Interesting to watch & hear how long they do the gas testing for and another product with bonded side too ( in his words stops the caravans leaking ).... and three inspector's to check things....
New Coachman Caravans
- Thread starter Sproket
- Start date
Sproket said:
Nice words, but very non specific about how they test the caravans. What actually happens during the 81/2 hours of testing?
Interesting about the "snagging" I wonder how the usually tight production time schedules can handle having a key operative being called down the line to correct a fault, does it mean his/her job is not done on the caravans currently in production? or will they be rushed to make up time.
I also not the 'bonding' agent is still applied free hand, so any inconsistency in the speed or pressure in the gun may produce a weak point.
PU to replace wood, yes that will stop rot, but wont stop water ingress if the manual seals have not been applied properly.
Caravan construction moved on? - not much. It's still down to the consistency of individual worker, and the ability of the 'Inspector' to spot hidden missing sealant.
Damian
Moderator
What a lot of empty words and bull**** baffling brains !!!!
He obviously has not heard of the official gas testing regime which has specific testing times at specific pressures and it does NOT take 8.5 hours to detect a gas leak if the official testing is done, in fact it takes seconds.
The caravan industry will never change with that kind of very poor information being given out.
The interview was, in my opinion a waste of time and money.
He obviously has not heard of the official gas testing regime which has specific testing times at specific pressures and it does NOT take 8.5 hours to detect a gas leak if the official testing is done, in fact it takes seconds.
The caravan industry will never change with that kind of very poor information being given out.
The interview was, in my opinion a waste of time and money.
I sincerely hope Coachman caravans read this, and find the courage to reply.
Coachman have earned a reputation of producing a better than average caravan, and being a smaller producer they have aimed at producing product for the top end of the market.
So it will come as a shock to many of their customers to see the brief clip of their production facility still using manufacturing techniques that have been used across the UK industry for over 40 years. They then tell us they test for 8 1/2 hours!! Why do they need so long to test?
Let me take a stab in the dark on this. Production uses manual processes to bring subassemblies together and then seal and fixing by hand. It will still be prone to the vagaries of the dexterity and conscientious of the work force. My guess is the accuracy of the positioning of walls to floor jigs can be up to about 3mm or possibly more out and they will rely on the assembler using enough sealant to fill the gaps, and then to use the right number of fixings in the right places to hold it all together.
So far that is no different to other UK manufacturers. so it's likely that Coachman have very similar defects on their caravans at the end of the assembly line as do virtually every other manufacture.By comparison the car industry consistently assembles to sub mm accuracy. and is very specific about the position of fixing and their number.
However where Coachman proudly tell us they do spend more is in final testing on which they spend 8 1/2 hours!! My suspicion is that it takes so long to test because they are having to allow more time to Quality Inspect and then fix the assembly errors, and because they spend more time fixing, fewer faults get through to their customers. Some may say that is good news.
My view on this is not so rosy. If proper Quality Assurance practices were employed, it may take an hour longer to produce a better defect free caravan but it would take much less time to for final inspections and much less in rework costs.
If I were a shareholder of Coachman caravans I would be livid that the company allowed that video clip and very poor explanation of their processes.
I challenge Coachman to tell us exactly what they do during the 8 1/2 hour "test" and to explain why they haven't led the industry into a new era where right first time assembly is the minimum acceptable standard.
Coachman have earned a reputation of producing a better than average caravan, and being a smaller producer they have aimed at producing product for the top end of the market.
So it will come as a shock to many of their customers to see the brief clip of their production facility still using manufacturing techniques that have been used across the UK industry for over 40 years. They then tell us they test for 8 1/2 hours!! Why do they need so long to test?
Let me take a stab in the dark on this. Production uses manual processes to bring subassemblies together and then seal and fixing by hand. It will still be prone to the vagaries of the dexterity and conscientious of the work force. My guess is the accuracy of the positioning of walls to floor jigs can be up to about 3mm or possibly more out and they will rely on the assembler using enough sealant to fill the gaps, and then to use the right number of fixings in the right places to hold it all together.
