Noseweight - Towed or Stowed?

Jul 28, 2018
25
0
1,530
Visit site
Hi all,

I'm new to caravanning having had one a few years back for one short break and then having to sacrifice it for affordability reasons. I'm just trying to get back into it and am a bit confused with weights.

Could someone please give me a definitive answer regarding noseweight.. Should I be including noseweight in the towed weight of the van or in the weight loaded "in" the car? It obviously(?) can't be counted in both as there's only one nose.

For example, let's assume the following random (but nice to work with) numbers:
- Van MRO: 1200kg
- Noseweight: 75kg
- Van MTPLM: 1400kg
Does the noseweight when towing the van empty mean the car's actually towing 1125kg, and with the van up to MTPLM, towing 1325kg?

Thanks in advance, I'm sure the answer is out there somewhere but I certainly can't find it.
 
Nov 11, 2009
20,105
6,132
50,935
Visit site
When you are towing the 75 kg noseweight is considered as part of the cars load. However please don’t ask “does this mean I can carry another 75kg in the caravan?” You will open a long and protracted discussion which concludes with no definitive answer! It all depends on the understanding of MTPLM and it’s legal standing were you to be pulled over by VOSA and weighed.
 
Mar 14, 2005
9,703
602
30,935
lutzschelisch.wix.com
The car is only actually towing the axle load of the caravan, not its total weight which includes the noseweight. The noseweight is part of the car's payload.
Of course, however, the total weight of the caravan is its axle load plus the noseweight.
You are therefore correct when you say that if the caravan is at its MTPLM of 1400kg and the noseweight 75kg, the car is actually only towing 1325kg.
 
Mar 14, 2005
9,703
602
30,935
lutzschelisch.wix.com
otherclive said:
When you are towing the 75 kg noseweight is considered as part of the cars load. However please don’t ask “does this mean I can carry another 75kg in the caravan?” You will open a long and protracted discussion which concludes with no definitive answer! It all depends on the understanding of MTPLM and it’s legal standing were you to be pulled over by VOSA and weighed.

There's no need for a long and protracted discussion. The MTPLM applies to the total weight of the caravan and it is absolute. It includes the noseweight no matter how high or low the noseweight is.
 
Nov 11, 2009
20,105
6,132
50,935
Visit site
Lutz said:
otherclive said:
When you are towing the 75 kg noseweight is considered as part of the cars load. However please don’t ask “does this mean I can carry another 75kg in the caravan?” You will open a long and protracted discussion which concludes with no definitive answer! It all depends on the understanding of MTPLM and it’s legal standing were you to be pulled over by VOSA and weighed.

There's no need for a long and protracted discussion. The MTPLM applies to the total weight of the caravan and it is absolute. It includes the noseweight no matter how high or low the noseweight is.

I know that and you know that but surely you have seen the extensive forum threads debating this topic with no definitive answer. Some believe MTPLM is the criteria others believe axle load should the axle be rated at or above MTPLM. Then there are Construction and Use Regulations. Fir my part I take MTPLM as the maximum weight and if my 75kg noseweight reduces the load on my Alko axle then it may better resist “relaxing”.
 
Mar 14, 2005
9,703
602
30,935
lutzschelisch.wix.com
otherclive said:
Lutz said:
otherclive said:
When you are towing the 75 kg noseweight is considered as part of the cars load. However please don’t ask “does this mean I can carry another 75kg in the caravan?” You will open a long and protracted discussion which concludes with no definitive answer! It all depends on the understanding of MTPLM and it’s legal standing were you to be pulled over by VOSA and weighed.

There's no need for a long and protracted discussion. The MTPLM applies to the total weight of the caravan and it is absolute. It includes the noseweight no matter how high or low the noseweight is.

I know that and you know that but surely you have seen the extensive forum threads debating this topic with no definitive answer. Some believe MTPLM is the criteria others believe axle load should the axle be rated at or above MTPLM. Then there are Construction and Use Regulations. Fir my part I take MTPLM as the maximum weight and if my 75kg noseweight reduces the load on my Alko axle then it may better resist “relaxing”.

For the purpose of what one is allowed to tow or not the caravan's axle rating is irrelevant. It will generally be equal to or greater than the MTPLM, but the MTPLM is the limiting factor.

