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

[TheTravellingRooster]

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!

Hi Surfer. TTR is very definitely NOT MISSING THE POINT. What I want is a very subjective matter,but it begins with accuracy of printed fact. It is that very essential part of learning and trusting what you read and especially when they know no different,that is the paramount source of information for Newbies/Beginner Caravanner's. This is not a magazine that discusses Radio Controlled Models,this is a Caravan Specific Magazine,hence the title Practical Caravan Magazine.
If PCM is sticking with their own published facts then the parameter for kerbweight should read as is published in the magazine,moving goal posts and hiding behind disclaimers is not on.
Lutz and I have crossed metaphoric swords on a number of occasions about the definition of kerbweight,the one piece of vital and supporting evidence to the effect of what I quoted is coincidently no longer available and from a piece of date that was on a .gov site as I recall. He was absolutely correct in what he was saying,BUT it was only applicable in wider Europe.
The UK was still sticking with the many different and some absurd definitions of kerbweight.
The point about:- 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.
I am very definitely not one of those,it was for that very reason that I pursued the issue over my 1996 Volvo V70 T5 CD Auto and the absolutely ludicrous figures given in 'The Holy Grail' of 'Towing Safe' and with Volvo Cars UK Ltd.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

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......

Hi again Jonny. Spot on. I have had a reply from a member of another forum that has said that the cars are weighed on the MIRA bridge and that he has been present and seen with his own eyes that being carried out.
The details printed on the page that I had retained and had forgotten about make an absolute laughing stock of the vehicle as I know it to be. As pointed out,mine is as near as makes little difference the same car excet it is circa 12-18months older and Auto/Geartronic not Manual.

 

[Parksy]

Hi Surfer. TTR is very definitely NOT MISSING THE POINT. What I want is a very subjective matter,but it begins with accuracy of printed fact. It is that very essential part of learning and trusting what you read and especially when they know no different,that is the paramount source of information for Newbies/Beginner Caravanner's. This is not a magazine that discusses Radio Controlled Models,this is a Caravan Specific Magazine,hence the title Practical Caravan Magazine.
If PCM is sticking with their own published facts then the parameter for kerbweight should read as is published in the magazine,moving goal posts and hiding behind disclaimers is not on........

The point is TR that there are no guarantees concerning the 'accuracy of printed fact'
No sane person that I know of, whether they were newbies or touring veterans, would base a decision to purchase a towing vehicle or a caravan for that matter solely on an article which appeared in a magazine.
Neither of us has any idea of the strategy behind articles which appear in Practical Caravan magazine and there is no evidence to support your view that the magazine hides behind disclaimers.
I pointed out the fact that all published material carries some form of disclaimer, Practical Caravan staff appear to have chosen not to engage in this discussion about an article which appeared some considerable time ago, so none of us on this forum of us know for sure what criteria were used when the vehicle under discussion was tested or whether or not it was factually accurate.
If the figures provided by Practical Caravan were considered to be incorrect or misleading it would have been much more productive to have discussed this with them at the time rather than years later.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

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?

Hi Parsy. I have a copy of that very specific test and indeed the very page that was extracted from the magazine before the rest of it went out for recycling. I will either E'mail it as an attachment or post it into the forum,as you/the powers that be; declare.
Not only that I have checked my V5C document and the Mass in Service is listed as 1649kgs and I believe that is not including a 90% full tank,a 68kgs driver allowance and an allowance of 7kgs of luggage as is the current quoted method of establishing Kerbweight in the UK and as quoted by PCM on a regular basis.
If the total extra weight is added into the 1649kgs it will produce a figure of 1769kgs,my car is 1777kgs,it was weighed on the bridge that is at the premises of the manufacturer of the VOSA bridges. They are based in Runcorn,Cheshire.
The point about my post Header is quite simply that of asking a/the question of a publication that is Caravan Specific and is the basisc source of all if not most potential Newbies/Beginners into caravanning.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Hi Surfer. TTR is very definitely NOT MISSING THE POINT. What I want is a very subjective matter,but it begins with accuracy of printed fact. It is that very essential part of learning and trusting what you read and especially when they know no different,that is the paramount source of information for Newbies/Beginner Caravanner's. This is not a magazine that discusses Radio Controlled Models,this is a Caravan Specific Magazine,hence the title Practical Caravan Magazine.
If PCM is sticking with their own published facts then the parameter for kerbweight should read as is published in the magazine,moving goal posts and hiding behind disclaimers is not on........

