Caravan MTPLM

[JonnyG]

OK .......you will not believe me so do you believe the National Caravan Council?

Probably not would be my guess

Maximum Technically Permissible Laden Mass (MTPLM)

(Maximum Authorised Mass)

As stated by the caravan manufacturer on the caravan weight
plate (usually mounted close to the entrance door) – the absolute
maximum weight that the caravan must not exceed to be legal on the road.
It includes the allowances for the user payload – all fluids (water
etc) and personal belongings that you may wish to carry (clothes, food
etc).

http://www.tourerinfo.co.uk/payloads/
http://www.tourerinfo.co.uk/payloads/pdf/TC-Payloads-FAQ-final-revision.pdf

Followed this thread with great interest have liked the way both sides have put their veiwpiont across,although i am no wiser
to which viewpiont is correct.with that in mind who exactly are the national caravan council? i mean what legality do they have, are they not a self appionted group? so with that in mind how do we know what they state is legally correct?

 

[WoodlandsCamper]

This thread is getting repetitive. Can't you all agree to disagree?

 

[Lutz]

Incorrect as the plate a caravan manufacturer sticks on your caravan has no legal basis in law as it does not comply with the conditions for a statutory plate. Secondly some plates are easily removable as they are stuck on and not fixed. The plate that is fixed onto the trailer chassis is the oen that counts and where you can be prosecuted.

If you care to read the law you will learn that a plate which is stuck on is perfectly acceptable. It only has to fulfil the following conditions, quote:
"Labels shall be tamper evident, fraud resistant and self destructive in case there is an attempt to remove the label."
There is no reason why it should not be possible to design a stuck-on label which complies with the law.

 

[weejock]

Although we have humorous (I hope) remarks about this thread it is good to see something like this on the forum being duscussed and debated without malice. Having followed the points raised here I really think Parksy or some other mod that can reach Nigels ear should maybe ask the mag to get a few industry bods round a table to get an answer on this. My personal thoughts are that it could be a case of everyone thinking that this was covered by some other part of law but it may have somehow managed to slip between the cracks.
If like me most of you tow to within a few kilo's of the percieved max I suppose that extra case of wine I bring back may just land me in the dock one day. Now to be fair to the VOSA guys they are generally pretty tolerant of minor transgretions but it would be good to know where we really stand.

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

good point WJ however I think the mag bods may be too busy doing next months mag to do a airticle of such importance,
at short notice

say in the next 12 months,

see there is humour in the thread.

 

[joeby]

why didnt you just email Bailey , i am sure they would have given you the info

 

[Gafferbill]

My interest in this topic is solely one of road safety.


Prof Surfer has posted views on this public forum which may influence others to overload their caravans.
He has put forward an argument that it is OK to load a caravan up to the limit put on the chassis by the chassis manufacturer.
He dismisses the limit put on the whole vehicle by the caravan manufacturer which is always lower.
By the same token I wonder if he would dismiss the weight limit placed on a vehicle tow ball by the manufacturer of a towing vehicle.
This can be as low as 50kgs and it is the manufacturer that sets this!!

Most people involved with caravans are in agreement that the MTPLM set by the caravan manufacturer is the figure they should not exceed to comply with the law.
I can point to other posts on other forums where a poster who has the user name Surfer01 has posted a view quite recently that reflects my views exactly on this topic.
I believe Surfer01 and Prof Surfer are the same poster as all the facts point to this............

............so what has happened for this poster to now hold a different view and post it on this forum?

 

[ProfJohnL]

This thread is getting repetitive. Can't you all agree to disagree?

Hello WC,
The content and impact of the thread are actually quite important. Depending on the way the law is applied, could affect a lot of caravanners.
Whilst I agree parts seem to be repetative, but more importantly we have moved forward and now ther is proper debate rather than the mud slinging that has been the mark of other related threads.

 

[Lutz]

Actually, Prof, the law does mention MTPLM, if only indirectly. The Construction and Use Regulations, which I think everyone agrees have legal significance, make reference to EU Directives and these, in turn, define MTPLM and only MTPLM, not GVW, and not MAM.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Colin,
Yes we do agree that as far as the towcar is concerned its the actual towed weight that that counts, and provided the trailers actual axle load is no greater than the cars Maximum towed weight limit, and no other limits are exceeded then that aspect is fine.
Where your friends situation differs to the crux of this thread rests with the Policemans role. If he thought an outfit was inappropriate he does have the right to stop it from travelling. but he neither had the tools to take measurments, and it seems he did not understand the towing regulations, which was proven in court.
I have frequently towed a large TA box trailer with my car. The trailer has a MIRO of 500kg and a MAM of 2000kg. My car has a MTW of 1600, but as I only lightly load the trailer its actual weight is well under 1600kg. Never been stopped so I cant say ive had to experiance your friends situation. I use a bigger vehicle with a mtw of 2000kg for when the trailer is near full.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Actually, Prof, the law does mention MTPLM, if only indirectly. The Construction and Use Regulations, which I think everyone agrees have legal significance, make reference to EU Directives and these, in turn, define MTPLM and only MTPLM, not GVW, and not MAM.