So far that is no different to other UK manufacturers. so it's likely that Coachman have very similar defects on their caravans at the end of the assembly line as do virtually every other manufacture.By comparison the car industry consistently assembles to sub mm accuracy. and is very specific about the position of fixing and their number.
However where Coachman proudly tell us they do spend more is in final testing on which they spend 8 1/2 hours!! My suspicion is that it takes so long to test because they are having to allow more time to Quality Inspect and then fix the assembly errors, and because they spend more time fixing, fewer faults get through to their customers. Some may say that is good news.
My view on this is not so rosy. If proper Quality Assurance practices were employed, it may take an hour longer to produce a better defect free caravan but it would take much less time to for final inspections and much less in rework costs.
If I were a shareholder of Coachman caravans I would be livid that the company allowed that video clip and very poor explanation of their processes.
I challenge Coachman to tell us exactly what they do during the 8 1/2 hour "test" and to explain why they haven't led the industry into a new era where right first time assembly is the minimum acceptable standard.
The test times are an overall time for the three systems, water, electric and gas. It does not mean all systems are tested for this length of time. I would think 99% of the test time may be just a water pressure test which can take a long time (on industrial condensers we tested for 12 hours). All this meant was that we left them overnight to see if there was a pressure drop as it took that length of time for leaks to show up ) The electrics could just mean leaving the awning light on for 81/2 hours to show the van was under water pressure test. (This test would probably be remote to th eproduction line) In the end its all down to semantics.
In my experience on any linear production line the 'Snag' system in some form or other is used. ie if there is a problem you get it sorted fast so that a production jam does not occur. More so in the case shown as space seemed to be at a premium. To do this the trouble shooter knows every minute aspect of production.
I do wonder how far on a low production run quantities a company could realistically automate the build process to obviate the manual input, Until full automation takes over you will always get what in the automotive industry was termed the 'Fiday car' (The final few cars of the week that were rushed through to 'up' the production figures.
As for the method of construction I am just glad that the weakest componant in longevity ie timber has been excluded.
All consumer products tend to evolve in small increments so as not to scare the public with too radical a change. I would presume the bars that run long the roof each side of the van are for rigidity to enable the bonding process. Some buyers (as I ) may think them ugly and even if they had the cash would not buy a new Coatchman on purely aesthetic grounds.
In my experience on any linear production line the 'Snag' system in some form or other is used. ie if there is a problem you get it sorted fast so that a production jam does not occur. More so in the case shown as space seemed to be at a premium. To do this the trouble shooter knows every minute aspect of production.
I do wonder how far on a low production run quantities a company could realistically automate the build process to obviate the manual input, Until full automation takes over you will always get what in the automotive industry was termed the 'Fiday car' (The final few cars of the week that were rushed through to 'up' the production figures.
As for the method of construction I am just glad that the weakest componant in longevity ie timber has been excluded.
All consumer products tend to evolve in small increments so as not to scare the public with too radical a change. I would presume the bars that run long the roof each side of the van are for rigidity to enable the bonding process. Some buyers (as I ) may think them ugly and even if they had the cash would not buy a new Coatchman on purely aesthetic grounds.
foggydave said:
Hello Dave
I have pulled just a few point you make for further comment:
I agree that an inspector should be highly trained and know the product literally inside out. But it also widely accepted that post production stage inspection is costly. The emphasis in all mechanical production should be to designing the product AND the assembly process to eliminate defective assembly. Also the operative is encouraged to take extra care and effectively inspect as they carry out the assembly or manufacturing task. This reduces the progress of non conformances to any later stages. It won't eliminate them, mainly because there some statutory tests to be performed, but with a higher confidence in the final build, time and money could be saved on final inspections.
There is a degree of automation being used in the manufacture of caravans, however it is usually confined to the cutting and routing of panels rather than actual assembly tasks. I would heartily like to see more automation on the assembly line. however I do acknowledge the variety of different models they produce might involve some very expensive equipment if it is to be multi functional - but it's not impossible.
