FAO The Editor

[BedfordGeorge]

Hello Bill,

All the bodies you mention may be quite right to recommend 85%, but where is their method and what criteria and evidence was used to establish the recommendation. A recommendation is not a "rule"

Taking your quote from Dr. Darling, he did not say that it is wise to limit your mass ratio to 85%. According to your quote he concluded "at 85% the vast majority to be entirely safe at normal speeds with reasonable loading." These two statements have very different implications, and I am sure that a man of science will have chosen his words very carefully. As I have not read Dr. Darling's entire article, I cannot comment on the whole thing, but the quote you lifted did not explore the effects if the ratios were at other than 85%, what happens at 90% or any other percentage that might be chosen?

With regard to the PC item, If the writer has done their best to explain the technicalities as to the law, then they have failed, because there are some very clear contradictions within the text and definite legal errors that I and others have identified. In a piece or writing for a technical publication such sloppy writing or editing is an anathema. The writer/editor has access to, and should use professionals to check the information before it is published.

As you will be aware from other threads over several years I have challenged the 85% figure. My objection has not been instigated is a result of this PC article, the article has only served to re-spotlight the issue.

Hello John L,

Fair point, this was my inexperience coming through, however for people like me it seems a good 'indication' of a place to start, particularly during those early first trips. I have purchased my car to give me an 86% match.

Best regards,

George

I originally posted this on your comment to me, and realised you may miss it, so have sent it again.

 

[Gafferbill]

John my position is simple to arrive at...

Towing a caravan is a leisure activity and I try to limit any potential dangers of something I enjoy.

I will quote you from a previous post of yours.. ..

"Choose the lightest caravan for your needs that suits your requirements"

This is very good advice and I for one do not care if the 85% is 'advice' or the 'law of the land'.

I do not see the need in pushing the boundary of what is possible in terms of weight ratios.

I simply think it is safer if the towcar weighs at least 15% more than the caravan, especially as an outfit is basically two separate vehicles linked together with very little weight transfer between the two.

 

[Lutz]

I don't think anyone is doubting the fact that a favourable weight ratio leads to a potentially more stable outfit. What is being questioned, however, is why should the car be specifically at least 15% heavier than the caravan and not 10% or 20%? What John and I are trying to establish is whether there was ever any basis for selecting 85% as a recommendation and if so, how was it arrived at? The issue has been raised so many times and nobody has come up with an answer, so it would appear to be legitimate to put it to question.

 

[Guest]

I do not really see where all the fuss about '85%' is coming from. It is accepted by most of us that is indeed not a legal rule, but merely a useful guidance. It is used by all the main caravanning organisations and indeed most car manufacturers, merely to give guidance. Nobody is suggesting that at 86% you are illegal.

Also with regard to where it came from, I would suggest that experience over many years has indicated that outfits close to 100% or over, can be unstable in certain conditions. Keeping below 100% is better and the exact figure was probably suggested at 85% to give a degree of leeway. There are so many different factors that can affect stability that giving a defining number is impossible, so give one that has a degree of latitude and that will allow the majority of tuggers to be comfortable with what they are doing.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello again Bill,

I respect and understand your reasoning for choosing 85%, but that is your choice. You have made that choice on the basis of your personal preference, without any formal evidence on which to base your conclusion.

When an industry makes a recommendation about a matter such as this, it is insufficient to base it solely on a personal unproven belief. There has to be some form of testing to test the hypothesis. By questioning the 85% I am trying to get the industry to reveal how this figure was derived.

One shouldn't take the absence of an answer to mean anything, but it certainly makes you wonder if they are embarrassed about something.

Contrary to your suggestion, I am not trying to push the boundary of towing limits, these are already clearly set by the vehicle manufactures.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I do not really see where all the fuss about '85%' is coming from. It is accepted by most of us that is indeed not a legal rule, but merely a useful guidance. It is used by all the main caravanning organisations and indeed most car manufacturers, merely to give guidance. Nobody is suggesting that at 86% you are illegal.

Also with regard to where it came from, I would suggest that experience over many years has indicated that outfits close to 100% or over, can be unstable in certain conditions. Keeping below 100% is better and the exact figure was probably suggested at 85% to give a degree of leeway. There are so many different factors that can affect stability that giving a defining number is impossible, so give one that has a degree of latitude and that will allow the majority of tuggers to be comfortable with what they are doing.

Hello Scotch lad,

The fuss is about a respected publication, printing highly inaccurate information, which leads some people to the wrong conclusions about towing safely.

You may be lucky and sufficiently enlightened to appreciate the truth, but new caravanner's will often read what they believe is an authoritative publication/website and have a reasonable expectation that the editorial information will have been properly researched and not contain significant errors.

