FAO The Editor

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Parksy,

Thank you for printing the definitions you have found for the word "rule". The fact that two (or more) definitions exist lays its inference open to ambiguity, but most people if they see a rule, understand it to mean, "it is a decree" - and there have been several posters on the forum that have confirmed that they saw it in that light, and were concerned because they could not achieve it.

This thread was primarily aimed at PC who produced the title and the content of the article.

It has subsequently developed into a wider debate about the reasoning behind the choice of 85% by the caravan industry.

85% may be a very good figure, but fundamentally there is no evidence being brought to the table by any of those in industry who pronounced it to explain why this was the figure of choice.

The apparent acceptance of 85% as being the target figure to aim at is most likely due to the widespread quoting of it, rather than a logical approach to determining what is best.

 

[Parksy]

Update

I contacted Victoria who alerted Nigel about this topic.

Nigel was away over Easter and has now gone on to the testing for the towcar awards all this week.

There is quite literally nobody in the office at Haymarket Towers who could answer any of the questions posed within this thread at this time and Victoria is unsure when the magazine editorial staff will be back.

A further message has now been forwarded by Victoria and I'm sure that Nigel will address any concerns about the accuracy of information within the magazine when he is available to do so.

 

[extrucker1]

Update

I contacted Victoria who alerted Nigel about this topic.

Nigel was away over Easter and has now gone on to the testing for the towcar awards all this week.

There is quite literally nobody in the office at Haymarket Towers who could answer any of the questions posed within this thread at this time and Victoria is unsure when the magazine editorial staff will be back.

A further message has now been forwarded by Victoria and I'm sure that Nigel will address any concerns about the accuracy of information within the magazine when he is available to do so.

why are so many people against this 85%? what ratio would they recomend?. what ratio do they tow at?. ray

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Raymond

I hope you have read all the posts in this thread, because it is not that we are against 85%, it just that it seems that 85% has been plucked out of the air, with no proper testing to validate it as the best figure.

It may turn out that 85 is the best but until the powers that be explain how they came to 85%, there is some justifiable reason to question the value chosen, when car manufactures happily set much higher figure for their cars.

If you wish to stick to 85% that is your choice, but possibly it might restrict your choices of car and caravan, when a higher value may be no worse.

 

[Lutz]

Over a week has gone by since the last post to this thread. I'm just curious if there have been any new developments.

 

[Guest]

I read somewhere up the thread that the editor had gone 'walkabout' so may not reply for a while. Of course he could be feverishly searching for the answer to the question????

I still think that anyone really concerned should ask the NCC to comment. They are supposed to be the authority on all things caravanning in the UK.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Scotch Lad,

The thread was about the inaccuracies in a publication that PC had made on this website, in fact contradictions not only with in the specified piece but also with other documents on the site.

The issue about how 85% came into being was not the prime thought but is related. The NCC have been asked to comment in the past and no response was forthcoming.

You may draw your own conclusions.

 

[Lutz]

.... and another week goes by without a response. I'm beginning to wonder whether somebody's having difficulty in providing a convincing answer and is hoping that the issue will simply disappear if one ignores it for long enough.

 

[Parksy]

The editor is currently at the Practical Caravan readers rally at Stowford Farm Meadows.

 

[Mel]

I have nothing to add to the 85% rule/guideline/myth debate. However, the ongoing whereabouts of the Editor are proving fascinating. They seek him here, they seek him there... I wish my contract allowed so much time away from the desk, telephone, email, general accountability etc.

I await the next sighting.

mel

 

[Dustydog]

I hope Nigel is testing WiFi at Stowford? LOL.

Cheers

Dustydog

 

[nrdonnelly]

Dear All,

Sorry it has taken so long for me to formulate a reply but I've been watching the thread with interest.

Firstly, the piece in question on the website is definitely due an update. Not because the information is wildly inaccurate, but more because it is a bit ambiguous and confusing in terms of the wording. We are currently working on a major overhaul of the website and all the fixed content on here will be subject to a revamp when that happens.

The advice dispensed on the website and in the magazine is based on best practice for all caravanners and the 85% guideline is part of this. Experienced caravanners can happily tow in excess of this, providing their vans and cars are in A1 condition, appropriately loaded, within the legal limits of both car and caravan and they are comfortable doing so.

For us to ditch 85% as a starting point for novice or cautious caravanners is in my opinion, irresponsible. At 85%, there is plenty in reserve in terms of the driver, the car and the caravan so outfits are unlikely to come to grief, even if they get the loading a bit out or creep over the speed limit.