The point is TR that there are no guarantees concerning the 'accuracy of printed fact'
No sane person that I know of, whether they were newbies or touring veterans, would base a decision to purchase a towing vehicle or a caravan for that matter solely on an article which appeared in a magazine.
Neither of us has any idea of the strategy behind articles which appear in Practical Caravan magazine and there is no evidence to support your view that the magazine hides behind disclaimers.
I pointed out the fact that all published material carries some form of disclaimer, Practical Caravan staff appear to have chosen not to engage in this discussion about an article which appeared some considerable time ago, so none of us on this forum of us know for sure what criteria were used when the vehicle under discussion was tested or whether or not it was factually accurate.
If the figures provided by Practical Caravan were considered to be incorrect or misleading it would have been much more productive to have discussed this with them at the time rather than years later.

Hi again Parksy. At the time of the publication I did not have the car that I now have,again,mine is an April 29th 2005(05) Volvo V70 D5 SE Geartronic. To all intent it is the same car except for it being Auto/Geartronic and not Manual,mine also has a Factory Fitted Sunroof,the car in the printed article does not appear to be blessed with one.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

, 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.

Hi Colin. The weight of my car as previously stated is 1777kgs and as per the quoted definition of Kerbweight in PCM.
The Mass in Service is quoted as 1649lks,add into that the apparently missing extra weight of fuel.drive and 7kgs of luggage and you get 1769kgs. That is a very very long way from 1561kgs of the tested and allegedly weighed car,weighed allegedly at the Testing Grounds.

 

[Lutz]

The weight of my car as previously stated is 1777kgs and as per the quoted definition of Kerbweight in PCM.
The Mass in Service is quoted as 1649lks,add into that the apparently missing extra weight of fuel.drive and 7kgs of luggage and you get 1769kgs. That is a very very long way from 1561kgs of the tested and allegedly weighed car,weighed allegedly at the Testing Grounds.

I'm afraid you've got your sums wrong. Mass in Service includes 75kg for the driver and sundry items which kerbweight does not. Therefore, Mass in Service is always greater than kerbweight, even after allowing for the difference between a full fuel tank (per kerbweight definition) and a 90% full one (as defined for Mass in Service). Instead of adding an amount to compare kerbweight with Mass in Service you should therefore have subtracted. So, subtracting 75kg from 1649kg we arrive at 1574kg, which is not that far off the 1561kg that the car was apparently tested at. (The difference will actually be slightly larger due to the 90% versus 100% full tank, but this won't be very great)

 

[Lutz]

Lutz and I have crossed metaphoric swords on a number of occasions about the definition of kerbweight,the one piece of vital and supporting evidence to the effect of what I quoted is coincidently no longer available and from a piece of date that was on a .gov site as I recall. He was absolutely correct in what he was saying,BUT it was only applicable in wider Europe.
The UK was still sticking with the many different and some absurd definitions of kerbweight.

A.) No piece of legislation refers to kerbweight. Older regulations refer to 'unladen weight' which is something else, newer ones have adopted the term 'Mass in running order' as defined by EU Directive. Unladen weight is a dry weight without any fuel, oils, cooling water, etc.
B.) If there is more than one definition of kerbweight it would be legitimate to argue that there is no definition, only an interpretation. A defintion only makes sense if the is only one which is accepted by all.

 

[Parksy]

..........The point about my post Header is quite simply that of asking a/the question of a publication that is Caravan Specific and is the basisc source of all if not most potential Newbies/Beginners into caravanning.