As for the elimination of wood in the wall construction, realistically, the wood hasn't been the problem. Perhaps not a perfect analogy, but there are some very fine examples of wood frame buildings that out last other methods of construction by centuries. The problem has always been the propensity for water ingress, because caravans are not constructed very well. Prevent water from getting in , and the wood is fine.
I agree most consumer products do evolve, but caravans manufacturers have failed to address the biggest long term issue which is how to manufacture caravans that don't leak for the realistic life of the product. They have had the problem for nigh on 100 years. Car manufacturers who produce a far more complex product can manage it these days, so why have caravan manufacturers not put money into designing and manufacturing out this fundamental failure which blights most models.
Hi Prof
I agree that water ingress is the problem but I think the biggest danger of water ingress is the effect it has on the frame ie the wood. If the wood used in carvans was fully pressure treated or even better a good quality hard used then the effects of water ingress would be mitigated as any weakening of the frame adversly effects the integrity of the stabilty of the body of the van. One of the advantages of using wood in the frame of a building is that the building does not travel down the motorway at 60mph or is pulled over rutted fields so flexing the building.
A universal law of selling is that if you have finite customers the product must have a finite life span. As long as that period is felt equitable by the consumer for the cost of the product then this is acceptable.
Your final paragraph I think is the nub of the problem. Cost! The cost of tooling and restructuring. which must be passed onto the consumer in the short term to claw back the investment. It would be a brave manufacturer who's product cost three times as much as an eqiuvalent brand simply because he can say my product lasts twice as long and will have a slightly higher resale value than the other brands. Also bear in mind this new product will have no tangible differences. The driver behind real change has been government legislaation bringing in raised standards mainly for safety. Unless there is a universal change at the same time by all manufactures in caravan construction then you cannot expect one manufacture to commit his company's future to such an endeavour. So it must be gently, gently as money for change allows
I agree that water ingress is the problem but I think the biggest danger of water ingress is the effect it has on the frame ie the wood. If the wood used in carvans was fully pressure treated or even better a good quality hard used then the effects of water ingress would be mitigated as any weakening of the frame adversly effects the integrity of the stabilty of the body of the van. One of the advantages of using wood in the frame of a building is that the building does not travel down the motorway at 60mph or is pulled over rutted fields so flexing the building.
A universal law of selling is that if you have finite customers the product must have a finite life span. As long as that period is felt equitable by the consumer for the cost of the product then this is acceptable.
Your final paragraph I think is the nub of the problem. Cost! The cost of tooling and restructuring. which must be passed onto the consumer in the short term to claw back the investment. It would be a brave manufacturer who's product cost three times as much as an eqiuvalent brand simply because he can say my product lasts twice as long and will have a slightly higher resale value than the other brands. Also bear in mind this new product will have no tangible differences. The driver behind real change has been government legislaation bringing in raised standards mainly for safety. Unless there is a universal change at the same time by all manufactures in caravan construction then you cannot expect one manufacture to commit his company's future to such an endeavour. So it must be gently, gently as money for change allows
I am afraid the small scale production of firms like Coachman does mean that applying the sealant has to be done by hand as robots would simply be too expensive for a firm that size. Possibly some work could be done to improve the technique though which could work out cheaper if it reduced the number of damp claims.
Foggydave seems to have summed up most of the problems admirably though.
Foggydave seems to have summed up most of the problems admirably though.
I been looking at a few utube clips of the Coachman caravans over the last 24 hours, ever since we looked at some last years models of the VIP range.
The finish was mainly first class IMO, only those dated joint strips were found to have "blown" up on at least one we looked at, I have no idea why as the "bubble" immediately flattened by hand when pressed back.
Then again these caravans are expensive especially when compared to a Bailey Unicorn.
Sorry but CM are still way behind the Alutech build, as is Swifts "smart". Both still use hardboard for the interior skin, Swift claim the board is hardwood and porous, so if it does get wet it will dry out with out damage.
I remain unconvinced.
