Noseweight gauge

[ro88o0]

hi, just to add a bit to the noseweight issue.
i have a lunar 615 ta max weight around 1400kgs + citreon c8 76kgs max ball weight.
so 5% of 1400 is 70kgs
if i was to weigh the rear end of the car (scales under the rear tyres) and connect the van i would expect the car axal weight to be 70kgs heavier.

would this be right

ro88o0
(good to keep the mind working)

 

[Lutz]

Not quite, Ro88o0. Due to the fact that the towball overhangs the rear axle, the rear axle load on the car would actually be more than 70kg heavier, probably somewhere around 90kg. (This, of course, means that there will also be about 20kg less on the front axle as the net difference must be 70kg)

 

[WatsonJohnG]

I either put an axle stand on the bathroom scale and adust the height or I put the noseweight gauge on the trolley jack and raise it so that the van is at the same attitude as when towing

Unlike the one in the pic my axle stand legs are not connected
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p84/johng_016/AW06100-9378TPS63201.jpg

 

[Steve L]

As John has said, if there are other discrepancies/issues present then VOSA will add the nose weight issue to the list so to speak. I have generally found that most VOSA and Policemen do have a practical approach. They are there to help as much as they can within the scope of their remit.

No matter what technical methodogy used or theoretical weight distribution anyone has developed, all that VOSA or the police do is to weigh the down force of the hitch of the trailer and compare that to the towbar/ car manufacturers spec. You do have to use the lower weight between trailer nose weight and the down load of the towbar. This is the same method deployed by Vosa. They do allow a margine of error of +5% before prosecution.

I have used 75 Kgs as my caravan nose weight for 28 years and had no problems towing.

Atb Steve L.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Steve,

It is wrong to assume there is a 5% margin allowed before prosecution. The notion that the police and any other authority are obliged to offer a margin is actually wrong. A excess of any size can be prosecuted, but in practice there is less chance of a successful prosecution if the difference is small, and thus the balance of success vs costs tends to persuade the police and other authorities away from perusing small discrepancies, and as you say more may be gained by education rather than a punishment.

However there is absolutely nothing to stop an authority from taking up a zero tolerance position, and there is nothing that says they have to give any notice of it. The Law is already prescriptive i.e it defines limits, and it is only the deliberation of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that suggests that limits may be given any margins. there is no compulsion for an authority to follow the ACPO suggestion.

It is never wise to try and use any believed margin as a means of allowing yourself to exceed a limit, whether it be weight, speeding or ... etc.

 

[seth1]

I have to agree with John L.I have had the pleasure of having meetings with VOSA on other peoples behalf and have a friend who is a traffic enforcement officer for VOSA.Quite simply if a roadside check is carried out and from what ive seen if a fault is found there is no room for margins.What seems to be fine for the annual MOT is a completly different matter to a roadside check,the defect is either right or wrong,end of.

 

[Lutz]

To qualify the above replies a bit I would like to add that a margin of error must be tolerated if only to cover inaccuracies of the measuring equipment used and human operating error. Even if the equipment was previously calibrated (and that alone won't guarantee that it's 100% accurate) a fault may have slipped in since the last calibration (for example, the equipment may have inadvertently been dropped and not reported) or human error, either due to ignorance or just plain negligence, may have occurred in its operation and which is difficult to prove at a later date. It is even conceivable that the manufacturer of the equipment himself was not fully aware of shortcomings in its design under certain ambient conditions that were not investigated at the time.

 

[Sedo]

Hi
What I've found fascinating in this thread are the technical issues involved in noseweight measurement.
I use a Milenco gauge and have to admit to the fact that it possibly isn't that accurate, but I bet you it's a darn site more accurate than the majority of people I see hitch up and never even bother to check their noseweight.
Years ago I used to just grab the hitch lift it and see if it felt 'about right'.
I'm amazed now though at the amount of people who don't even bother in fact I feel a bit of a nerd when just check ours with the Milenco before setting off.
What I'd feel like taking ambient temperatures, measuring arcs, testing heights and cross referencing with bathroom scales God only knows.
Best regards

Sedo

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Lutz,

It may seem that I am contradicting my self here, but you are quite right, the practicalities of taking measurements must be considered, and their margin of error be allowed for. Given that normal commercial scales coving the range of 0 to 150Kg of typical nose weights would usually be able to resolve to 0.1Kg, the margin of +/-5% is significantly wider than th e realistic measurement accuracy.