It may be true that many experienced caravanner now know that the 85% is just a guideline, but quite frequently new posters on this forum seem to be highly concerned when their outfits does not meet the 85% guideline, because it has all to often been misquoted as a "Rule"

The PC article I refer to in the opening post does infer that deviating from 85% is a prosecutable offence.

"It is vital that you get these figures right if you are a post-1997 licence-holder - being unauthorised to drive your outfit could lead to prosecution and may well invalidate your insurance."

 

[Dustydog]

My neighbour tried to buy a caravan last year from our local dealer. They refused to sell it to him because the caravan was more than 85% his car's "kerbweight". This dealer refers to a website for their data, one known to us all.

Now, can I name the dealer and the website??

Cheers

Dustydog

 

[Steve L]

Having had first hand experience of towing a trailer weighing twice thw weight of the tow vehicle (Diahatsu F70 4X4 & 3500Kg Ifor Williams goods trailer), I can see why there is concern that trailers should not exceed tow car weight.

However, this 85% mythical rule was drawn up and mythically muted as being some sort of safetybelt towards a good tow situation. It's actually a total load of "shoe repairers".

Every vehicle has a designated tow capacity derived by the manufacturer as a tow limit for that vehicle. Based on performance available.

It is entierely upto us, to load the trailer correctly (heavy items low as possable and over the trailer axles etc)and to adhere to any legislation regarding tow bar/hitch weights.

The sooner that plain english guidelines are produced, the better.

Steve L.

 

[BedfordGeorge]

Hello Dustydog,

Surely your local dealer was trying to do the best for his customer, in ensuring he was towing safely, and should be applauded for it.

This compares very favourably with the dealer closest to me, who when I mentioned our vehicle in comparison with our proposed van, said 'dont worry about things like that'. By this time I was sufficiently aware of the situation, having read PC and other magazines, and having started to participate in this Forum. Our car would have had sufficient power, but was lighter than the van and therefore not to be recommended. As a result of this ill advised information they lost the sale of a first timer, with no part ex.

I think you should be able to name the dealer in this instance, as he was offering good advice, at the possible expense of losing an order. I presume you are talking about What Tow Car, the site that helps you match your vehicle and van, by giving you an indication of the percentage match between them. I can see no problem in giving that information, as there are no commercial considerations involved.

Best regards,

George

 

[Parksy]

Hi Dustydog

There's no reason why you shouldn't name the dealer or the website from which their data was obtained.

If the dealer concerned was prepared to pass up on a sale in these hard times in the land of plenty to safeguard their customer even if their information was erroneous then they have displayed integrity which I would regard as a recommendation.

Please don't make speculative assumptions concerning the lack of an answer to which John L has referred earlier.

The magazine staff are extremely busy at the moment, Nigel has been away from his office for some time now.

I've tried to contact admin to bring this topic to the attention of magazine staff but our admin won't be back until Friday according to the automatic email reply that I received earlier.

 

[Dustydog]

Hi Parksy

Nothing speculative from me. I can only deal with specific material facts

Last year Swindon Caravan Centre consulted their "data base" and told my friend his Kia Carens could not meet the 85% ???? The sold him a Lunar Clubman 2 berth but only after Lunar had issued a revised MTPLM plate at 1250kgs rather than the original 1300kgs.

The web site is " WhatTowCar.com

Were they right or wrong?

I suspect their third party liability insurance may have something to do with it? Along the lines if you knowingly sell a caravan more than 85% "kerbweight" we will not indemnify you etc. And so where did that all come from? The Insurers Risk Managers and underwriters.

I'd love to hear the views from the Insurers who advertise in PC mag exactly what their views are?

George

You are absolutely correct and I too applaud Swindon Caravans for taking such a sensible attitude.

The real point here is that there is no "rule or law" . However as the original post points out there are some technical aspects which are not law and need a clearer explanation.

I do not expect Nigel to answer immediately as there are some far reaching issues here which will no doubt require plenty of research and consultation with Haymarket Lawyers.In fact if it takes weeks , I for one will not be disappointed.

Cheers

Dustydog

 

[Parksy]

Apologies DD, my comment about speculation was meant to address John L's earlier comment : 'One shouldn't take the absence of an answer to mean anything, but it certainly makes you wonder if they are embarrassed about something.'

 

[Lutz]

I fail to see how a dealer can refuse to sell on the grounds that the 85% 'rule' is not fulfilled. Surely there is no legal basis for doing so.

 

[Dustydog]

Lutz

They are not alone in this philosophy. They can sell whatever to whomsoever they wish. There is no law that says they must sell.

