Olympus 534 Noseweight BEWARE

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Phil, Mel, Bill.D

Phil: (13 Jun 2010 09:01 PM) Your third paragraph is clearly not true. Every caravan that is trimmed to keep it in limit by careful loading belies your statement, which is the vast majority of caravans in the UK.

From your post of 14 Jun 2010 12:14 PM,. Yes a too higher nose weight will eventually affect the steerage and grip of the cars front wheels but that would have to be so grossly overloaded over the maximum allowed limit. Other structural damage to the underside of the cars body is likely to ensue. But provided the nose load and other loadings on the car are within the manufacturers limits then the available grip and performance will be within the manufacturers specifications.

It all comes back to the driver checking, before driving, and no amount of grumbling is going to change that.

If you don't want to use your awning them leave it home, and use other items to trim the balance.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Mel,& Bill.D

As has have stated several time before, the condition of an outfit is the responsibility of the driver. The dealer has no authority to stop a customer (and his property) from leaving the dealers premises. And if dealers were responsible for the actions of customer, then no car would be sold that was capable of breaking the speed limit.

At best a dealer might advice a customer that there is a suspicion that the outfit may not be legal, but they have no power to stop a headstrong customer. The decision and responsibility is the drivers - every time.

The dealer is also not responsible for customer who are ignorant regards towing law and regulations. Car dealers (with the exception of a few super car manufactures) do not question if you have a car driving licence, they assume you have one.

It is your responsibility to ensure you know what you are doing, Why should someone else be to blame if you haven't done your homework?

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Phil, Mel, Bill.D

Phil: (13 Jun 2010 09:01 PM) Your third paragraph is clearly not true. Every caravan that is trimmed to keep it in limit by careful loading belies your statement, which is the vast majority of caravans in the UK.

From your post of 14 Jun 2010 12:14 PM,. Yes a too higher nose weight will eventually affect the steerage and grip of the cars front wheels but that would have to be so grossly overloaded over the maximum allowed limit. Other structural damage to the underside of the cars body is likely to ensue. But provided the nose load and other loadings on the car are within the manufacturers limits then the available grip and performance will be within the manufacturers specifications.

It all comes back to the driver checking, before driving, and no amount of grumbling is going to change that.

If you don't want to use your awning them leave it home, and use other items to trim the balance.

Sorry this answer is just fro Phil.

 

[Mel]

John L, i agree that the responsibility for towing the caravan away from the dealers was mine; and yes I should have known that a caravan could have been noseheavy when empty. But I clearly didn't, and the dealer clearly did. We also made it known to the dealer that we had not towed or owned before. Of course the dealer could not have stopped us had we ignored his advice, but I do think that dealers have a responsibility to say to the customer, "do you know that you are about to do something illegal". Surely the fact that the dealer hitched the van to the car for us makes him complicit in some way.

mel

 

[ProfJohnL]

John L, i agree that the responsibility for towing the caravan away from the dealers was mine; and yes I should have known that a caravan could have been noseheavy when empty. But I clearly didn't, and the dealer clearly did. We also made it known to the dealer that we had not towed or owned before. Of course the dealer could not have stopped us had we ignored his advice, but I do think that dealers have a responsibility to say to the customer, "do you know that you are about to do something illegal". Surely the fact that the dealer hitched the van to the car for us makes him complicit in some way.

mel

Hello Mel,

As I have said I think there is a moral responsibility for a dealer to give advice, but the decision to drive is the drivers.

The dealer may have been given some legal advice about offering technical advice on outfit matching. It may be that as they have a position of trust in respect of selling caravans, if they offer advice on outfit matches, they may become liable to being sued by the driver, if the advice is wrong.

It may be that dealers have add a disclaimer or rider to any advice they give.

Please note that even if the dealer is culpable for offering wrong advice, it in no way diminishes the drivers responsibility in respect of adhering to road regulations, so an overloaded caravan/car is still the drivers ultimate responsibility.

 

[Surfer]

As mentioned earlier, unfortunatley it is solely your responsibility to ensure that the towing vehicle and the trailer are correctly calibrated or loaded for safe towing. The dealership have no responsibility whatsoever.