Thank you Lutz,

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Peter and the rest of crew,

Thank you for entering into a reasoned discussion rather than some of the emotional personal points scoring we have seen recently.

In essence what you seem to be telling us Peter is you believe the caravan manufacturers data plate does not supersede the chassis manufacturers data plate, and thus the trailers MAM will always be the chassis manufacturer's values.

Now this in my view does not pan out;

We know that caravan manufacturers do have capacity to increase the MTPLM figure for some vans. This raises a significant question. Why do they reduce the the possible MTPLM on those vans in the first place?

Being cynical one might suggest so they can charge to increase the MTPLM if requested, well they may make some profit from the exercise, but after real administration costs (circa £30) in the grand scheme of things what they charge is not going to solve the countries balance of payments issues. So there must be some other compelling reason.

It has been suggested it's to make the caravan more appealing to a wider range of buyers. But what is the factor that makes this so? We know that all new cars have a rated maximum towed weight figure, so will a reduced MTPLM help here? - No because the caravan will have the same MIRO so the MTPLM change only affects how much payload can be added and as I hope we do agree its the actual weight being towed (See Colin's posts) that counts towards the vehicles load not the MAM.

Does it change the towing ratio - Yes and no, Yes because the traditional method of calculating towing ratio compares the MTPLM of the caravan to the MIRO of the car - so a change of MTPLM downwards will apparently improve the towing ratio. However as the change in MTPLM is usually no more than 100Kg, then if 1400kg is 85% of a tow car then 1500 is 91% its not a massive increase, and not likely to be a step change in the stability of an outfit. (if it does make a step change the in my opinion the out fit was too close to being unstable in the first place)

But 'No' for two reasons, firstly, its the same caravan so its towing characteristics will be down to how you load it, and if you can cope with the load capacity of the de-rated MTPLM, you can equally cope using the same load with the fully rated MTPLM.

And secondly if you read the advice brochure from the CC about towing;
http://www.nationalcaravan.co.uk/downloads/Caravan_Towing_Guide_amended.pdf
On page 9 they suggest that towing ratio should be calculated on the actual weight of the caravan (needing a weighbridge) rather than the MTPLM. so a change of MTPLM makes absolutely no difference here.

So far this suggests that MTPLM is a useless figure - But there are also other reasons, which gives credence to the authority of MTPLM = MAM etc

In the same CC document on page 4 they clearly relate MTPLM = MAM. Exactly the same statement appears in the documents Gaffer Bill popints to but from the NCC.

But more telling is that younger drivers with post 1997 basic licences only have Cat B. This limits them to outfits with a combined MAM of no more than 3500kg. Now this is where a reduced MAM will broaden the appeal of some caravans. But this only works if MTPLM is accepted as equalling and having the same meaning as MAM. In other words the caravan manufactures design limits do supersede the chassis manufactures rating. This is further compounded by the fact that caravan manufactures DO NOT supply MAM figures only MTPLM, so if MTPLM is not accepted as being the MAM no prospective purchaser could be sure of what they can tow untill they have actually purchased the caravan.

If MTPLM does not have the same legal meaning as MAM, then it is highly likley that many caravanners on Cat B only licences are actually towing illegally because their combined MAM figure based on the chassis valuation will excede 3500kg.

I am pretty certain that if VOSA were to be using your interpretation, we would be reading of many caravanners complaining about unfair treatment from both the caravan manufacturers and the authorities.

I do concede that the term MTPLM does not appear in official documents, but it seems that it is accepted as having the same effect as MAM/GVW/MAW in all practical and legal senses. (Modified 01 Oct 2012 11:30am) Relevant EU documentation does refer to MTPLM (See Lutz's Mon, Oct 1 2012, 9:52AM post)

Consequently I have to disagree with your interpretation of its authority. It seems that publicly accountable people also disagree with you. It seems intuitively wrong and unwise to think you can exceed a weight limit set by a manufacture when using their product.

 

[Parksy]

Although we have humorous (I hope) remarks about this thread it is good to see something like this on the forum being duscussed and debated without malice. Having followed the points raised here I really think Parksy or some other mod that can reach Nigels ear should maybe ask the mag to get a few industry bods round a table to get an answer on this.................

I have sent a link to this discussion to Practical Caravan to see if they can add anything or find a definitive answer.