If the axle limit is greater than the MTPLM and one wishes to make full use of the maximum permissible axle limit then the noseweight would have to be a negative value or else the MTPLM would be exceeded. This is obviously absurd.
 
Nov 11, 2009
20,105
6,132
50,935
Visit site
Grey13 said:
Even I can understand this: Should be no need for further discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MueamWIS-QQ

Thank you I have stated my position in other threads. The caravan maker is the Design Authority for the total “system” and as such have defined MTPLM as the maximum weight of the caravan which includes noseweight. Crikey my prediction has been correct and I’ve been drawn into this discussion. Time to exit methinks.
 
Jul 28, 2018
25
0
1,530
Visit site
Thanks everyone for the replies! Sorry if it's a sore subject here.. The video was good for a bit of nostalgia.. Not sure I'm old enough to appreciate the "hundred weight" bit though.. I wasn't looking to overload the MTPLM of the caravan, since by its very name it's the maximum. I just wondered where in the combination the nose weight is considered in the combination.

Since we'll most likely be buying second hand (no real doubts about that actually), I'm planning a trip to a weighbridge anyway, since I don't know what changes may have been made by any previous owners.
 
Mar 14, 2005
9,703
602
30,935
lutzschelisch.wix.com
Grey13 said:
Even I can understand this: Should be no need for further discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MueamWIS-QQ

It's a pity that the weight plate shown in the Lowdhams videoclip is out-of-date because it doesn't comply with current requirements for a statutory plate. It doesn't give details of the maximum axle load, nor of the maximum allowable noseweight. Maybe the videoclip was recorded before type approval came into effect for caravans because the type approval number is missing, too.
 
Mar 14, 2005
17,557
3,051
50,935
Visit site
crosswind said:
Thanks everyone for the replies! Sorry if it's a sore subject here.. The video was good for a bit of nostalgia.. Not sure I'm old enough to appreciate the "hundred weight" bit though.. I wasn't looking to overload the MTPLM of the caravan, since by its very name it's the maximum. I just wondered where in the combination the nose weight is considered in the combination.

Since we'll most likely be buying second hand (no real doubts about that actually), I'm planning a trip to a weighbridge anyway, since I don't know what changes may have been made by any previous owners.

This really should not be a thorny subject, You are correct in so far the nose load does form part of the cars load. The problem is as nose load is dependant on how you load the caravan, its value is not known unless you measure it.

I venture to suggest that there is little point in taking the caravan to a weighbridge to find its MIRO, It makes more sense to measure the loaded caravan to make sure its does not exceed its MTPLM.
 
Nov 11, 2009
20,105
6,132
50,935
Visit site
ProfJohnL said:
crosswind said:
Thanks everyone for the replies! Sorry if it's a sore subject here.. The video was good for a bit of nostalgia.. Not sure I'm old enough to appreciate the "hundred weight" bit though.. I wasn't looking to overload the MTPLM of the caravan, since by its very name it's the maximum. I just wondered where in the combination the nose weight is considered in the combination.

Since we'll most likely be buying second hand (no real doubts about that actually), I'm planning a trip to a weighbridge anyway, since I don't know what changes may have been made by any previous owners.

This really should not be a thorny subject, You are correct in so far the nose load does form part of the cars load. The problem is as nose load is dependant on how you load the caravan, its value is not known unless you measure it.

I venture to suggest that there is little point in taking the caravan to a weighbridge to find its MIRO, It makes more sense to measure the loaded caravan to make sure its does not exceed its MTPLM.

I took mine to the weighbridge to find it’s partly loaded weight when containing its MIRO kit as defined by Swift plus its mover, battery and some of the kit always carried in the van. That gave me a baseline then to decide what other kit could be carried dependent on the type of journey being undertaken. I then loaded it up for what I considered to be the heaviest journey ex food in fridge and then re-weighed it. I had to remove about 15kg so that with food in the fridge the loaded weight sat 10 kg below MTPLM of 1300kg. How accurate the final figure was depended on weighbridge calibration and of course the final figures can vary dependent on humidity and moisture as well.
 
Jul 28, 2018
25
0
1,530
Visit site
ProfJohnL said:
This really should not be a thorny subject, You are correct in so far the nose load does form part of the cars load. The problem is as nose load is dependant on how you load the caravan, its value is not known unless you measure it.