Cheers

Dustydog

 

[Lutz]

True. The dealer does have that freedom, but I would take my custom elsewhere if he tries to dictate what I can or cannot buy.

 

[BedfordGeorge]

Hello Lutz,

I am finding it hard to understand why you are so against the 85% recommendation, particularly as I have read so many of your mails, sharing your experience with newcomers like me. Does it really matter ?

As a newcomer I feel that it is a good indication of where I should be, and using TowMatch have put together an 86% match, so I am not paranoid about the actual figure. However it is down to the individual to make thier own mind up, having taken all the available information into account, make thier decision.

If there was no guidance for us newcomers, who knows what problems may happen, so whether you say 85% or 92% or whatever, it at least gives us a starting position.

Thanks for all your input, I have taken note of many of your comments on the Forum, and appreaciate them.

Best regads,

George

 

[Lutz]

It's nice to know that you take a healthy pragmatic approach towards the recommendation. However, due to the way it is written by some sources, it sometimes comes across as though it is the law, suggesting that disregard will lead to certain disaster, as if one would be dropping into a big black hole if the weight ratio is just a fraction over 85%.

I have nothing against a recommendation as such, but it's got to make sense and unless someone can come up with a good reason for choosing a figure of 85%, it just doesn't make sense. At very least it should be clearly pointed out that it is only a guideline.

 

[Guest]

I still feel a number of people are getting 'heated up' over a triviality. All the main caravan organisations quite clearly state the 85% figure is purely a guideline, but also do state that if, in the opinion of the Police, your outfit is unstable, and thereby unroadworthy, then you could be prosecuted. Using the 85% figure as a GUIDE will allow you to be more confident that your outfit is indeed more stable and therefore roadworthy.

So, the PC Magazine made a booby, by inferring the guideline was more restrictive than it actually is. Ok, people do make mistakes and I am sure the editor will address this in his next editorial. But to suggest that in some way he has caused major chaos in the caravanning fraternity is taking things far too far. Every owner is required to act responsibly and check that what he/she is planning to do is not going to adversely affect other road users, not believe word for word what may appear in a magazine article. This is a magazine for goodness sake, not a workshop manual and offers advice and general guidance. It never should be considered a legal document. Also do consider that it has a monthly readership of around 42000. That is a reasonable number, but very small compared to the total number of caravan owners in the UK. The CC lists a membership of 300000 plus alone.

If John L and Lutz wish to ascertain where the data came from then possibly addressing their concerns to the NCC or a similar body would be more fruitful.

Sorry guys, life is too short.

 

[Robtel]

I don't want to take this off topic but feel this is worth mentioning here as at least one person new to caravanning is reading this thread.

Mention has been made of websites which give car and sometimes caravan weights. Can I suggest that you view the weights given with some caution as I know from my own experience they may not always be correct.

One web site was recommended on here two years ago when I was in the process of changing my caravan. Out of curiosity I visited the said site, entered my car and caravan details and was provided with incorrect information on the weights of both. Had I not been aware of the correct weights the information given may have put me off buying that particular caravan.

Don't take the information given as being 100% correct, double check.

 

[Dustydog]

Hi Rob

"Don't take the information given as being 100% correct, double check."

That's the whole point here. A national professional publication

must surely accurately print the true technical position.

Cheers

Dustydog

 

[Gafferbill]

Hello again Bill,

I respect and understand your reasoning for choosing 85%, but that is your choice. You have made that choice on the basis of your personal preference, without any formal evidence on which to base your conclusion.

When an industry makes a recommendation about a matter such as this, it is insufficient to base it solely on a personal unproven belief. There has to be some form of testing to test the hypothesis. By questioning the 85% I am trying to get the industry to reveal how this figure was derived.

One shouldn't take the absence of an answer to mean anything, but it certainly makes you wonder if they are embarrassed about something.

Contrary to your suggestion, I am not trying to push the boundary of towing limits, these are already clearly set by the vehicle manufactures.

...... just for the record I tow at 60%!

 

[Gafferbill]

I note that Germany deals with the issue of caravan safety by imposing a BLANKET SPEED LIMIT of 50mph that even applies to autobahns.

I wonder what the scientific basis was for choosing 50mph?

Why not 45 or 55mph.

This is what is required in Germany if your want to tow at OUR NATIONAL SPEED LIMIT on motorways of 60mph.

...............................

If Germans wish to travel at 60mph on German motorways they will first have to pass a T

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Parksy

My comment regarding the absence of a response was not pointed at PC but deliberately to the industry who have derived the 85% figure, PC have only reported it all be it incorrectly.