 

[weejock]

Thank You

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

hi all,
some very good points there John, to me the issue is the status of a caravan, wether it has special standing in trailer legistlation or not,
severeral posters have put forward the arguement that it is not and no such legistlation exists, this could well be the case and if this is so, may well be right.as the chasis MAM is allways the top figure that the trailer could concievably weigh.as the trailer manufacturer has the right to set it's top limit and plate it accordingly.

however, I am not convinced. that this is the case with caravans, and there are several reasons for thinking this.
1. apart from caravans, and possiblily specific commercial trailers like compressors and hot dog stalls. ALL other trailers have removable loads, the trailer is just a means of transporting this load, the variation of load is not set but rated withing certain paramiters from empty to fully loaded. A caravan cannot be emptied in the same way down to the chasiss. as it's body and fittments are perminantly fixed. only the user payload can be altered.

2. who manufactures the the caravan!! Bailey or Alko. obviously not Alko while they do supply the basic chasiss and plate each one accordingly it is the caravan manufacturer that builds the van, and plate the unit accordingly with it's MIRO and MAM (MTPLM) if the van manufacturer built the chasis as well as the body, we would not be having this discussion. as the chassis MAM would be the same as the unit MTPLM.

3. in all cases the van manufacturer will not exeed the chassis MAM while some may be very close, (depentand on the MAM of the chassis chosen to build the van on) there will allways be a safety margin built in,,, it is the same with motor homes any bodywork built on the base vehicle will be below the plated GVW. and axel loads. but surely it is the vans MTPLM (MAM) and not the chassis MAM that is taken as the max load, while it is true that in some cases the MTPLM can be increased this does not negate the need to adhear to it. and the reason for doing this is another issue.

4. if someone can show specfic evidence as to where caravans are not any different to any other trailers I will stand corrected,
but as yet have not seen any. as many others will have I have gleened through as many bits of legistlation available to find an answer but found none, however in several cases the wording does seem to indicate that some legistlation seems biased "maybe the wrong word" (orientated could be better) in the towing and use of caravans.

 

[Lutz]

Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations don't differentiate between caravans and other types of trailer. In fact, there are no provisions to do so. All fall under category O1 (trailers with a maximum mass not exceeding 0,75 tonnes) or O2 (trailers with a maximum mass exceeding 0,75 tonnes but not exceeding 3,5 tonnes.).
I cannot find any specific reference to caravans anywhere.

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations don't differentiate between caravans and other types of trailer. In fact, there are no provisions to do so. All fall under category O1 (trailers with a maximum mass not exceeding 0,75 tonnes) or O2 (trailers with a maximum mass exceeding 0,75 tonnes but not exceeding 3,5 tonnes.).
I cannot find any specific reference to caravans anywhere.

hi lutz, no I could not find anything in there either, but I have seen it somewhere, but honestly cant remember where? as I siad i have looked everwhere I could, it may have been in some eu directive or something to do with mobile habitation units or road traffic acts,
but it is there somwhere, hwever as I seem to be comming down with somethiing, and fell unwell at the mo cant be bothered to spent a few hrs rechecking maybe when i fell a bit better i will have another look.
one thing is for sure though at some point there must have been legistlation that required van makers to issue there own weight plate as the bailey (2005 model) is the only van I have had that has one none of the others (3) dating from 1963- 1979 had one they only had the one plate on the A frame, showing the max weight ie 16CWT ect, but then again none of them used a alko chassis ,

got to go bathroom calls been trying to post this all day unsuccesfullly.

 

[Lutz]

one thing is for sure though at some point there must have been legistlation that required van makers to issue there own weight plate as the bailey (2005 model) is the only van I have had that has one none of the others (3) dating from 1963- 1979 had one they only had the one plate on the A frame, showing the max weight ie 16CWT ect, but then again none of them used a alko chassis.

With the implementation of whole vehicle type approval for all trailers, including caravans, (voluntary since 29 April 2009, mandatory on new models as from 29 Oct 2012 and 29 Oct 2014 for existing models, respectively) the manufacturer is required to affix a plate with prescribed weight information
Here's a link with more information:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/vehicletype/trailers.asp

 

[ProfJohnL]

Lutz has pointed to an important document for the future
I'm not sure how similar it is to the current and past regulations for older products but the VCA has issued various documents used in presentations to help inform vehicle manufactures the new regulations that are currently on the cusp of adoption.

Of particular interest is the section on

"Advice for Multi-Stage Builders" which would apply to caravan and motorhome constructors.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca//vehicletype/multi-stage.asp
The penultimate paragraph reads:
"The base vehicle will normally retain the "make" of the first stage manufacturer and Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) issued on the original Certificate of Conformity (CoC) to ensure that traceability is maintained. Manufacturers at subsequent stages have to add their own plate with their name, the stage of the approval, the VIN and the approval number plus any revised vehicle weight information."