Your question posed in the header appears to be one that Practical Caravan are not prepared to address in this instance but how much faith should we place in any source of information gleaned from any magazine article?

..............At the time of the
publication I did not have the car that I now have,again,mine is an
April 29th 2005(05) Volvo V70 D5 SE Geartronic. To all intent it is the
same car except for it being Auto/Geartronic and not Manual,mine also
has a Factory Fitted Sunroof,the car in the printed article does not
appear to be blessed with one.

But the magazine article was published some four years ago so I have difficulty in understanding what you hope to acheive by raising this particular issue now after such a long time lapse.
The Practical Caravan team concerned with this magazine article are unlikely to publish any form of correction now if one was necessary, and they are aware of the points that you have raised but have apparently chosen not to participate in this discussion if their lack of response is anything to go by.
I received an acknowledgement of receipt of my email addressed to Nigel Donnelly which contained a link to this topic, but the seemingly combative tone of the topic header plus the veiled insults directed at towcar editor David Motton in the early part of the thread (which I subsequently removed) may have put off PCv staff from taking part in the discussion.
I and no doubt other forum users have seen PCv apologise and publish a correction when a mistake or factual error in a magazine article has been highlighted by forum members and readers letters alike, but the errors had been pointed out at the time, not years later and a more positive approach had been used to highlight the discrepancies.
Practical Caravan staff can hardly be expected to use this forum to try to defend themselves personally whenever somebody feels like having a pop at them for one reason or another, they lead busy lives and almost every time that a member of Practical Caravan editorial staff have tried to engage with forum members they have been met with a wall of, at best, apathy and at worst, hostile negativity, see the thread about Facebook from Clare, the newest young member of PCv editorial, on the General message board for a further example of what I mean.
I'm sure that many of us would welcome a reasonable discussion about what measuring criteria we should all be using when dealing with the relative weights of caravans and towing vehicles, but until we as a forum have learned to take a more considered and less hostile or combative approach this is unlikely to happen with PCv editorial staff involvement anytime soon.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

The weight of my car as previously stated is 1777kgs and as per the quoted definition of Kerbweight in PCM.
The Mass in Service is quoted as 1649lks,add into that the apparently missing extra weight of fuel.drive and 7kgs of luggage and you get 1769kgs. That is a very very long way from 1561kgs of the tested and allegedly weighed car,weighed allegedly at the Testing Grounds.

I'm afraid you've got your sums wrong. Mass in Service includes 75kg for the driver and sundry items which kerbweight does not. Therefore, Mass in Service is always greater than kerbweight, even after allowing for the difference between a full fuel tank (per kerbweight definition) and a 90% full one (as defined for Mass in Service). Instead of adding an amount to compare kerbweight with Mass in Service you should therefore have subtracted. So, subtracting 75kg from 1649kg we arrive at 1574kg, which is not that far off the 1561kg that the car was apparently tested at.