Compare that to the Swift HT, and Alutech, and both use NO wood or timber,( whatever word you want to play with ), in the walls or roof.
The HT goes one further and has no wood in the floor.
The Swift "smart" and CM both "glue" the panels together, no different to Eldiss SOLID, which we know still has leaks. And CM still use GRP end panels.
So not much of an advance is it.
The finish was mainly first class IMO, only those dated joint strips were found to have "blown" up on at least one we looked at, I have no idea why as the "bubble" immediately flattened by hand when pressed back.
Then again these caravans are expensive especially when compared to a Bailey Unicorn.
Sorry but CM are still way behind the Alutech build, as is Swifts "smart". Both still use hardboard for the interior skin, Swift claim the board is hardwood and porous, so if it does get wet it will dry out with out damage.
I remain unconvinced.
Compare that to the Swift HT, and Alutech, and both use NO wood or timber,( whatever word you want to play with ), in the walls or roof.
The HT goes one further and has no wood in the floor.
The Swift "smart" and CM both "glue" the panels together, no different to Eldiss SOLID, which we know still has leaks. And CM still use GRP end panels.
So not much of an advance is it.
Hello all,
Hearing the stories about the water ingress problems with new vans, brings to mind a very unusual van that I came accross on a CL in Somerset around 15 years ago. I have to admit it was not a very good looking van but, because of its unusual looks I asked the owner about its history etc So far as I can recall his van was pre production and had been made ( I think) on the Isle of Wight by a boat building firm. It was made from GRP or similiar, and I suppose, could best be described as a boat upside down with wheels , apart from the windows , door etc, it was one piece of moulding and the owner was completely dismissive about water ingress - he had no experience of it nor any fear that it could happen in the future. I wish that I had made a note of its origins but did not. Never saw another one, but often wonder if perhaps the caravan producers of today could use some fresh thinking from outside the (tin) box, and if so,builders of boats may be useful sources of knowledge when the main object is to keep water on the outside of the structure.
Hearing the stories about the water ingress problems with new vans, brings to mind a very unusual van that I came accross on a CL in Somerset around 15 years ago. I have to admit it was not a very good looking van but, because of its unusual looks I asked the owner about its history etc So far as I can recall his van was pre production and had been made ( I think) on the Isle of Wight by a boat building firm. It was made from GRP or similiar, and I suppose, could best be described as a boat upside down with wheels , apart from the windows , door etc, it was one piece of moulding and the owner was completely dismissive about water ingress - he had no experience of it nor any fear that it could happen in the future. I wish that I had made a note of its origins but did not. Never saw another one, but often wonder if perhaps the caravan producers of today could use some fresh thinking from outside the (tin) box, and if so,builders of boats may be useful sources of knowledge when the main object is to keep water on the outside of the structure.
Thanks for that Xtrailman. As I could not afford a new van I had not realised that there are a lot of new vans out there with no timber at all including floors. So developement in construction and design is happening at what seems to be an accelerating pace, Its just the method of production which lags behind.
The argument would seem to be as to how much do we as consumers believe and trust in the integrity of the individual workers physically assembling the caravan. The only people who can give this assurance are the company whos name appears on the product, who choose, train and oversee the workers doing the job and put in place rigorous checks and balances to ensure the work is done to the proper standard. It goes without saying that any manufacturure worthy of repute would strive to achieve this proper standard. The fact we are not privy to the intricacies of the assembly method should not necesserily mean that the method is in any way flawed. Time will tell.
The argument would seem to be as to how much do we as consumers believe and trust in the integrity of the individual workers physically assembling the caravan. The only people who can give this assurance are the company whos name appears on the product, who choose, train and oversee the workers doing the job and put in place rigorous checks and balances to ensure the work is done to the proper standard. It goes without saying that any manufacturure worthy of repute would strive to achieve this proper standard. The fact we are not privy to the intricacies of the assembly method should not necesserily mean that the method is in any way flawed. Time will tell.
Rodone said:
The idea was good and I do seem to remember some caravans being built on these lines. Every solution though creates another problem, in this case what happens after an accident as with no separate panels you may have to replace the whole body shell.