This clearly shows that the weight limits of a trailer can and will be modified by later manufacturing stages until the vehicle is considered 'complete'.

This seems an eminently sensible approach.

 

[otherclive]

I would not choose to exceed the caravan manufacturers MTPLM even if this was below the maximum alloable load of the chassis. Trying to argue that one in a court of law could be expensive and somewhat pointless. I consider that the caravan maker is the Design Authority for the complete van system and in the event of a court case it would be hard to refute the Design Authorities position without an extremley sound justification, even though structurally the chassis could take a higher loading.
More worrying was my case when I had a van MTPLM upgraded from 1340kg to 1400kg and the maker did not advise me to upgrade the tyres which had a total combined load of 1420kg! When I took this up with them they recognised my concern and agreed with my choice of higher Load Index tyres; whereby the dealer felt they were not required and would cause the van to shake itself to bits. This arguement was not supportable as the equivalent weight Senator model ran on the higher LI tyres and at higher pressure than my original tyres (55psi cf 42psi). Seven years on and the wardrobes are still fixed to the rest of the van.

 

[JonnyG]

I would not choose to exceed the caravan manufacturers MTPLM even if this was below the maximum alloable load of the chassis. Trying to argue that one in a court of law could be expensive and somewhat pointless. I consider that the caravan maker is the Design Authority for the complete van system and in the event of a court case it would be hard to refute the Design Authorities position without an extremley sound justification, even though structurally the chassis could take a higher loading.
More worrying was my case when I had a van MTPLM upgraded from 1340kg to 1400kg and the maker did not advise me to upgrade the tyres which had a total combined load of 1420kg! When I took this up with them they recognised my concern and agreed with my choice of higher Load Index tyres; whereby the dealer felt they were not required and would cause the van to shake itself to bits. This arguement was not supportable as the equivalent weight Senator model ran on the higher LI tyres and at higher pressure than my original tyres (55psi cf 42psi). Seven years on and the wardrobes are still fixed to the rest of the van.

I dont understand your piont concerning tyre index? your van was upgraded to 1400kg and the tyres were rated at 1420kg togeather. what was the problem. my bustner which had a max of 1500kg came new from germany with tyres rated to 750kg each.so equaled the 1500kg max of the caravan.....

 

[otherclive]

My point is that the normal advice is to have tyres rated at 10% above MTPLM and I dont like running things at the limit anyway.. I know that the tyres themselves would have a margin for speed/temp/load etc but I doubt that anyone can load their van to within such fine tolerances as 20kg in 1400kg. Weighbridges are not that accurate either. The next model up had a MTPLM of 1409kg still wth tyres rated at 1420kg. Atmospheric moisture levels varying between a dry summers day and a wet autumn could put that van over its MTPLM. I have been stopped by VOSA and had no problem with the outcome of their checks but would prefer not to have to explain away why I could be above the tyres limiting load.

 

[JTQ]

My point is that the normal advice is to have tyres rated at 10% above MTPLM

Where does this "normal" advice come from, the tyre makers themselves?

 

[Gafferbill]

I dont understand your piont concerning tyre index? your van was upgraded to 1400kg and the tyres were rated at 1420kg togeather. what was the problem. my bustner which had a max of 1500kg came new from germany with tyres rated to 750kg each.so equaled the 1500kg max of the caravan.....

Advice from Tyresafe.......................

It is essential that the combined tyre load capacity is sufficient
for the maximum weight (MTPLM) of the caravan, but as an extra safeguard
it is strongly recommended that the MTPLM does not exceed 90% of the
tyre's load capacity.

Overloading tyres is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all
times. A poorly distributed load can also lead to overloaded tyres even
when the maximum total permissible load is not exceeded. Loads should
be spread evenly around the caravan and as low down as possible to
maximise the stability and safety of the car and caravan combination.
The police may take action against drivers who's caravans are found to
be overloaded or have a poorly distributed load.

To ensure tyres are not overloaded, it is advisable to keep the
caravan operating weight below the specified maximum limit. A 10% margin
will partly help to compensate for some unequal load distribution. For
maximum safety and reassurance regarding vehicle weight, use a Public
Weighbridge to check the load.

http://www.tyresafe.org/tyre-safety/caravan-tyre-safety

 

[otherclive]

I have yet to have a car where the combined load of the tyres has not exceeded the cars max gross load by quite a margin. So why should a caravan be any different especially when it's load may only be on two wheels and the likelihood of overloading is greater, especially by those caravanners less experienced than us Forum members