There is a possibility that the equipemnt may not be fully fiunctinal, but one of the nice things about weighing machines is they are reactively easy to check ther operation by using test weights.

I am sure you know and appreciate that a calibration certificate is like an MOT, only strictly valid at the time it is issued, and it does not necessarily mean the equipment will display the absolute correct reading, but it does mean the error is known and can be accounted to give a corrected reading assuming all other things are equal.

So assuming Steve's assertion of a +/5% margin is correct, that is a very loose margin, and clearly has the potential for abuse. +/ 1 to 2% is all that is required to cover.

 

[Steve L]

John & Seth.
I passed comment that VOSA have a 5% margin, not to condone people using that as a get out of jail card, but purely to show that VOSA and the poilce do have hearts and will advise where they can rather than rule with the ticket book. The margin is there to allow for discrepancy of scales as there has to be some degree of manufacturer tolerance.

I have had the pleasure of being tugged by VOSA quite a few times when I had a 3500Kg truck towing a 2000Kg gross goods trailer. The first time was when I didn't have a tachograph fitted. I didn't get prosecuted because within 48 hours I had got one fitted and wrote to the police to explain what I had done to put matters right. Since that the truck was tugged almost weekly and checked for weight and tachograph, which were all in order. But then I had another issue where the police and VOSA often thought I should have an operators license as well, but this was not the case as the trailer weighed less than 1000Kgs unladen. I even had to get a letter of clarification from the operator licensing authority to clear this issue once and for all.

Having gone through the situation above, I can honestly say that the vehicle inspectorate are very good andd fair. To be brutally honest those who think they would be ok if zero tolerance was applied would be far from angels, because they would then get tripped up on the least frequently checked items like brake lights not working, badly inflated tyres, wornout wiper blades, no water in the washer bottle, chipped windscreens, driving their caravan/motorhome after a full day driving a company vehicle, and so on.
Oh I forgot to add for John's benefit, speeding.

Atb Steve L.

 

[Philspadders]

i started posting about the rubbish once again being spouted about weighing the nose of the caravan and decided that life was too short.

i will point out that ubnless you 100% know what you are talking about then becareful. If someone takes up your recommendations , uses them, is injured or worse ........ you need to ensure have plenty of personal liability insurance.

 

[Parksy]

i started posting about the rubbish once again being spouted about weighing the nose of the caravan and decided that life was too short.

i will point out that ubnless you 100% know what you are talking about then becareful. If someone takes up your recommendations , uses them, is injured or worse ........ you need to ensure have plenty of personal liability insurance.

If someone was injured as a result of advice given on an internet forum they would have a hard time convincing a court that the forum member who had spouted the rubbish was culpable or liable for damages.
There are no guarantees that forum posts are accurate or truthful and Haymarket have put a disclaimer at the end of forum etiquette.

 

[seth1]

Sorry Philspadders but no one can be held responcible for anothers actions,as you say a lot of it is nonsence and what fool would seriously use the information as truth.Although it makes interesting reading dont you think?

 

[Steve L]

As both a contributer and a reader, I use what might be termed common sense. If I don't believe advice, I don't follow it. What works for one person might not work for another.

Also I wouldn't expect to sue any forum member if I've had an accident following their advice, after all, we are all responsible for our own actions.

Everywhere we go today there is "blame culture" and it seems to me that takes pride of place over solving a problem.

I did a First aid coarse refresher last year and we were told basically only do the minimum to preserve life until the emergency services get there to avoid personal law suit. That just typifies where peoples values of comradeship are falling.

Atb steve L.

 

[Easyvanner]

Mrs Easy n I recently went for medicals. We were chuffed to bits with our weights until we got on our quacks scales.
According to different medics trick scales our tasty stylish looking home scales are no more accurate than nose weight gauge's mentioned here.
95 Kilos on our new Milenco guage is 88.5 kilos on our scales and 84 on my caravanning neighbous aged scales that lok similar to the one with the nose weight gizmo frame.
Should have known that Fred was nearer 18 stone than 17

 

[Douglas_374404558]

HI! Prof i have made one that you describe 1inch box section steel .h shape that sits on top of scales with a tube rising from the middle up to large adjustable bolt with a 50mm towball welded on to the top of the up tube and a nut welded onto that so that you can adjust the hight by screwing/unscrewing the towball bolt in or out for whatever hight you require cost me about £12 works great !!
cheers Duggie

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hi douglas,

Great, it shoudl serve you well.

However the accolade belongs to Sproket as it sound like you have mirrored his design.