Top of the range Avondale had a boat bottom roof, it was heavy made of fibre glass I believe, and over hung the sides, made a lot of sense to me, not very good to look at though.
Rodone.
Check out the 1960s Viking Fibre line.
Not many about now.Maybe the fibreglass cracked
hmy:
Since day one of this forum the quality of caravan manufacture has been raised more times than I can remember.
Not one manufacturer has ever come clean and told us their failure rate so don't expect anything from Coachman.
Check out the 1960s Viking Fibre line.
Not many about now.Maybe the fibreglass cracked
hmy:Since day one of this forum the quality of caravan manufacture has been raised more times than I can remember.
Not one manufacturer has ever come clean and told us their failure rate so don't expect anything from Coachman.
Damian
Moderator
Quote " So far as I can recall his van was pre production and had been made ( I think) on the Isle of Wight by a boat building firm"
You are quite correct, that was an early Romahome model which are still in production today , just around the corner from me.
During all the time I have been servicing caravans and motorhomes I can count on one hand the number of times I have had dealings with any of their products.
The workforce is very proud of the item they build, and quite rightly so.
The new vans do look a lot better than the original ones as they use a better base vehicle and have honed their building skills a huge amount.
Damage is quite easily repaired as it is fibreglass and can be done by any good laminator.
Back to Coachman and the statement by Prof John L " Coachman have earned a reputation of producing a better than average caravan "
I don't know where that comes from other than owners having paid over the odds have to justify their purchase.
From my own personal dealings with all makes of vans over quite a few years they are no better than , and no worse than all other UK made vans.
They are outclassed , as are all other UK makes, by European made vans.
Simple but inexcusable in their price range for instance is using ferrous washers on the gas locker doors , which rust and stain the GRP, when simply using Stainless Steel washers resolves that problem.
Using Velcro to hold bed supports up in transit, but the legs are too heavy for the Velcro............
There are many more things which on vans of that value should not be.
You are quite correct, that was an early Romahome model which are still in production today , just around the corner from me.
During all the time I have been servicing caravans and motorhomes I can count on one hand the number of times I have had dealings with any of their products.
The workforce is very proud of the item they build, and quite rightly so.
The new vans do look a lot better than the original ones as they use a better base vehicle and have honed their building skills a huge amount.
Damage is quite easily repaired as it is fibreglass and can be done by any good laminator.
Back to Coachman and the statement by Prof John L " Coachman have earned a reputation of producing a better than average caravan "
I don't know where that comes from other than owners having paid over the odds have to justify their purchase.
From my own personal dealings with all makes of vans over quite a few years they are no better than , and no worse than all other UK made vans.
They are outclassed , as are all other UK makes, by European made vans.
Simple but inexcusable in their price range for instance is using ferrous washers on the gas locker doors , which rust and stain the GRP, when simply using Stainless Steel washers resolves that problem.
Using Velcro to hold bed supports up in transit, but the legs are too heavy for the Velcro............
There are many more things which on vans of that value should not be.
We have a 2011 Coachman after 2 Swifts, 3 Abbeys and a Bailey,in my opinion the Coachman has thicker and heavier materials used in the inside, but from our evidence the one we have has had more problems than any of our previous vans. We bought it on recommendation from other Coachman owners and a previous PC editor amongst others. The sales pitch from the dealer was that Coachman take more care when building and only build limited number of vans per year 'ensuring quality' having used the van I would say it has been the same as every other van we have, some problems have been down to bought in items, and others to lack of diligence when building. Seriously thinking of changing to Adria when we next change,although at the moment we have recently had 3rd year service and no damp found or new faults reported so will probably keep it for a couple more years at least.