The above is not my opinion, but law in the sense that if you were involved in a mishap while towing, the onus is on you to prove your innocence and the dealer would not come into the equation however I do understand your frustration.

 

[xtrailman]

Mel

you are absolutely correct.

 

[andyp1]

Interesting thread

These comments assume that

A. The dealer actually gives damn !

B. The dealer actually knows what he is doing !

 

[Philspadders]

John L.

Firstly my post regarding nose weight refered to an empty van not a loaded van.

John L and Ian

Recentley i was involved in some litigation regarding some defective parts. The supplier lost the case (at great expense to the supplier) due to one simple error... the supplier knew what the finished products purpose was and should have informed us that the scope of supply we requested was incorrect.

Tghis case has taken nearly 20 months to resolve and has been expensive on both sides , but the supplier has lost a great deal of money. We have not yet settled any costs allocation but the likleyhood is that the suppier will be footing a

 

[Lutz]

There is a big difference between the example that you mention, Phil, and that of a dealer not pointing out the noseweight. In your example, the supplier failed to point out that "the scope of the supply was incorrect", but I don't think that anyone can dispute the fact that the caravan, on its own, is in anyway unsafe or illegal.

Bear in mind that the dealer has only sold a caravan and not a complete outfit. Therefore he only has to take responsibility for what he has sold, not for the outfit. This responsibility ceases as soon as the caravan is hitched up to the car.

 

[RogerB]

You said in the towcar thread that the car/van towed like a dream?

Correct . That would be expected as too high a noseweight will give a more stable tow than a too light one.That does not alter the fact that it was excessive and illegal.

 

[RogerB]

Although strictly true that one would be illegal if exceeding the noseweight limit, I doubt whether the police or anyone else would have cause to check noseweight unless it was obvious by just looking at the outfit that it or the car's rear axle load were way too high. In most cases, when picking up a new caravan from the dealer one would not have that much in the boot of the car, so the noseweight would probably have to be about double the allowance to be noticeable.

The noseweight limit is a measure of the structural integrity of the car and the towbar and takes into account all road conditions likely to be encountered in use, including potholed and unsurfaced roads. Exceeding the limit by, say, 10kg and then driving a few miles down a well maintained road is not going to cause failure or fracture of components such as likely to be safety hazard.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to condone such action, but I think it's worth putting things into perspective. I would agree that caravan manufacturers should put their things in order, too, and help by modifying their designs to reduce noseweight to respectable values when the caravan is empty. all that is needed is to move the body of the caravan a few inches to the rear relative to the axle. It would increase the overall length by the same amount, but that is the only disadvantage.

Agree totally.The noseweight ,with onle 1 7kg bottle and nothing else was 120kg statically measured.Can you imagine what the dynamic loading was!

 

[RogerB]

Roger, I feel your rant is a little over the top. Are you sure your nosewight guage is accurate?

I only say this because when we collected our Pegasus 524 with a central chest and 2 gas bottles was 115kg measured using a milenco type approved guage. So without the chest 120kg appears very high.

As otherwise stated, Bailey are not unique in having exworks noseweights erring towards weights for enhanced stability.

You are way off the mark.This is not a rant but a highly responsible warning to anyone else in the same situation.I got away without incident but somebody else may not be so lucky.

 

[RogerB]

Hello Roger,

In your response to Rita, you say

"It is totally against all sensible loading practice to have to load the rear of a caravan to achieve an acceptable noseweight. The implications for yaw inertia are not good."

From first principals if you cannot reduce the mass at the front of a caravan, the only way to reduce its effects on nose load is to load behind the axle as a counter balance. This has been the fundamental situation since the dawn of single axle caravans, so it is normal practice.

Whilst it is certainly true that adding mass at the extremes of an outfit is best avoided, the loads in question may be well inside the safe carriage limits of the outfit, and at normal driving speeds offer no significant degradation to the stability of the outfit.

It's a question of degree rather than a blanket statement, and as it has been the case for a number of years with different caravans, the lack of clear evidence to say it has been a major contributor to caravan related towing incidents suggests its not as black and white as you and other ante Bailey posters have made out in this thread.

