. So the class categories TR quoted looks to be the 85% towing range rather than the kerbweight of the vehicle.

calculating it out 1561 is 85% of 1836kg, and suprise suprise the Volvo V70 D5 AWG has a quoted kerbweight matching it exactly.

Looking at the information with this perspective, there does not seem to be a discrepancy. Perhaps the kerbweight figure was misprinted and should have been the 85% figure.

 

[Parksy]

I do not recall or have access to the 2007 test TR referees to but I do wonder if some of the the details have got lost in translation.............

I can't be certain but I have the feeling that Practical Caravan may no longer have the data quoted. They are aware of this topic but the test was carried out around 5 years ago and if they still had the article to hand then my guess is that they would have replied by now.
A misprint cannot be ruled out and as I wrote earlier regardless of any 'duty of care' that TR thinks may be applicable there is a disclaimer printed in every copy of Practical Caravan Magazine which would similarly apply to most if not all other magazine publications and to this website
Practical Caravan are usually happy to deal with any relevant queries about mistakes or discrepancies with regard to the information provided in the magazine, but to be fair they are unlikely to print a correction to an article from such a long time ago so I'm not sure what the aim of the topic is?

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

, but kerbweights are not plated and the only documented unladen weight is the Mass in Service stated on the V5c certificate.

hi Lutz, sorry but the above statment I believe is incorrect, (mass in service) has nothing to do with unladen weight not in the UK anyway,
because the V5c on my car clearly states mass in service = 1935kg
however the VIN plate reads = 1.1935kg 2. 3160kg. 3. 1045kg. 4.950kg
now given that 3, max front axel load + 4. max rear axel load = 1995kg that being 50kg more than 1,1935kg this must be the gross vehicle weight, and not unladen weight. as implied,
this is in fact 1521kg (weighed on bridge) as is on the road, and 99kg heavier than the hand book figure of 1422kg..
now with all that said what has this to do with the OP complaint WELL, considering the test in question sited the Volvo V70 t5 @ 1561kg then it would not be a giant leap to think the Meriva was in the same class as the Volvo, this is obviously not the case.

 

[Lutz]

If 1935kg is shown under Section 4 Item G (Mass in Service) in your V5c then there is an error in the document. It should have been entered one line above, under Item F1 (maximum permissible mass)