In this week's blog, our Tow Car Editor David Motton's in turmoil with a Tucson, in search for the truth regarding its kerbweights. To find out more, please click here.
Kerbweights
- Thread starter LizziePope
- Start date
You quote in the article:
"The Tucson is a very capable tow car, and we've reviewed it favourably in the magazine, on our YouTube channel and at the Tow Car Awards. However, since the car was launched in 2015, Hyundai has given a number of different figures for the car's kerbweight."
As part of the 'reviews' do you not road test the vehicle, and as such pop along to the local weighbridge to verify its weight? Never trust anything that's written without verifying it.
"The Tucson is a very capable tow car, and we've reviewed it favourably in the magazine, on our YouTube channel and at the Tow Car Awards. However, since the car was launched in 2015, Hyundai has given a number of different figures for the car's kerbweight."
As part of the 'reviews' do you not road test the vehicle, and as such pop along to the local weighbridge to verify its weight? Never trust anything that's written without verifying it.
- Mar 14, 2005
- 18,674
- 3,931
- 50,935
This is perfect example of regardless how well intentioned the 85% towing ratio guideline is, its a major fudge on the issue.
There is no formal requirement for car manufacturers to publish a "kerbweight figure" and as we have seen those that do cant agree on what's included, and when they do is it for the base or highest spec model?
It highlights the inadequacy of quoting such a specific figure as 85% based on an criteria that is undefined and in many cases just an estimation.
The only consistent figure that would provide a known value is the Unladen Weight which is a requirement of the WVTA process.
How about PC magazine actually being "practical" and making a formal proposal to the industry to revise the guidance to be based on ULW rather than Kerbweight.
Presupposing the industry still considers the 85% and 100% figures are appropriate, then I would suggest;
Novice towers should aim for a caravan who's MTPLM does not exceed 85% (ULW +100Kg) and is within the towed weight capacity of the tow vehicle
and
Experienced towers should aim for a caravan who's MTPLM does not exceed 100% (ULW +100Kg) and is within the towed weight capacity of the tow vehicle
Care should also be given to the load distribution to minimise instability issues and to achieve a satisfactory nose load value not exceeding the tow vehilce's S value
As before this would be the worst case scenario, and almost universally the real world ratio would be better than the calculation suggests.
There is no formal requirement for car manufacturers to publish a "kerbweight figure" and as we have seen those that do cant agree on what's included, and when they do is it for the base or highest spec model?
It highlights the inadequacy of quoting such a specific figure as 85% based on an criteria that is undefined and in many cases just an estimation.
The only consistent figure that would provide a known value is the Unladen Weight which is a requirement of the WVTA process.
How about PC magazine actually being "practical" and making a formal proposal to the industry to revise the guidance to be based on ULW rather than Kerbweight.
Presupposing the industry still considers the 85% and 100% figures are appropriate, then I would suggest;
Novice towers should aim for a caravan who's MTPLM does not exceed 85% (ULW +100Kg) and is within the towed weight capacity of the tow vehicle
and
Experienced towers should aim for a caravan who's MTPLM does not exceed 100% (ULW +100Kg) and is within the towed weight capacity of the tow vehicle
Care should also be given to the load distribution to minimise instability issues and to achieve a satisfactory nose load value not exceeding the tow vehilce's S value
As before this would be the worst case scenario, and almost universally the real world ratio would be better than the calculation suggests.
So what you're saying, PC, is that the term 'kerb weight', upon which all of your outfit matching advice is based has no universally accepted definition?
I'm sorry but this sounds like complete nonsense. People buy magazines such as yours for practical and informative advice, not muddied waters.
I agree entirely with the two previous posts. Start giving 85% recommendations based on unladen weights + 100kg - give it a new term other than 'kerb weight' if you have to - and weigh your test cars as a matter of routine.
Hopefully the lesson will eventually be that not even a car manufacturer can hide one of its vehicles unladen weights. Someone's going to find it out.
I'm sorry but this sounds like complete nonsense. People buy magazines such as yours for practical and informative advice, not muddied waters.
I agree entirely with the two previous posts. Start giving 85% recommendations based on unladen weights + 100kg - give it a new term other than 'kerb weight' if you have to - and weigh your test cars as a matter of routine.
Hopefully the lesson will eventually be that not even a car manufacturer can hide one of its vehicles unladen weights. Someone's going to find it out.
- May 7, 2012
- 8,596
- 1,818
- 30,935
Some consistency is needed but until we have it this is the best information we have to base our purchase decisions on. I do wonder if you find the published figure is badly out and causes you a problem if you have a right to get your money back due to the figures caused you a serious problem.
- Mar 14, 2005
- 18,674
- 3,931
- 50,935
Raywood said:
I'm sorry Ray, but that is exactly what part of the problem is, the current calculation is based on such wildly inaccurate information, that its far from consistent. At least with ULW which is a WVTA figure is a far more secure value.
As for your second point, the answer is dependant on some circumstances. If you were to tell the car dealership of your intention to tow a particular weight of caravan and you specifically ask about the kerbweight or any other technical feature, and the dealership confirms it to be compliant with your request, then that becomes part of the contract to purchase. If when teh car arrives it differs from any of these figures in a way that prevents you from doing what you wanted, the car is not as described, and as with any other retail purchase the seller is in breach of contract.
- May 7, 2012
- 8,596
- 1,818
- 30,935
ProfJohnL said:
I would not argue wit the unladen weight. It matters very little what weight is used as long as all makes use the same thing and we can rely on it. It is possibly more concern to those who passed their driving test 1fter 1997 and are limited to 3,500 kg train weight. A car seriously heavier than the declared kerb weight could find the outfit illegal through no fault of their own. The 85% figure might need updating, which this is probably due anyway. to take account of any change in the way weight is calculated
- Mar 14, 2005
- 18,674
- 3,931
- 50,935
Raywood said:
An increasing proportion of caravanners will indeed be subject to the Cat B restrictions, That is one of the reasons why I refer to it when a proposed outfit looks likely to exceed 3500kg and we don't know posters licence history.
We have have long known that kerbweight is a movable feast and you cannot rely on published figures to match the reality of any given car. But the same is not true for the maximum weight limits stamped on the vehicle. These are absolute, and as ever it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure the vehicle they are driving does not exceed any of these capacity limits as well as any driving licence restrictions.
The law does not tell us how to ensure we stay within the limits, the burden of proof is by actually weighing a vehicle. The law would not accept a calculation of GVW or GTW - kerbweights must equal payload capacity, That would not be an adequate defense. where as evidence of a calibrated weighbridge would.
It would be the drive fault.
- May 7, 2012
- 8,596
- 1,818
- 30,935
I agree the burden of proof is on the driver and the offence is absolute. If you can show that you used the manufacturers figures and they were wrong it would be a plea in mitigation or they might let you off with a warning. The other problem could be if stopped at a motorway services or similar if you are not licensed to drive the combination you would have to leave it there until you found someone who could drive it which might be very costly.
- Mar 14, 2005
- 18,674
- 3,931
- 50,935
Raywood said:
No. You can't rely on manufacturers published figures, because invariably the publications are qualified by "E&EO" or "specifications are subject to change " statements. You should only go by the data plate, V5c and have the actual weight verified by a calibrated weighbridge.
This issue of being detected of having a vehicle that exceeds your license entitlements has always had the risk the vehicle will be impounded. its not new, just slightly more likely as new drivers are not checking their vehicle weights.
Facebook
Twitter