Romini Isle of Wight
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc"s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smallmotorhome.co.uk%2FResources%2Fromini4pgebw.pdf&ei=BtrPVJK-JM7Uao-ZgsgM&usg=AFQjCNFdWx0tLPvw4hnanGOOJhiE36eq5w&bvm=bv.85076809,d.d2s&cad=rja"
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc"s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smallmotorhome.co.uk%2FResources%2Fromini4pgebw.pdf&ei=BtrPVJK-JM7Uao-ZgsgM&usg=AFQjCNFdWx0tLPvw4hnanGOOJhiE36eq5w&bvm=bv.85076809,d.d2s&cad=rja"
Damian
Moderator
"foggydave said:
That was the original company name, since changed to Romahome and the caravan was dropped in favour of small motorhomes
Raywood said:
Hello Ray,
The example of the hand applied sealant, is very relevant. Water ingress is more often than not related to the sealant either deteriorating, or not having been applied properly, or poor panel fit. or even too much sealant which prevents the panel gap from being closed properly. For just a few pounds extra they could be using machine made preformed gaskets, consistent and accurate in size and thickness.
Very interesting that a smaller manufacturer like coachman appears to spend time post production snagging.
It's a pity the large multi range manufactures don't follow suit.
I have had two new caravans one in 2012 that was a nightmare constant faults and the latest in 2014 which is also turning out to be the same but with damp added.
They were from different manufactures but still poor quality.
The larger manufactures could easily invest in more automation and the cost would soon be recouped in better quality and less warranty work, and before anyone says it would push the cost up exponentially, that has not happened in the car industry.
Also when you look at the Solid advert it shows a caravan a boat and an aircraft, god help us if an aircraft was bonded as well as a caravan we would never fly again.
Solid light and dry is what is claimed by the Explorer group, Smart by the Swift group and Alu tech by Bailey may seem to be way forward but only if it addresses the production problems at the same time.
I am now in the awkward position of having to reject another c--p product which I had hoped would give me years of pleasure.
It appears that in the caravan industry there is no such beast as a Friday caravan just a Monday to Friday caravan.
It's a pity the large multi range manufactures don't follow suit.
I have had two new caravans one in 2012 that was a nightmare constant faults and the latest in 2014 which is also turning out to be the same but with damp added.
They were from different manufactures but still poor quality.
The larger manufactures could easily invest in more automation and the cost would soon be recouped in better quality and less warranty work, and before anyone says it would push the cost up exponentially, that has not happened in the car industry.
Also when you look at the Solid advert it shows a caravan a boat and an aircraft, god help us if an aircraft was bonded as well as a caravan we would never fly again.
Solid light and dry is what is claimed by the Explorer group, Smart by the Swift group and Alu tech by Bailey may seem to be way forward but only if it addresses the production problems at the same time.
I am now in the awkward position of having to reject another c--p product which I had hoped would give me years of pleasure.
It appears that in the caravan industry there is no such beast as a Friday caravan just a Monday to Friday caravan.
foggydave said:
Not that this really helps, but wood has a much better response to continual flexing than most man made materials,so wood is actually a very good material to use.
I do agree if hard or pressure treated wood were used it would resist water ingress better, But that is treating the symptom not the cause.
Cost is definitely a factor in this, but over the years the caravan industry has been surprisingly profitable, whilst the companies probably won't tell us what percentage of gross profit is reinvested in development, or for that matter how development costs are shared between fundamental projects like caravan construction vs new model layouts and finishes, my guess is its between 5 and 10%. If its more, then the evidence from the marketplace suggests its not been effective. Legislation can be a catalyst to cause change, but I don't see any caravan construction regulations on the horizon, which are likely to force manufactures into improving the consistency and reliability of their products. There are rumblings in the bowels of the EU that might strengthen the consumers right to challenge manufactures directly about poor product quality, but it's is well below the horizon at the moment, and with the poor economic performance in the EU its unlikely that legislation will be brought forward in this area for the foreseeable future.
I did not realise that the frames using non wooden materials were less able to flex. Just another example of a solution to one problem creating another. Presumably this will only reveal itself some years down the line and second or third purchasers will find the problem so the initial buyers will not have to worry.
Boats made from fibreglass don't have a problem, so I don't see any issue with the Alutech for example.
Facebook
Twitter