Hi Lutz.. If as you maintain,the Mass in service includes fuel fuel etc but not the driver allowance as stated of 68kgs then how do you account for my car weighing in at 1777kgs?
My understanding of Mass in Service is that it is one of the many and vastly differing definitions/explanations of kerbweight,albeit I am not referring to the very old and now almost defunct one that was kerbside weight,no driver,no luggage indeed no nothing and just enough fuel to get to a service station.
Since our UK years of kowtowing to the EuroFatCats and having to make sense of their gobbledegook that has been Cross-bred with some of our past government indecisions about stabilising and unifying definitions,one could almost write ones own as long as it has a clear & concise glossary attached.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Hi Parksy, I had not intended coming across anything other than deeply concerned about the totally erroneous details in the article that covered the 2007 Towcar of The Year Awards
The header was simply asking a question of those who took the time to read it and subsequently the contents of that post.
I have already amply covered why/how the article from 2007 came about in 2012 and my connection with that particular car.
My experience of attempting to get a logical explanation to published data/details in PCM by the person who actually conducted that test and is clearly visible driving the car, beggared belief to say the very least.
Just as a reminder,that specific item was detailed as a Vauxhaull pulling a monster of a German carava;,it was indeed an Opel,OK technically 'Badge Engineering'. The car was pulling a caravan that was MiRO, heavier than the permitted maximum braked towing weight,and by a very very long way. It was also shown very clearly as having no towing mirrors,this caravan was so wide that I would doubt that even Milenco Grand Aero would have given a legally required rearward view.
The response was as such,that it was conducted on a Private Facility and in Germany.
The bottom line was,don't do what we do,do as we say and do not be guided by data/articles and images.
The magazine,as I have repeatedly said goes on 'General Sale' and as such is picked up and read by Newbies/Beginners who know no different;initially.
I certainly don't expect a retraction/correction statement, nor do I ever expect a complete retesting of that car in that particular report.
However,what I do expect is the content of any magazine and PCM in particular being correct and especially when it comes down to Photographic Images and also where appropriate the Weights and Measures that form vital components of decision making.
This is especially in respect of those who know no different and assume it is correct.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Lutz and I have crossed metaphoric swords on a number of occasions about the definition of kerbweight,the one piece of vital and supporting evidence to the effect of what I quoted is coincidently no longer available and from a piece of date that was on a .gov site as I recall. He was absolutely correct in what he was saying,BUT it was only applicable in wider Europe.
The UK was still sticking with the many different and some absurd definitions of kerbweight.

A.) No piece of legislation refers to kerbweight. Older regulations refer to 'unladen weight' which is something else, newer ones have adopted the term 'Mass in running order' as defined by EU Directive. Unladen weight is a dry weight without any fuel, oils, cooling water, etc.
B.) If there is more than one definition of kerbweight it would be legitimate to argue that there is no definition, only an interpretation. A defintion only makes sense if the is only one which is accepted by all.

Hi again Lutz. I have just spoken with a VCA Officer,simply because I cannot get through to DVLA.
I am indeed told that currently (how long for is anybody's guess) that Kerbweight is defined as:- The vehicle as it left the manufacturer with all essential oils and fluids and a 90% tank of fuel and no driver.
Mass in Running Order is as above but with an allowance of 75kgs for a driver.
Mass in Running Order can therefore be explained as :- The vehicle as it left the factory with all essential oils and fluids,a 90% full fuel tank and a 75kgs driver.
This is indeed what I and many others have been describing as Kerbweight, albeit I first encountered it as a 68kgs driver and 7kgs of luggage and on one of our very very confusing and contradictory government sites.
You may recall that I had repeatedly maintained this with you during my experiences with Volvo Cars UK Ltd and others that that I would have expected some sense from.

 

[Parksy]

Hi Parksy, I had not intended coming across anything other than deeply concerned about the totally erroneous details in the article that covered the 2007 Towcar of The Year Awards
The header was simply asking a question of those who took the time to read it and subsequently the contents of that post.
I have already amply covered why/how the article from 2007 came about in 2012 and my connection with that particular car.
My experience of attempting to get a logical explanation to published data/details in PCM by the person who actually conducted that test and is clearly visible driving the car, beggared belief to say the very least.
Just as a reminder,that specific item was detailed as a Vauxhaull pulling a monster of a German carava;,it was indeed an Opel,OK technically 'Badge Engineering'. The car was pulling a caravan that was MiRO, heavier than the permitted maximum braked towing weight,and by a very very long way. It was also shown very clearly as having no towing mirrors,this caravan was so wide that I would doubt that even Milenco Grand Aero would have given a legally required rearward view.
The response was as such,that it was conducted on a Private Facility and in Germany.
The bottom line was,don't do what we do,do as we say and do not be guided by data/articles and images.
The magazine,as I have repeatedly said goes on 'General Sale' and as such is picked up and read by Newbies/Beginners who know no different;initially.
I certainly don't expect a retraction/correction statement, nor do I ever expect a complete retesting of that car in that particular report.
However,what I do expect is the content of any magazine and PCM in particular being correct and especially when it comes down to Photographic Images and also where appropriate the Weights and Measures that form vital components of decision making.
This is especially in respect of those who know no different and assume it is correct.