I venture to suggest that there is little point in taking the caravan to a weighbridge to find its MIRO, It makes more sense to measure the loaded caravan to make sure its does not exceed its MTPLM.

I just thought that if I knew the caravan's starting weight, I'd be able to use a considered approach to loading without the disappointment of loading and being far over the MTPLM.. Especially seeing as the nearest weighbridge is about an hour and a half round-trip away, so wouldn't want to travel that far with an unsuitable load.
 
Nov 11, 2009
20,105
6,132
50,935
Visit site
crosswind said:
ProfJohnL said:
This really should not be a thorny subject, You are correct in so far the nose load does form part of the cars load. The problem is as nose load is dependant on how you load the caravan, its value is not known unless you measure it.

I venture to suggest that there is little point in taking the caravan to a weighbridge to find its MIRO, It makes more sense to measure the loaded caravan to make sure its does not exceed its MTPLM.

I just thought that if I knew the caravan's starting weight, I'd be able to use a considered approach to loading without the disappointment of loading and being far over the MTPLM.. Especially seeing as the nearest weighbridge is about an hour and a half round-trip away, so wouldn't want to travel that far with an unsuitable load.

I took a similar approach but included some normal kit carried in the caravan. It also gives an indication of how accurate your own weighing is. IE MIRO plus some kit = accuracy check on self weighing.
 
Sep 4, 2017
592
53
10,935
Visit site
OK Now a purely speculative question.

Especially with older vans where it seems manufacturers did not use "minimum" standards in production and things were more sturdy, they must have built in safety factors. So if a van's permissible load was say 300 KG and someone added without knowing an extra 100 KG, I am pretty sure the sky would not fall in.

I see comments of 10 / 15 kg overweight?

For that matter, can anyone at all mention a case where an overload has caused a failure. Now please exclude cases where vans are years old and have been regularly overloaded and axle,s need replacing because the rubber dampers have been overworked. Also for arguments sake, exclude prangs caused by van snaking which just as easily could be down to bad towing driving. Also Prof, exclude the obvious legal aspects!

Does anyone know of a single trip where overloading has caused a catastrophe?

I cannot be the only bloke to never have even checked my technical weights and just loaded my van using my gut feel for weight and distribution. When I tow under all conditions including almost gale force winds on a motor way, my van is almost unnoticeable behind the car. We drove back not long ago in very high winds along the north Wales coast without a second thought.
 
Mar 14, 2005
9,703
602
30,935
lutzschelisch.wix.com
By law, manufacturers aren't obliged to quote the MIRO of a caravan, but it is an NCC requirement to display it. On the other hand the NCC label by the door usually shows an MTPLM which is calculated on the basis of the MIRO plus a payload allowance according to BS EN 1645-1 and not the actual MTPLM as type approved by the manufacturer. As a result a caravan may show two different MTPLM's, one on the NCC label and another on the statutory plate. A lot of confusion exists as a result as one can be left in some doubt which MTPLM actually applies.

Personally, I don't see how the NCC label can be treated as binding because more often than not it doesn't comply with the requirements for a statutory plate, as laid down in legislation.
 

Parksy

Moderator
Nov 12, 2009
11,904
2,399
40,935
Visit site
Grey13 said:
OK Now a purely speculative question.

Especially with older vans where it seems manufacturers did not use "minimum" standards in production and things were more sturdy, they must have built in safety factors. So if a van's permissible load was say 300 KG and someone added without knowing an extra 100 KG, I am pretty sure the sky would not fall in.

I see comments of 10 / 15 kg overweight?

For that matter, can anyone at all mention a case where an overload has caused a failure. Now please exclude cases where vans are years old and have been regularly overloaded and axle,s need replacing because the rubber dampers have been overworked. Also for arguments sake, exclude prangs caused by van snaking which just as easily could be down to bad towing driving. Also Prof, exclude the obvious legal aspects!

Does anyone know of a single trip where overloading has caused a catastrophe?

I cannot be the only bloke to never have even checked my technical weights and just loaded my van using my gut feel for weight and distribution. When I tow under all conditions including almost gale force winds on a motor way, my van is almost unnoticeable behind the car. We drove back not long ago in very high winds along the north Wales coast without a second thought.

