You are a Guest, please Join now to allow full access to the website and be part of our community. You can register by clicking the "Click Here to create an account" link at the top left of the page under our Logo
It is easy to see why people are confused with different information coming from different sources.
For example, today I contacted 3 different "professional" parties in regard to my Autotrail Chieftain and it's carrying/towing capacities.
The vehicle plate states 3 weights by axles (1 front, 2 rear) totalling 4500kg unladen 5500kg laden NO TRAIN WEIGHT figures quoted.
Autotrail said I could tow upto 1000kg with the van BUT that must INCLUDE van contents,(pasengers, bottle, batteries pots, pans etc. AND toad)
Chelston (supplying dealer) said 1000kg PLUS up to 1000kg for toad
PWS towbars (towbar supplier) whatever plate says for carrying capacity(in my case 1000kg) PLUS up to 2000kg towing capacity.
WHO do I believe now
Is there an end in sight to this topic? I think not
Just picking up on one of your points DJP the total of the three axle weights is not added up to give your MAM. You may already know this but its not clear if you do from what you said.
Correct, Axle loads added together nearly always exceed the MAM, you can load one or the other axle/s to its maximum but hardly ever both/all at once, its all about load distribution within the MAM.
Noel.
The following members of MHF thanked Noel for this posting
Hi Dave.
But how would you convince the A frame manufacturers to accept that unbreaked A frames are illegal ( Noels interpretation ) At the present time they will tell you that unbreaked A frames are also legal,.(under 750kg) and are fully aware of Noels points against.
Charlie.
It does irritate the hell out of me that the a-frame manufacturers are doing the whole industry and their customers a huge disservice and giving ammunition to the NTTTA and others who want to legislate against us, by not coming clean on the trailer regs regarding unbraked/braked a-frames.
I have have had correspondence with
Only registered users can see links on our Forum Join Now or Login
(my fitter) on this very point but they will not accept that their website is plain wrong and contradictory, they don't even clarify that the 750kg quoted refers to gross (MAM) NOT unladen weight and the car shown on an unbraked frame is almost certainly above this figure! They are cherry-picking the regs to boost their business and this is completely unacceptable. Maybe they want to sell more expensive Brakebuddys?
Noel.
Last edited by Noel on Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:20 pm; edited 2 times in total
The following members of MHF thanked Noel for this posting
Mine you, I think Noels agreement in his last post sounded a little strained.
Possibly so - that's why I then left it to him to decide how much "complication" should be included, if he was to agree to refresh his guide.
I realised that I was going on and on, about a point which (although I believed in it sincerely) was maybe not the core issue. I still think it's valid to acknowledge that a grey area exists, but it might be more appropriate (initially at least) to state a set of rules that are more black and white.
If we can get one set of core users acknowledged as legal A framers first, we can maybe add others around the edges later.
Hi Dave,
Not sure what "refreshing" is needed but if a MOD wanted a sticky (I can't do this) I would leave out the comments about flaming etc! If a MOD wants to PM me re "sticking" (where the sun does shine? ) I would dress it up a bit.
Regards,
Noel.
The following members of MHF thanked Noel for this posting
Mine you, I think Noels agreement in his last post sounded a little strained.
Possibly so - that's why I then left it to him to decide how much "complication" should be included, if he was to agree to refresh his guide.
I realised that I was going on and on, about a point which (although I believed in it sincerely) was maybe not the core issue. I still think it's valid to acknowledge that a grey area exists, but it might be more appropriate (initially at least) to state a set of rules that are more black and white.
If we can get one set of core users acknowledged as legal A framers first, we can maybe add others around the edges later.
Hi Dave,
Not sure what "refreshing" is needed but if a MOD wanted a sticky (I can't do this) I would leave out the comments about flaming etc! If a MOD wants to PM me re "sticking" (where the sun does shine? ) I would dress it up a bit.
Regards,
Noel.
Refreshing I was thinking about was:
1) A mention that the towbar could have a limit that restricted twoing to less than that implied by your calculation
2) Possibly a brief acknowledgement that your recommendations are "best practise" and don't necessarily mean that all exceptions are illegal.
3) I think it would need to be agreed, with the mods, in advance, to make it a locked post - so that it doesn't get complicated again.
4) Again by prior agreement with the mods, I think it ought to be made a sticky.
What I'd like to see, is probably what you thought you'd done last time, ie one clear summary, that people can use as a reference. I'm sorry to say that I helped to mess up your last one, but I do think that the debate led to even more clarity.
What you have created is worthy of more than just another debate disappearing into the archives.
The following members of MHF thanked dbh1961 for this posting
Mine you, I think Noels agreement in his last post sounded a little strained.
Possibly so - that's why I then left it to him to decide how much "complication" should be included, if he was to agree to refresh his guide.