I and I'm sure many other forum members understand your concern and would welcome a clarification of the criteria that is used by Practical Caravan and others to measure weights of towing vehicles.
It's unfortunate that the information given at various times in Practical Caravan magazine has not lived up to your expectations, especially in view of the response to your point about a picture that was featured in the magazine.
It would appear that Practical Caravan sometimes have to fit an article around what is available to them at the time and you were right to point out to them at the time that the combination portrayed would be impractical and illegal for use on public highways.
Unfortunately we are in the position on this forum where the rules governing what can and cannot be aired become relevant.
I've allowed this discussion to continue after some earlier editing because I had alerted those concerned in the hope that they would participate in the discussion.
This has not been the case and apart from the general discussions with regard to the correct measurement for us to use, the only advice that I can offer is to take up your complaint directly with those concerned, because the rules of this forum prohibit complaints about named companies which should be taken up with the company direct (rule 4) and this includes Practical Caravan Magazine.

 

[otherclive]

Parksy when I started to read your post I really thought that you were ending this "discussion" on "Why the World Should Be Perfect". But alas you have not called time out. Perhaps I should start a new post titled "how to define one of the multifereous weights of you tow car"

 

[Parksy]

Unfortunately we can't legislate for artistic licence used by publications although I've kept a paternal eye on this thread, but a topic about tow car weights would ensure a continued forum discussion for a year or two Clive

 

[Lutz]

Hi Lutz.. If as you maintain,the Mass in service includes fuel fuel etc but not the driver allowance as stated of 68kgs then how do you account for my car weighing in at 1777kgs?
My understanding of Mass in Service is that it is one of the many and vastly differing definitions/explanations of kerbweight,albeit I am not referring to the very old and now almost defunct one that was kerbside weight,no driver,no luggage indeed no nothing and just enough fuel to get to a service station.
Since our UK years of kowtowing to the EuroFatCats and having to make sense of their gobbledegook that has been Cross-bred with some of our past government indecisions about stabilising and unifying definitions,one could almost write ones own as long as it has a clear & concise glossary attached.

But Mass in Service does include 75kg for the driver and sundry items. I can't explain your 1777kg because that is an actual weighed figure and neither kerbweight nor Mass in Service.
There is no 'defunct' definition of kerbweight. According to industry convention it is interpreted as the weight of the vehicle in a usable state with all fluids and a full tank, but no driver. The law does not recognise the term kerbweight but uses 'unladen weight' which is 'dry' weight, without any fluids and, of course, no driver.
According to the regulations, Mass in Running Order (or Mass in Service) is defined as:
'Mass of the vehicle in running order' means the mass of the vehicle
with bodywork in running oder (including coolant, oils, fuel, spare
wheel, tools and driver)
Hence Mass in Service must always be greater than kerbweight.
One should stop confusing kerbweight with Mass in Service. The two are not the same. I know many sources do talk about kerbweight when they actually mean Mass in Service, but that can lead to misunderstandings because you never know whether the person is talking about the 'old' interpretation of kerbweight or the 'new' one.

 

[ProfAlGoogle]

Good evening all, I used to own a 2005 MY Volvo V70 D5, and I am sure that it weighed no where near 1700kg.
i am currently running a phase 3 V70 D5, and was quite shocked in the drop of MPG compared to my phase 2 V70, on making inquiries to Volvo uk I was informed that the newer V70 was wider and longer than its predecessor and consequently weighed over 200kgs more.
http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/pdf/Towing_Leaflet_Jan08.pdf