Dustydog

We agree, A seller is not obliged to sell anything to a customer if they choose not to, with the exception of unlawful prejudice.

So a caravan dealer is perfectly in their rights to refuse to sell a caravan. SOGA requires the goods supplied are fit for purpose. Thus if a caravan seller becomes aware that a particular caravan is to be used in an unsafe way or for a purpose for which it is not intended, they can refuse to agree a contract of sale. However the grounds for refusal must be made available and could be challenged.

Refusal to sell solely on the basis that a match is greater than 85% is not justified, it would have to be on some other basis that is sustainable in law.

If commercial interests such as insurance companies are placing this sort of limitation on sellers liability policies, then we have a right to know.

Scotch Lad,

Why have the caravan organisations chosen 85% as their guideline? On what technical merits does 85% represent the best choice? Its rather like the government telling us all that we should eat 5 pieces of fruit and veg each day because it will help to improve your health, But subsequently the advice has been rescinded as not having the health benefits that were originally stated. There is nothing wrong in continuing to eat 5 pieces, but in practice 3 pieces is still as effective.

The issue of the choice of 85% has been debated several times before, and requests have been made to the CC and others in the industry to provide a response. None so far has been produced with evidence of why this figure is the best choice.

I have not claimed that the editorial in PC has caused major chaos, but it has perpetuated and further confused the mythical importance of the 85% guideline. Mistakes do happen, and I hope that PC will address the issues and produce a more accurate piece about the importance of mass ratio's and their context in the wider matter of towing safely. The major disappointment is that the magazine allowed such an inaccurate piece to be placed in its 'reference' section in the first place. As a specialist magazine, readers expect to be able to rely on the content of editorials being accurate and in this case I and others find the content wanting.

You are absolutely right that each driver is responsible for ensuring their outfit is legal, but where do they look for guidance, the Governement regulations are written in legalese, which is difficult to fully decipher, so specialist magazines play an important role in helping to unravel the complexities of the legal documents, and turning them into plain English. It just that in this piece they have failed to capture the essence of the regulations, and they elevate the 85% figure above its station. For these reasons it is not trivial.

Robert T

The issue of third party web sites as poor sources of technical data has been brought up before, but thank you for reminding us.

GafferBill

That is the whole point, where is the technical data, the evidence that makes 85% the best choice? I cannot comment with any authority on the process the Germans have used, but I do recall reading that accident figures were used to help formulate changes to the regulations there.

 

[Guest]

John L

PC Magazine is not a specialist magazine and has never ever made that claim. It caters for what is a niche market and is designed to entertain as well as offer general advice on its particular subject. Yes, it claims to be market leader but in a field of possibly 3-4 titles, this is not earth shattering news. It makes its way by offering a broad spectrum of articles ranging from camping areas to equipment to just lifestyle choices and as with any magazine, makes no legal inference from what it prints. Anyone who assumes the contrary is being very naive.

Trying to 'pin down' the guilty party who actually came up with the number is basically similar to asking the person who defined all people with a BMI of greater than 30 as being obese, why they thought so. The answer being that in many cases it fits, but not all, and if it encourages a better lifestyle, then so much the good.

My own caravan has a longer A Frame than all UK vans, the reason being that so called tests in Germany showed greater stability at speeds. From my own experience the van never moves out of step when being towed but whether that is due to the longer A Frame, or the weight ratio, which I try to keep close to 85%, or loading or whatever, is impossible to say.

I think that allowing a general prognosis to suggest that on the basis of general experience the desire to look for a match around 85% will give good safety, does not necessarily have to be based on absolute fact. If we did this for everything then life would grind to a standstill.

Again, I suggest that you address your concerns to both the NCC and the Transport Ministry to see what response they give. Your OP was rather scathing of both the editor and the magazine and although I have never been a 100% fan of the magazine, I feel in this instance you are being unfair.

 

[Parksy]

Much of this debate seems to me to centre around the definition of the word 'Rule'.

John L quite correctly states that the misused and maligned '85% rule' could be misleading and it has no basis in law when taken in the context of the definition :

'An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest.'

John's point is valid but when an alternative definition is used :

'A usual, customary, or generalized course of action or behaviour' the information begins to make more sense.

How and why the 85% figure is arrived at is another matter, both main clubs advise newer inexperienced caravanners to aim for a figure of around 85% so one could argue that the guideline, advice or rule colloquially speaking could indeed be said to be a 'usual, customary or generalised course of action' by virtue of the fact that the advice seems to be followed broadly speaking.

I've always considered the 85% figure to be as good a starting point as any for inexperienced caravan users, as far as I'm aware no evidence exists to prove that the 85% figure is unsafe.