Before a storm of off topic condemnation breaks and rains down on Greys tin hat, may I remind everyone that this is a caravan forum, we're not the police or VOSA.
Caravanners should comply with the manufacturers weight limits.
If they don't comply it's a matter for them.
Please remember the old saying 'each to their own'.
 
Sep 4, 2017
592
53
10,935
Visit site
OK Guy's walked outside and looked at that silver plate. MTPLM = 1470, MRO = 1264. So seems I can load 206 kg's ....We always travel light, meaning we buy most booze when there, so food and clothes etc have ample weight between them. My wife points out for her over sea's flights she more or less takes 20 kg's so we are fine! Spare wheel travels in the car boot now. I now mostly use my SunCamp canopy, very light 5kg, few pegs etc.....Even the kampa only weighs 20 kg's . Happy days!
 
Mar 14, 2005
9,703
602
30,935
lutzschelisch.wix.com
Grey13 said:
OK Guy's walked outside and looked at that silver plate. MTPLM = 1470, MRO = 1264. So seems I can load 206 kg's ....We always travel light, meaning we buy most booze when there, so food and clothes etc have ample weight between them. My wife points out for her over sea's flights she more or less takes 20 kg's so we are fine! Spare wheel travels in the car boot now. I now mostly use my SunCamp canopy, very light 5kg, few pegs etc.....Even the kampa only weighs 20 kg's . Happy days!

First of all I'd check whether there isn't another weight plate on the caravan, usually in the front locker. That may show a completely different MTPLM.
Secondly, the MRO shown on the plate is unlikely to be 100% accurate. It is normally a generic figure which could be some way off the actual figure of the caravan in question. The only sure way of knowing what payload the caravan can carry is to have it weighed on a weighbridge.
 
Mar 14, 2005
17,557
3,051
50,935
Visit site
Grey13 said:
OK Now a purely speculative question.

Especially with older vans where it seems manufacturers did not use "minimum" standards in production and things were more sturdy, they must have built in safety factors. So if a van's permissible load was say 300 KG and someone added without knowing an extra 100 KG, I am pretty sure the sky would not fall in.

I see comments of 10 / 15 kg overweight?

For that matter, can anyone at all mention a case where an overload has caused a failure. Now please exclude cases where vans are years old and have been regularly overloaded and axle,s need replacing because the rubber dampers have been overworked. Also for arguments sake, exclude prangs caused by van snaking which just as easily could be down to bad towing driving. Also Prof, exclude the obvious legal aspects!

Does anyone know of a single trip where overloading has caused a catastrophe?

I cannot be the only bloke to never have even checked my technical weights and just loaded my van using my gut feel for weight and distribution. When I tow under all conditions including almost gale force winds on a motor way, my van is almost unnoticeable behind the car. We drove back not long ago in very high winds along the north Wales coast without a second thought.

Hello Grey

I'm not convinced that older caravans were sturdier, but that's a bit of an open question.

I am certain there are many caravans that are towed with their MTPLM's exceeded. I'd agree that in most cases no obvious damage arises, but it's never right to exceed a mass limit as;
It could mean you're travelling illegally.
It will reduce a vehicles controlability and could be unsafe.
It will increase wear and tear and could precipitate mechanical failures.

Even a relatively small overload can lead to bigger issues than you might have thought because the mass of a caravan is subjected to a lot of vibrations when its towed. Vibrations are accelerations and can be compared to the acceleration due to gravity (G) we all experience.

You may be surprised to know that, even on a fairly normal roads vibrations in the order of up to 4G can be recorded in a caravan, and on rough roads (Belgian Pave test track) peak values as high as 12G have been detected with a more general 5 to 8G being typical.

What this means is that for every stationary 1kg of mass producing a weight of 1kgf (weight is a force and should really be quoted in Newton Meters), when its subjected to a 4G acceleration it will produce a 4kgf, or in simple terms 4 x times its normal load. Vibrations may not always bee in the vertical axis, they could be in almost any direction so its not just the weigh bearing capacity of teh chassis that may be affected.

Car and caravan manufacturers should be aware of this effect (Force = Mass x Acceleration) and design their products to withstand the peak values, so they have to state a lower static value to load by, in the knowledge that much greater forces will be applied when its driven.

As the G value multiplies the force a mass will produce, even a small static overload will produce a much bigger dynamic overload, and that is the mechanical danger of overloading.
 