I repeat that I am not connected to Bailey in any way, and I do think that their ex-works nose loads are rather excessive, but the company has been fully open about it, and they are not the only manufacturer to have hi ex-works nose loads.

Bailey perhaps more than any other company has evidence of the effects of loading from the studies they had Bath University carry out, and demonstrate, so I am fairly sure they will be aware of the issue and may have good reason for their designs.

This is a subject that needs to addressed by the head not the heart.

Thanks for that John.I agree with your comments.I must point out though that to get the NW to 80kg I have absolutely nothing in front of the axle except a 6kg bottle-the safest place for it.I have added more than I would normally carry behind the axle just to get the NW down.This goes against my long standing aim to stay as light as possible.

Many contributors on here talk about adding ballast - somebody mentioned adding a part full aquaroll or similar - at the rear.This is against all advice and totally at odds with the article in the May edition of PC.I would be very reluctant to do this but if I put 2 gas bottles in the front I would not achieve 80kg NW without it.

I would value your comments.

 

[RogerB]

There is a big difference between the example that you mention, Phil, and that of a dealer not pointing out the noseweight. In your example, the supplier failed to point out that "the scope of the supply was incorrect", but I don't think that anyone can dispute the fact that the caravan, on its own, is in anyway unsafe or illegal.

Bear in mind that the dealer has only sold a caravan and not a complete outfit. Therefore he only has to take responsibility for what he has sold, not for the outfit. This responsibility ceases as soon as the caravan is hitched up to the car.

It would be interesting to hear some answers from the legal profession.Maybe PC could run an article to try to clear some points up.It may prevent a lot of grief for somebody - the whole point of my posting.

Certainly created a lot of interest!

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Phil,

I understand your point, and I have already said that I think dealers should offer advice if they suspect an outfit is not properly matched, but I am not sure the parallel you offer is the same situation.

Let me first clarify your second paragraph of 15 Jun 2010 01:07 PM. You state the parts were "defective" Does that means they were faulty and would not have performed the job they were designed for? I'm not sure you actually meant that.

Let us assume that parts were not defective:

If the parts were selected from a standard catalogue, the customer is responsible for confirming the parts are sufficiently durable for the purpose they intend to use them for. That confirmation will be either by testing, or asking the supplier to offer a guarantee of performance under the specified conditions.

Alternatively if the supplier was asked to produce parts to the customer's specification or to special order then depending on the specific arrangements between the customer and supplier liability may rest entirely with one or other of the parties or jointly. Again conformance would need to be ascertained by testing against agreed criteria. Without seeing the exact and complete judgment from the court it is difficult to be sure if there is any relevance to the situation being discussed in this thread.

In the case of a caravan, it is selected from a standard catalogue, and thus it is up to the customer to ensure its specifications are adequate for their intended purpose. (Buyer Beware). The dealer can only act as an adviser as they do not have design or manufacturing responsibilities for the product.

Bringing this back to Rogers opening thread though, it is not Bailey who are to blame if an outfit has a too heavy nose load, it is the driver who does not check all the details before driving.

You cannot get away from the fact that the driver has the choice of whether to drive or not and they must base that decision on checks they make about their outfit.

Unless there is any startling new evidence brought forward,

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Phil,

I understand your point, and I have already said that I think dealers should offer advice if they suspect an outfit is not properly matched, but I am not sure the parallel you offer is the same situation.

Let me first clarify your second paragraph of 15 Jun 2010 01:07 PM. You state the parts were "defective" Does that means they were faulty and would not have performed the job they were designed for? I'm not sure you actually meant that.

Let us assume that parts were not defective:

If the parts were selected from a standard catalogue, the customer is responsible for confirming the parts are sufficiently durable for the purpose they intend to use them for. That confirmation will be either by testing, or asking the supplier to offer a guarantee of performance under the specified conditions.

Alternatively if the supplier was asked to produce parts to the customer's specification or to special order then depending on the specific arrangements between the customer and supplier liability may rest entirely with one or other of the parties or jointly. Again conformance would need to be ascertained by testing against agreed criteria. Without seeing the exact and complete judgment from the court it is difficult to be sure if there is any relevance to the situation being discussed in this thread.