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

hi guys all this is very interesting but. if the purpose of doing any test (the tow car of the year) or what ever else based on the ratio of 85% trailer weight, the results are meaningless if no one can agree what the kerbweight/ unladen weight or mass in service actually is that is 85% of what??.
I would have thought that the best way to establish the true towing potential of any vehicle is to stick to the manufacturers max trailer weight and test this, then grouping vehicles according to specific trailer weights to find the best.

the other point I would make comes from Parksy,s post ie, why bring up a 5year old test now to complain about?.
well the fact of the matter is most of these tests are done on new model cars just out on the market, or face lifts of older models, now some of us cannot afford a new car just to tow a van with. so they tend to be a little older, by the time we get them, one of the first things we do is look at the towing angle, weights ect and look up to see if it was ever tested, and that means looking at old test results , it is at this point that ommissions and mistakes come to light, I have personnaly found quite a few while searching the archives for infomation about a model I have been looking at, so I am not suprised by TR's opening post,and reason behind it.

lastly a note for Lutz, I was getting a little worried about my car of late, wrong V5c entries, wrong weight, wrong trim level, and wrong headlights, I was begining to think had a Zafira with the wrong badges

but no good news it is definitly a Meriva

 

[Lutz]

I think one shouldn't place so much emphasis on what the 85% is based on. Unladen weight is the legal term but you won't find data on it anywhere, so we're only looking at kerbweight versus Mass in Service, and that difference is only 75kg. For the average family car/caravan combination the difference in weight ratio, depending on which of the two values it is based, is only 4%. I would challenge anyone to be able to detect the difference between the way an outfit at 85% handles compared with one at 89%, all other conditions remaining equal. However, I agree that the organisations that publish the recommendation should be a bit more specific, if only to reassure the newcomer who would like a clear statement.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I have tried to understand TR's reasons
behind raising this thread. Its really not clear or logical as to why
the bantam is making such a big personal issue out of it. TR has not
been disadvantaged by it, and in practice if any one has taken the
advice in the way TR reports it, they will have a very capable
towcar. The only issue is some caravanner’s could possibly have
gone for a heavier caravan.

Whilst debate about kerbweight/Mass in
running order/ unladen weight is being used to try and explain the
apparent mismatch in the magazine data and TR's own experience is
airing and demonstrating, the general confusion that surrounds tow
matching guides, and the unnatural reverence given to the UK
industries adherence to 85% towing guidance.

I think there is far simpler and more
likely explanation.

It is undisputed the magazine was
looking at a 2007 V70 where as TR states his is a 2005 geartronic
model. According to a major car data web site the V70 was updated in
2007, which suggests there could be some significant differences, so
his assumption that his car and the test care were virtually
identical may only apply to visual appearance, rather than the
technical details. So there is almost certainly some weight
difference. But I do agree a 200kg difference is stretching the
point, and it made me check a car database which lists the 2007 V70
range as having kerbweights between 1755 and 1854kg, which does
suggest some error in the reported magazine figures.

I suspect the 1561kg figure is not the
kerbweight, but more likely the 85% towing figure, and some how it
has been transposed as the kerbweight in the information brought to
us. If this is the case it s certainly puts the kerbweight into the
right context at 1836kg, and coincides exactly with the kerbweight
for the 2007 V70 D5 AWD model.

There is no evidence to point out how
this may have been mixed up, but whether its the technicians who took
the measurements, the magazine reporters or editor, or the reader,
the I think they’re all human, and human error can sometimes creep
in. Such errors are usually covered by a disclaimer. I am sure the
issue is not a deliberate action to mislead, and I am also sure the
magazines do try to be as honest and accurate as possible but
occasionally they do get thing a little wrong – as do readers.

If my assumption is correct, then if
you look again at TR's original posting then all the points resolve
perfectly. - even the “1475 to 1574 class” which relates to the
towed weights rather than the cars kerbweight.

What ever the truth behind the issue, a
lot of water has flowed under the bridge, and it is increasing
unlikely that any newbie looking for advice will have access to the
article. And any that do will find they end up with a very good
towcar for a small caravan, and have capacity to increase the size of
van after a few years – so certainly no safety issue. And every
drive should know they are ultimately responsible to ensure their
out fit is both safe and legal, regardless of advice sought from
magazines or web sites.