85% is not the law but it is a good starting point. I don't care where the figure comes from as Bath University have told us repeatedly that at 85%, very few stability issues are likely to occur and as a result, that seems a sensible position for any mainstream magazine to take.

Cars and caravans are more capable than ever, but if we start advising people that with very precise loading, they can get their matches to 100%, the margins for error are eroded and more accidents will be the result.

Many of you in this discussion are obviously experienced and knowledgeable caravanners, but to be frank, the advice is not meant for you. It's for the vast majority of less informed caravanners who want to err on the side of caution and know they have minimised the chances of a problems on the road.

In terms of kerbweights, different car manufacturers quote different figures and as has been said elsewhere on this thread, every car will weight differently depending on the specification. Nissan for example, gives a range of kerbweights for each range which makes calculating an accurate match very tricky without going to the weighbridge.

In magazine, we quote a kerbweight figure taken from the manufacturer and we add 75kg for the driver if the manufacturer does not. This is likely where the mismatch between official figures and our figures come from. Our view is that a car without a driver is never going to tow anywhere, so not including that weight starts every match off with a inbuilt error.

Finally, the 85% figure originated in discussion between the Caravan Club, Camping and Caravanning Club and the NCC. If they revise their basic advice on safe towcar matching, I'm sure we will do the same. Until then, Practical Caravan will continue to stick with 85% as a starting point.

Hope that clears up our position on the matter

Nigel Donnelly

Editor

Practical Caravan

See us on Twitter

See us on Facebook

 

[Pat_374304630]

As George said earlier on 85% is a good starting point. I would feel comfortable driving at 100% but then I've been caravanning for 27 years.

We all have to start somewhere and 85% seems reasonable.

 

[Lutz]

I'm afraid Nigel's reply doesn't remove ambiguities either. First of all, there is nothing wrong with recommending a 85% ratio so long as it is made quite clear that it was based on an intuitive 'best guess' basis from a round of experts, which appears to be the case, and not on verifiable information. Without such a note, the recommendation can still be interpreted as having at least some degree of authority. Rather than allaying worries among the inexperienced this could even raise cause for concern should calculation reveal a figure of 86 or 87%, for example.

Even the University of Bath has never conducted a scientific study specifically to determine the best possible compromise between weight ratio and stability. Without questioning their expertise, any comments referred to from this source are based purely on engineering judgment.

The criticism should not be aimed only at Practical Caravan, but also the Caravan Club, Camping and Caravanning Club and the NCC for continuing to publish a figure without making everyone aware that there is no documentary evidence to support the recommended limit.

It would help if the caravan industry, the clubs and the NCC would get together and commission the University of Bath with a research project for further investigation in this issue.

 

[nrdonnelly]

Lutz,

I agree that ideally, something scientific would be completed to clear the ambiguitity you speak of, but it hasn't been done and until it is, I feel comfortable that 85% is an appropriate guideline for caravanners to base towcar matching calculations on for stability and safety.

Regards

Nigel Donnelly

Editor

Practical Caravan

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Nigel,

As the composer of the opening thread on this topic, may I thank you for your reply.

The primary reason for my posting was the highly inaccurate description of the "85% Rule" which formed part of your reference section on this web site.

I sorry but you can't get way from the facts; the item was wrong in many substantive ways.- probably not your fault, but it is your problem.

I am pleased that you agree the item needs to be rewritten to remove ambiguities.

Lets kill the myth that 85% is a 'rule', lets call it what it is 'a Guideline'

For safety the article should express the need to keep the trailer weight as low as possible and that 85% is a starting point but does not in its self guarantee a safe or legal tow, it should explain that weight ratios are just part of a wider raft of issues related to safe towing.

The issue of whether 85% is right or the best has not been resolved. It may seem logical to assume that 85% is safer than 100%, and I tend towards that idea, but until there is some proper experimental testing designed to find the optimum-towing ratio, calling 85% "best" is presumptuous, and may prove to be wildly wrong.

Lutz has beaten me to some of the best bits, so I wont repeat them here, suffice to say that I support the idea of some proper research in to the matter. And I hope that you will give us the opportunity to review the content of the rewritten item

John L

 

[Lutz]

By all means continue to publish the 85% weight ratio figure as a recommendation, but please point out that it is arbitrary. As long as newcomers continue to rely on it as authoritative then the need for further investigation into the issue is not ideal, as Nigel suggests, but absolutely essential. Until that is done, one must continue to question its legitimacy.