In the case of a caravan, it is selected from a standard catalogue, and thus it is up to the customer to ensure its specifications are adequate for their intended purpose. (Buyer Beware). The dealer can only act as an adviser as they do not have design or manufacturing responsibilities for the product.

Bringing this back to Rogers opening thread though, it is not Bailey who are to blame if an outfit has a too heavy nose load, it is the driver who does not check all the details before driving.

You cannot get away from the fact that the driver has the choice of whether to drive or not and they must base that decision on checks they make about their outfit.

Unless there is any startling new evidence brought forward,

Lost a bit when posting,

Unless there is startling new evidence brought foreward I don't see this thread getting anywhere, so I for one will not add further.

 

[Philspadders]

Lookm , im not getting into a "who knows more" "point scoring" series of post on a forum.

But the parts supplied were within the specifications laid down under BS 10160 with standard US test to S1. However , since the supplier knew the purpose the recommended US procedude is to S3.

The discontinuities were with the range specified by S1

The supplier failed in theire duty of care.

This applicable to Engineering, retail, car sales , whatever it is

 

[Philspadders]

i hit the return key before i finished.

if you, as a seller are aware of and unsafe situation and take no measure to prevent,or advise then you the seller can be held culpable.

if you sold a car knowing that the brakes were defective and allowed someone to drive it away, and they were killed or injured in accident....

 

[Lutz]

Yes, but the caravan, on its own, is not unsafe, no matter how high the noseweight. So how can the dealer be held responsible? You bought a caravan from the dealer, not a "caravan suitable for a specific towcar without the need for ballast", even though that may have been your intent. If it were that important to you, you should have made sure that this was one of the terms of the sales contract. Without such a term in the contract, one cannot claim that the dealer did not fulfil his responsibilities.

 

[Zafiral]

Roger, what noseweight guage did you use to arrive at 120kg?

I only ask because I am aware that the ex works noseweight of our Pegasus (pre chest) is 78kg. As the layouts of our vans are similar I can't see this figure being more than 5-10 kg different.

The battery box is behind the axle so that will lower the noseweight. That means that the gas bottle is adding around 40kg to the noseweight. I can understand your fear of seeing 120kg noseweight, but I feel that your guage is giving an exagerated reading.

 

[RogerB]

Roger, what noseweight guage did you use to arrive at 120kg?

I only ask because I am aware that the ex works noseweight of our Pegasus (pre chest) is 78kg. As the layouts of our vans are similar I can't see this figure being more than 5-10 kg different.

The battery box is behind the axle so that will lower the noseweight. That means that the gas bottle is adding around 40kg to the noseweight. I can understand your fear of seeing 120kg noseweight, but I feel that your guage is giving an exagerated reading.

Hi Used bathroom scales which are good quality and believed to be accurate.Also lifted front by hand and thats what started alarm bells ringing - I could hardly lift it and am well used to lifting 100kg loads so had a good idea it was high.Can only assume that some of the geometry on my van is different from yours to give such a difference in noseweights.

 

[Looksatmanualman]

Caravanners of all types of manufacturer there are several points you are all missing whilst talking about nose weight. The most important and legal aspect is that most caravan hitches have a declared maximum load of 100kgs. This means that any manufacturer making a caravan with a dry nose weight in excess of 100kgs and not declaring it should be named and shamed. They are putting us at risk of prosecution should we not check the nose weight on collection from the dealer. There is also the other aspect of the tow bar acceptable maximum weight, usually declared by the manufacturer. Then look at the vehicle manufacturers acceptable nose weight. Basically, there are numerous warnings about how not to break the law when applying nose weights. Don't forget your tyre pressures. The heavier the caravan - the higher the tyre pressure, but not more than what is rated on the tyre. Yes, it does give you this information on the tyre wall.

Moral is, read - understand - apply what you have learnt. Under no circumstances exceed the max. loads for any of the above. If you have an incident and any of the above are exceeded - beware. I understand RogerBs point and it is still going on.