Storm in tea cup comes to mind.

 

[JonnyG]

"storm in a tea cup" Maybe. but i for one keep several years of mags, not all of them but as i generally buy cars that are 3 to 4 years old , its nice to read up on cars that i am considering for the purpose of towing and indeed errors are made thats what humans do. like others at times when reading these reports or tests or technical data stuff,i have thought, thats wrong.it might just be a printing error but at times the context of the report has kinda counted that out. Sure it happens in all walks of life and indeed i am sure i have come across complaints in the past concerning "the towcar of the year" results and the data supplied.
Should we not say anything? for the fear of being labelled troublesome? "storm in a teacup" what storm? its called dialog gathering info and trying to inform whoever will listen to the possibility of a technical error in the hope these errors get fewer and fewer and the info is as accurate as is possible.....Practical Caravan magazine is a pretty reliable source for such stuff for many readers,whats wrong with keeping them on their toes and not on their laurals?

 

[Parksy]

There's nothing wrong with discussing the criteria for weight measurement with regard to towing vehicles and caravans.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out what may or may not be factual errors in PCv magazine or discussing them on the forum.
The problems begin to arise when 'keeping them on their toes' edges toward what looks like hostile criticism and statements that could potentially damage the comercial well being of Practical Caravan or any other company for that matter.
If this topic had been another discussion about weights of the sort which are often aired on the forum I'd have had a perfunctory glance at it purely out of interest and would not be involved.
Hopefully the OP, Travelling Rooster, has slightly misjudged the way in which to ask questions and meant nothing by the way in which the topic started, I'm sure that this would be the case, but the title caused me to look more closely at this topic and to keep an eye on it.
The header, or title, of this topic sets out to challenge Practical Caravan Magazine in a way that could be considered hostile and potentially damaging if taken at face value.
The OP went on to ask direct questions of the Towcar Editor with the direct implication that the Towcar Award test results were 'somewhat skewed' which there is no obligation to reply to, and this is why I mentioned that the magazine article under discussion is four years old. Practical Caravan are unlikely to print a correction after so long which is why I asked what the OP hoped to acheive.
No one is in danger of being labelled 'troublesome' and a forum such as this exists to promote open dialogue but it has to be within the rules of the forum and this particular topic has sailed a bit close to the wind at times.

 

[otherclive]

In 2007 the V70/XC70 moved from Series 2 to Series three and as one of the previous posts stated there was a significant increase in weight between S2 and S3 and in the case of the XC 70 it was neigh on 200 kg. Just parking a S3 next to the S2 will show quite clearly how much larger is the S3, so much so that my wife is distinctly reluctant to take the XC70 around our local narrow streets and lanes but will happily take the Pajero out. My XC70 has a Mass in Service of 1950kg, which together with a cracking engine makes it such a relaxed towcar.

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

hi all,
while it may be true that this and other topics sometimes sail a bit close to the wind, there is no doubt that errors do occur, and this does cost money to some if the information is taken at face value without close scrutiny, this has happend to me twice although not with pc magazine, as a result I never take articles as gospel without verifying the results from other souces. lessons learned and all that.
the prof,s explaination of the test results in question is not only plausable but probably spot on, however I doubt that a definitive answer will be found, due to the passage of time, and the sometimes adverserial nature of forum debates that understandably sees a reluctance of magazine staff to participate in, but I do not think the OP was wrong to bring the subject up although it could have been a little more tactful at times, the dissapointment of the printed article having errors is understandable.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Should we not say anything? for the fear of being labelled troublesome?

Hello Jonny,

Far from it, of course errors should avoided if possible but when they do happen it right they should be pointed out, but its a question of tact.

If we accept that errors can and do happen and usually not intentionally, rather than jumping in with all guns blazings, engage in none confrontational dialouge to explore the issue, and hopefully tease out the truth.