I realised that I was going on and on, about a point which (although I believed in it sincerely) was maybe not the core issue. I still think it's valid to acknowledge that a grey area exists, but it might be more appropriate (initially at least) to state a set of rules that are more black and white.
If we can get one set of core users acknowledged as legal A framers first, we can maybe add others around the edges later.
Hi Dave,
Not sure what "refreshing" is needed but if a MOD wanted a sticky (I can't do this) I would leave out the comments about flaming etc! If a MOD wants to PM me re "sticking" (where the sun does shine? ) I would dress it up a bit.
Regards,
Noel.
Refreshing I was thinking about was:
1) A mention that the towbar could have a limit that restricted twoing to less than that implied by your calculation
2) Possibly a brief acknowledgement that your recommendations are "best practise" and don't necessarily mean that all exceptions are illegal.
3) I think it would need to be agreed, with the mods, in advance, to make it a locked post - so that it doesn't get complicated again.
4) Again by prior agreement with the mods, I think it ought to be made a sticky.
What I'd like to see, is probably what you thought you'd done last time, ie one clear summary, that people can use as a reference. I'm sorry to say that I helped to mess up your last one, but I do think that the debate led to even more clarity.
What you have created is worthy of more than just another debate disappearing into the archives.
Dave,
1) Already done.
2) My first line says that its my understanding and I won't claim best practice. I've said that British common law as apposed to Napoleonic law assumes legality if not specified illegal but I don't know enough of what checkers are specifically looking for to rule out exceptions contravening some trailer regulation. God help us if Gordon does sign the new EU "treaty" as that is likely to bring us under Napoleonic law!
3) Not sure if its worth a lock and in any event not sure who or how to contact this forum's moderator. No one has PM'd me after my previous post on the idea of a sticky. The original post is near the top in a small forum and easily found.
4) As above.
Agree informed debate adds to the knowledge base and that was my intention, so no possibility of a mess-up.
Regards,
Noel.
The following members of MHF thanked Noel for this posting
If this has already been pointed out, I've not seen it, and I'm sorry in advance. I was surprised to read the following sales information on Towtal's website (
Only registered users can see links on our Forum Join Now or Login
) :-
Un-braked A-frames are ideal where the car you're intending to tow weighs less than 750kg
I've contacted them with the following:-
Your sales information on your site regarding unbraked A-frames states, "Un-braked A-frames are ideal where the car you're intending to tow weighs less than 750kg." This is entirely wrong and consequently irresponsible. The law indeed provides that a trailer may be towed without brakes if its gross weight is less than 750kg, PROVIDED that brakes are not already fitted. If brakes are already fitted, they MUST operate.
Can I strongly recommend that you check the relevant legislation and correct the information and advice you have placed on your sales information, before an incident occurs which will undoubtedly result in serious ramifications for the driver of the towing vehicle who has taken your information to be correct. Potential consequences include invalidation of insurance as well as possible prosecution for Road Traffic Act violations. In these circumstances, you may well find yourselves facing some liability.
Dougie.
______________________________________________________________ I´m playing all the right notes... but not necessarily in the right order.
.
The following members of MHF thanked asprn for this posting
If this has already been pointed out, I've not seen it, and I'm sorry in advance. I was surprised to read the following sales information on Towtal's website (
Only registered users can see links on our Forum Join Now or Login
) :-
Un-braked A-frames are ideal where the car you're intending to tow weighs less than 750kg
I've contacted them with the following:-
Your sales information on your site regarding unbraked A-frames states, "Un-braked A-frames are ideal where the car you're intending to tow weighs less than 750kg." This is entirely wrong and consequently irresponsible. The law indeed provides that a trailer may be towed without brakes if its gross weight is less than 750kg, PROVIDED that brakes are not already fitted. If brakes are already fitted, they MUST operate.
Can I strongly recommend that you check the relevant legislation and correct the information and advice you have placed on your sales information, before an incident occurs which will undoubtedly result in serious ramifications for the driver of the towing vehicle who has taken your information to be correct. Potential consequences include invalidation of insurance as well as possible prosecution for Road Traffic Act violations. In these circumstances, you may well find yourselves facing some liability.
Dougie.
Dougie,
Look at 4 posts above! I have been on to Towtal several times about this, they did change part of their website to mention that if brakes are fitted they must operate but left that rubbish on the unbraked a-frame part! They repeated the misinformation when I went to have mine fitted 3 years ago but luckily I went for braked not knowing what I now know! They don't even mention anywhere that the 750kg refers to MAM and not unladen which excludes 99.9% of cars anyway. Very poor show from a firm which otherwise do a good job.
Noel.
The following members of MHF thanked Noel for this posting
Bookmarks
Watched Topics
in regard to my Autotrail Chieftain and it's carrying/towing capacities.
) I would dress it up a bit.