Jun 20, 2005
17,264
3,486
50,935
Visit site
Currently the best explanation on loads and suspension systems in caravans is probably the following thesis,
https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/13121111/UnivBath_MPhil_2013_J_Lewis.pdf
 
Mar 14, 2005
17,557
3,051
50,935
Visit site
Dustydog said:
Currently the best explanation on loads and suspension systems in caravans is probably the following thesis,
https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/13121111/UnivBath_MPhil_2013_J_Lewis.pdf

Hello Dusty,
You keep finding these gems don't you :)

A well presented thesis, but as with the earlier caravan stability project you have to look at look through the written words at the constraints that will have been applied to the project which may have biased the thinking and the results.

I'm not suggesting the results have been falsified, but they may not have had the opportunity to look in enough details at some of the other possible solutions.

There does seem to be a possibility of some weight saving, but if its success is dependant on other caravan manufacturers adopting the specific design, then the issues of the design being owned by Bailey will be a really big issue for the other manufacturers, and I suspect it will be the demise of the project from Baileys perspective.

The author was at pains to discuss the options as far as alternative suspension systems were concerned, and his solution is far from revolutionary as Alko already use an almost identical suspension set on caravans in Australia!.

With far more moving parts, it unlikely to be price competitive with the current rubber in tube system, and caravan manufacturers are very sensitive to cost prices.

The concept of a box beam as a backbone to a trailer is not new, so there is little prospect of a patent, except on the interlocking modular design to allow different configurations.
I would also be concerned at the ability of a caravan work force to assemble the chassis , correctly bearing in mind the industries atrocious quality and reliability
performance. I know that I would be wondering if the chassis were likely to fall apart, becasue the Friday afternoon crew were in charge of the glue guns!

It could be argued that the present system is durable enough (except for Otherclive's) so why change for a more expensive system. The benefits of smoother riding will have to be pushed very hard to make any headway in that area.
 
Nov 11, 2009
20,105
6,132
50,935
Visit site
ProfJohnL said:
Dustydog said:
Currently the best explanation on loads and suspension systems in caravans is probably the following thesis,
https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/13121111/UnivBath_MPhil_2013_J_Lewis.pdf

Hello Dusty,
You keep finding these gems don't you :)

A well presented thesis, but as with the earlier caravan stability project you have to look at look through the written words at the constraints that will have been applied to the project which may have biased the thinking and the results.

I'm not suggesting the results have been falsified, but they may not have had the opportunity to look in enough details at some of the other possible solutions.

There does seem to be a possibility of some weight saving, but if its success is dependant on other caravan manufacturers adopting the specific design, then the issues of the design being owned by Bailey will be a really big issue for the other manufacturers, and I suspect it will be the demise of the project from Baileys perspective.

The author was at pains to discuss the options as far as alternative suspension systems were concerned, and his solution is far from revolutionary as Alko already use an almost identical suspension set on caravans in Australia!.

With far more moving parts, it unlikely to be price competitive with the current rubber in tube system, and caravan manufacturers are very sensitive to cost prices.

The concept of a box beam as a backbone to a trailer is not new, so there is little prospect of a patent, except on the interlocking modular design to allow different configurations.
I would also be concerned at the ability of a caravan work force to assemble the chassis , correctly bearing in mind the industries atrocious quality and reliability
performance. I know that I would be wondering if the chassis were likely to fall apart, becasue the Friday afternoon crew were in charge of the glue guns!

It could be argued that the present system is durable enough (except for Otherclive's) so why change for a more expensive system. The benefits of smoother riding will have to be pushed very hard to make any headway in that area.

Prof
If you search some of the other websites there’s more posts on relaxed axles. Of course how statistically relevant it is who can say. But new caravans in dealers with an offside lean exceeding Alkos recommendation isn’t particularly comforting.
The reason Australian Baileys have a better suspension is because once off of the main highways many Australian side roads can be rough. Unlike in UK where any road can be , or is, rough. Or perhaps Bailey acknowledged that Aussies wouldn’t put up with poor suspension.
 
Nov 11, 2009
20,105
6,132
50,935
Visit site
Looking at the Bailey Coastal the lightweight weekend single axle for Australia. It has a 28 litre hot water sytem, 2x105 litre fresh water tanks, Australian made chassis, external gas bottles and 10 leaf spring suspension. Any chance of a reverse import!
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts