As I mentioned before take up your arguement with lovells NSW they take liability for any issues for the upgrade they are the only company in Australia that will give a gvm and gcm upgrade I would think they would know more about weights and regulations than you guys and I feel safe on the road I know the weight I carry I respect other drivers and especially trucks I don't pull out in front of traffic I go slow downhills I move over for faster vehicles and some of them are the cowboy caravaners towing bigger vans and payloads than myself with prados ,older hilux pajero why don't you have a whinge about them and leave the people who .Driving downhill slowlyare more educated about the topic alone
Have you heard the quote attributed to Einstein? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again,and expecting different results.You initially started this discussion on the New Van thread,which was was closed. We have no arguement with anyone, but simply state the facts for the benefit of others.Your bit of paper that says 7100kg GCM is about as useful as the document that states that a Dodge Ram 1500 has a towing capacity of 4500kg.Yeah,right! With a 1770kg rear axle (380kg LESS than yours) that car would struggle to SAFELY tow more than 3000kg as a PIG trailer.You are in the same boat.You have NO show of reaching your 7100kg unless your trailer is a DOG trailer....and even then you will not quite make it.This is how manufacturers justify their ratings.In your case,there is no way of wriggling around the facts,trying to justify yourself by saying that you drive safely by not pulling out in front of traffic,driving slowly down hills,moving over for faster vehicles etc.This is normal driving behaviour for most drivers? The problem you have is that,if you are involved in an accident,whether or not you are at fault,were driving safely,or had had Weeties for breakfast,you are overloaded,illegal and uninsured.Are we now clear? In the past you have attacked me with all sorts of rubbish (Refer to your post in the New Van thread) but always I have been civil,and in an effort to assist I have sent you messages from both the PM facility on this site,and from my personal email address.Twice you have responded,saying that you would forward a contact number so we could converse,but such number has yet to arrive? Still I am happy to help,but you must understand the quote (wrongly) attributed to Einstein.Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again,and expecting different results. My offer to help still stands,but please stop repeating your question and expecting different answers.Cheers
-- Edited by yobarr on Wednesday 31st of July 2019 08:11:20 AM
yobarr said
08:59 AM Jul 31, 2019
travelyounger wrote:
........why don't you have a whinge about them and leave the people who are more educated about the topic alone
Nobody is whinging (your word) about anything.We simply are warning you of the risks you are taking by venturing out onto our highways in your overloaded,unsafe and uninsured vehicles. Do you think that that is a bad thing to do? Forewarned is forearmed.Get yourself legal,or you may well suffer the financial consequences.Cheers
Iva Biggen said
09:05 AM Jul 31, 2019
Well travelyounger it is surprising how those who throw dispersions on others arent even able to phone for confirmation even when given details.
There is one who I really believe has good intentions but is ill informed and the other which is ill informed and has to prove that it is his choice of vehicle and upgrade or it is nothing. Included in all of that he doubts the validity of the engineering test he can display no qualifications apart from being a truck driver.
I personally dont think that either me or yourself have to put up with his continued rudeness and abuse for doing something which is legal and accepted.
I will say this for the last time for anyone considering a vehicle upgrade,
Do your homework, choose your secondary manufacturer wisely as there are many out there offer less than adequate modifications and do not believe all you may read on forums.
This will be my last comment on here regarding this topic.
yobarr said
09:51 AM Jul 31, 2019
Iva Biggen wrote:
Well travelyounger it is surprising how those who throw dispersions on others arent even able to phone for confirmation even when given details. 1).....what are you on? We do not need to phone the Bureau of Meteorology to check if it is raining....its obvious.
There is one who I really believe has good intentions but is ill informed and the other which is ill informed and has to prove that it is his choice of vehicle and upgrade or it is nothing. Included in all of that he doubts the validity of the engineering test he can display no qualifications apart from being a truck driver.. . 2)......there is that no dispute the OP has an acceptable vehicle.The only point of contention is that there is no way that he can legally reach 7100kg GCM. Is that too hard to understand?
I personally dont think that either me or yourself have to put up with his continued rudeness and abuse for doing something which is legal and accepted. 3)..............I expect that your intended meaning actually is neither you nor I?
I will say this for the last time for anyone considering a vehicle upgrade, Do your homework, choose your secondary manufacturer wisely as there are many out there offer less than adequate modifications and do not believe all you may read on forums.
This will be my last comment on here regarding this topic.. . . 4).........surely you are not giving up before you make any sensible comment?.
-- Edited by yobarr on Wednesday 31st of July 2019 09:54:03 AM
Baz421 said
10:00 AM Jul 31, 2019
I have followed this post for a while and am now posting, to show how much comment is ill informed.
Firstly I must add my comments refer to current ADR's and the OLD Federal Motor Vehicles Act and associated Regs, I stress old Act etc as the new Act is in the process of been progressively implemented.
Am I qualified to comment. Several years as MVR senior technical officer, resolved these types of disputes and Secretary of Modified Vehicle Committee at State/Territory level AND IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL STANDARDS. I authored vehicle standards bullentins to pull together all legal stuff/ADR's etc.
I offer a simplified (very simplified example)
Ifsay a vehicle has a GVM of say 3,500kg and rear axle capacity of say 2,400kg AND a company such as Lovells/engineer goes to the axle manufacturer NOT the car producer he can recertify the GVM to say 3900kg and rear axle to say 2,800kg, (for this example only) provided it continues to comply with all current ADR's and the current Act and Regs.
So unless you know what someone like Lovells has ACTUALLY DONE to recertify the vehicle, you are ill informed,,, VERY ill informed.
Many posters rely solely on GCM/axle ratings etc supplied by vehicle manufacturer NOT THE COMPONENT MANUFACTURER.
Most vehicle manufacturers under rate or derate components for longevity and to save money hoping for longevity and reliability of brands.
I have witnessed testing of truck suspensions which were rated at x kg BUT the truck manufacturer derated the axle to ensure long life,,, testing dictated this reduction.
I hope this simple example will be food for thought for the "experts",,, and I'm NOT an expert, I read real stuff not just grab stuff off the internet.
My 2 cents worth.
Nay sayers refute with facts if you have them.
Cheers Baz
montie said
10:27 AM Jul 31, 2019
Baz421 wrote:
I have followed this post for a while and am now posting, to show how much comment is ill informed.
Firstly I must add my comments refer to current ADR's and the OLD Federal Motor Vehicles Act and associated Regs, I stress old Act etc as the new Act is in the process of been progressively implemented.
Am I qualified to comment. Several years as MVR senior technical officer, resolved these types of disputes and Secretary of Modified Vehicle Committee at State/Territory level AND IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL STANDARDS. I authored vehicle standards bullentins to pull together all legal stuff/ADR's etc.
I offer a simplified (very simplified example)
Ifsay a vehicle has a GVM of say 3,500kg and rear axle capacity of say 2,400kg AND a company such as Lovells/engineer goes to the axle manufacturer NOT the car producer he can recertify the GVM to say 3900kg and rear axle to say 2,800kg, (for this example only) provided it continues to comply with all current ADR's and the current Act and Regs.
So unless you know what someone like Lovells has ACTUALLY DONE to recertify the vehicle, you are ill informed,,, VERY ill informed.
Many posters rely solely on GCM/axle ratings etc supplied by vehicle manufacturer NOT THE COMPONENT MANUFACTURER.
Most vehicle manufacturers under rate or derate components for longevity and to save money hoping for longevity and reliability of brands.
I have witnessed testing of truck suspensions which were rated at x kg BUT the truck manufacturer derated the axle to ensure long life,,, testing dictated this reduction.
I hope this simple example will be food for thought for the "experts",,, and I'm NOT an expert, I read real stuff not just grab stuff off the internet.
My 2 cents worth.
Nay sayers refute with facts if you have them.
Cheers Baz
Agree with everything you say Baz.
Nobody is questioning the veracity of Travelyoungers GVM/GCM upgrade, after all Lovell's are a reputable company.
Travelyounger's understanding of GCM and how much he can load his combination to is what is in question. You simply cannot add GVM and ATM and arrive at a GCM figure...you must account for the ball weight in the calculation.
On another point, the regulations surrounding vehicle rating upgrades now also vary from State to State.
-- Edited by montie on Wednesday 31st of July 2019 10:30:10 AM
yobarr said
10:54 AM Jul 31, 2019
r
l
Baz421 wrote:
I have followed this post for a while and am now posting, to show how much comment is ill informed.
Firstly I must add my comments refer to current ADR's and the OLD Federal Motor Vehicles Act and associated Regs, I stress old Act etc as the new Act is in the process of been progressively implemented.
Am I qualified to comment. Several years as MVR senior technical officer, resolved these types of disputes and Secretary of Modified Vehicle Committee at State/Territory level AND IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL STANDARDS. I authored vehicle standards bullentins to pull together all legal stuff/ADR's etc.
I offer a simplified (very simplified example)
If say a vehicle has a GVM of say 3,500kg and rear axle capacity of say 2,400kg AND a company such as Lovells/engineer goes to the axle manufacturer NOT the car producer he can recertify the GVM to say 3900kg and rear axle to say 2,800kg, (for this example only) provided it continues to comply with all current ADR's and the current Act and Regs.
So unless you know what someone like Lovells has ACTUALLY DONE to recertify the vehicle, you are ill informed, VERY ill informed.
Many posters rely solely on GCM/axle ratings etc supplied by vehicle manufacturer NOT THE COMPONENT MANUFACTURER.
Most vehicle manufacturers under rate or derate components for longevity and to save money hoping for longevity and reliability of brands.
I have witnessed testing of truck suspensions which were rated at x kg BUT the truck manufacturer derated the axle to ensure long life,,, testing dictated this reduction.
I hope this simple example will be food for thought for the "experts",,, and I'm NOT an expert, I read real stuff not just grab stuff off the internet.
My 2 cents worth.
Nay sayers refute with facts if you have them.
Cheers Baz
Hi Baz.....like Monty,I agree with everything you write. All our figures have been based on the NEW axle ratings from Lovells. Undoubted these new ratings were done in collaboration with the axle manufacturer,and the ratings now are 1450kg front axle and 2150kg rear axle,for a new GVM of 3600kg and new GCM of 7100kg.Those figures never have been in dispute.What is of concern is that the OP seems to believe that he can hook his 3500kg van to his fully loaded 3600kg GVM car,and set sail! Not possible as he will be 350kg (assuming 10% ball weight) over his GCM.And lets not even mention axle weights! Thankyou for your valuable input.Cheers
boab said
01:20 PM Jul 31, 2019
I have contributed nothing to this argument until now and to sort out what is correct i have just gotten off the phone with lovells state manager in nsw and he tells me the original poster is perhaps a little bit confused because he said the gcm after the upgrade is 7000 kg less the ball weight he also told me lovells do not endorse 7100 kg for a dmax so if the op paper work states 7100 kg he should have that checked and changed so i feel yobarr is correct in his assessment but i also feel yobarr could curb the way he expresses his opinions as no one enjoys being spoken to as if there complete morons
Eaglemax said
01:55 PM Jul 31, 2019
yobarr wrote:
travelyounger wrote:
As I mentioned before take up your arguement with lovells NSW they take liability for any issues for the upgrade they are the only company in Australia that will give a gvm and gcm upgrade I would think they would know more about weights and regulations than you guys and I feel safe on the road I know the weight I carry I respect other drivers and especially trucks I don't pull out in front of traffic I go slow downhills I move over for faster vehicles and some of them are the cowboy caravaners towing bigger vans and payloads than myself with prados ,older hilux pajero why don't you have a whinge about them and leave the people who .Driving downhill slowlyare more educated about the topic alone
Have you heard the quote attributed to Einstein? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again,and expecting different results.You initially started this discussion on the New Van thread,which was was closed. We have no arguement with anyone, but simply state the facts for the benefit of others.Your bit of paper that says 7100kg GCM is about as useful as the document that states that a Dodge Ram 1500 has a towing capacity of 4500kg.Yeah,right! With a 1770kg rear axle (380kg LESS than yours) that car would struggle to SAFELY tow more than 3000kg as a PIG trailer.You are in the same boat.You have NO show of reaching your 7100kg unless your trailer is a DOG trailer....and even then you will not quite make it.This is how manufacturers justify their ratings.In your case,there is no way of wriggling around the facts,trying to justify yourself by saying that you drive safely by not pulling out in front of traffic,driving slowly down hills,moving over for faster vehicles etc.This is normal driving behaviour for most drivers? The problem you have is that,if you are involved in an accident,whether or not you are at fault,were driving safely,or had had Weeties for breakfast,you are overloaded,illegal and uninsured.Are we now clear? In the past you have attacked me with all sorts of rubbish (Refer to your post in the New Van thread) but always I have been civil,and in an effort to assist I have sent you messages from both the PM facility on this site,and from my personal email address.Twice you have responded,saying that you would forward a contact number so we could converse,but such number has yet to arrive? Still I am happy to help,but you must understand the quote (wrongly) attributed to Einstein.Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again,and expecting different results.My offer to help still stands,but please stop repeating your question and expecting different answers.Cheers
-- Edited by yobarr on Wednesday 31st of July 2019 08:11:20 AM
I agree boab as I stated in a past post- its Yobarrs delivery of his argument/advice that needs attention. I've highlighted in larger letters what I feel is abuse and nothing short of it especially suggesting "young traveler" is insane. Very unacceptable no matter how right you are Yobarr- abuse is abuse. I note you Yobarr have repeated yourself many times in this thread so your quote of Einstein is ironic.
Also, you can offer members to email you or other ways of contact but in a free world they are not obliged yet you continually intimidate the OP for not doing so. You might well be correct with your facts but you are standing over him in a way Boab has described- that he is a moron.
Young traveler like many of us find weights very confusing. By introducing intimidation and abuse you are not helping him and you are exceeding your authority as a basic member imo. What part of that last sentence do you not understand?
Tony
yobarr said
02:25 PM Jul 31, 2019
boab wrote:
I have contributed nothing to this argument until now and to sort out what is correct i have just gotten off the phone with lovells state manager in nsw and he tells me the original poster is perhaps a little bit confused because he said the gcm after the upgrade is 7000 kg less the ball weight he also told me lovells do not endorse 7100 kg for a dmax so if the op paper work states 7100 kg he should have that checked and changed so i feel yobarr is correct in his assessment but i also feel yobarr could curb the way he expresses his opinions as no one enjoys being spoken to as if there complete morons
Hi Gary...thankyou for clearing this up for us.You may not be aware,but the OP started this thread shortly after a previous thread was closed by Admin.In that thread similar assertions were made,and I presented the facts to show that they were incorrect.Apparently those facts did not suit the OP,and I was advised by him that I had no idea! Then,surprise surprise,this thread was started instead.Then another member joined in,offering absolutely incorrect advice,and giving assurances to the OP that they were indeed legal.Straight away I thought to myself,Iva problem here,so I changed tack a little.My philosophy always has been to Say what you mean,and mean what you say. Unfortunately,this sometimes results in sensitive souls taking offence. At no stage did I intend to portray others as Morons,but when the facts presented by Monty and I are continually challenged by persons with little knowledge,and even less interest in learning,I tend to get a lttle frustrated.Not knowing things is acceptable......we all have to learn.......but to have your supplied factual information openly disputed is another thing altogether.Anyway,let us hope that your information is heeded and the OP drops 500kg off the cars rear axle....that is the only way he will be legal,as,IF he has the legal 3150kg GTM and around 1300kg on the front axle,there is nowhere else that the other 2650kg can be,surely? Thanks again for getting the truth straight from the horses mouth,so to speak,and using facts to put this matter to rest.Cheers
P.S First he should weigh each axle group separately.....if he is indeed running at 3500kg GTM,he will first need to lose 350kg from the axle group of the van,but only 150kg will have to be removed from the weight carried by the rear axle of the car.Once the axle weights have been established,we may be able to help him get sorted? My offer to help remains open.Cheers
-- Edited by yobarr on Wednesday 31st of July 2019 04:53:48 PM
Webmaster said
06:10 PM Jul 31, 2019
Hi all, I think I will close this now. Just a quick reminder to please ensure that posts are respectful and focused on the topic, not on the person who posted. Thanks.
Have you heard the quote attributed to Einstein? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again,and expecting different results.You initially started this discussion on the New Van thread,which was was closed. We have no arguement with anyone, but simply state the facts for the benefit of others.Your bit of paper that says 7100kg GCM is about as useful as the document that states that a Dodge Ram 1500 has a towing capacity of 4500kg.Yeah,right! With a 1770kg rear axle (380kg LESS than yours) that car would struggle to SAFELY tow more than 3000kg as a PIG trailer.You are in the same boat.You have NO show of reaching your 7100kg unless your trailer is a DOG trailer....and even then you will not quite make it.This is how manufacturers justify their ratings.In your case,there is no way of wriggling around the facts,trying to justify yourself by saying that you drive safely by not pulling out in front of traffic,driving slowly down hills,moving over for faster vehicles etc.This is normal driving behaviour for most drivers? The problem you have is that,if you are involved in an accident,whether or not you are at fault,were driving safely,or had had Weeties for breakfast,you are overloaded,illegal and uninsured.Are we now clear? In the past you have attacked me with all sorts of rubbish (Refer to your post in the New Van thread) but always I have been civil,and in an effort to assist I have sent you messages from both the PM facility on this site,and from my personal email address.Twice you have responded,saying that you would forward a contact number so we could converse,but such number has yet to arrive? Still I am happy to help,but you must understand the quote (wrongly) attributed to Einstein.Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again,and expecting different results. My offer to help still stands,but please stop repeating your question and expecting different answers.Cheers
-- Edited by yobarr on Wednesday 31st of July 2019 08:11:20 AM
Nobody is whinging (your word) about anything.We simply are warning you of the risks you are taking by venturing out onto our highways in your overloaded,unsafe and uninsured vehicles. Do you think that that is a bad thing to do? Forewarned is forearmed.Get yourself legal,or you may well suffer the financial consequences.Cheers
There is one who I really believe has good intentions but is ill informed and the other which is ill informed and has to prove that it is his choice of vehicle and upgrade or it is nothing. Included in all of that he doubts the validity of the engineering test he can display no qualifications apart from being a truck driver.
I personally dont think that either me or yourself have to put up with his continued rudeness and abuse for doing something which is legal and accepted.
I will say this for the last time for anyone considering a vehicle upgrade,
Do your homework, choose your secondary manufacturer wisely as there are many out there offer less than adequate modifications and do not believe all you may read on forums.
This will be my last comment on here regarding this topic.
Iva Biggen wrote:
Well travelyounger it is surprising how those who throw dispersions on others arent even able to phone for confirmation even when given details. 1).....what are you on? We do not need to phone the Bureau of Meteorology to check if it is raining....its obvious.
There is one who I really believe has good intentions but is ill informed and the other which is ill informed and has to prove that it is his choice of vehicle and upgrade or it is nothing. Included in all of that he doubts the validity of the engineering test he can display no qualifications apart from being a truck driver.. . 2)......there is that no dispute the OP has an acceptable vehicle.The only point of contention is that there is no way that he can legally reach 7100kg GCM. Is that too hard to understand?
I personally dont think that either me or yourself have to put up with his continued rudeness and abuse for doing something which is legal and accepted.
3)..............I expect that your intended meaning actually is neither you nor I?
I will say this for the last time for anyone considering a vehicle upgrade,
Do your homework, choose your secondary manufacturer wisely as there are many out there offer less than adequate modifications and do not believe all you may read on forums.
This will be my last comment on here regarding this topic.. . . 4).........surely you are not giving up before you make any sensible comment?.
-- Edited by yobarr on Wednesday 31st of July 2019 09:54:03 AM
I have followed this post for a while and am now posting, to show how much comment is ill informed.
Firstly I must add my comments refer to current ADR's and the OLD Federal Motor Vehicles Act and associated Regs, I stress old Act etc as the new Act is in the process of been progressively implemented.
Am I qualified to comment. Several years as MVR senior technical officer, resolved these types of disputes and Secretary of Modified Vehicle Committee at State/Territory level AND IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL STANDARDS. I authored vehicle standards bullentins to pull together all legal stuff/ADR's etc.
I offer a simplified (very simplified example)
If say a vehicle has a GVM of say 3,500kg and rear axle capacity of say 2,400kg AND a company such as Lovells/engineer goes to the axle manufacturer NOT the car producer he can recertify the GVM to say 3900kg and rear axle to say 2,800kg, (for this example only) provided it continues to comply with all current ADR's and the current Act and Regs.
So unless you know what someone like Lovells has ACTUALLY DONE to recertify the vehicle, you are ill informed,,, VERY ill informed.
Many posters rely solely on GCM/axle ratings etc supplied by vehicle manufacturer NOT THE COMPONENT MANUFACTURER.
Most vehicle manufacturers under rate or derate components for longevity and to save money hoping for longevity and reliability of brands.
I have witnessed testing of truck suspensions which were rated at x kg BUT the truck manufacturer derated the axle to ensure long life,,, testing dictated this reduction.
I hope this simple example will be food for thought for the "experts",,, and I'm NOT an expert, I read real stuff not just grab stuff off the internet.
My 2 cents worth.
Nay sayers refute with facts if you have them.
Cheers Baz
-- Edited by montie on Wednesday 31st of July 2019 10:30:10 AM
r
l
Baz421 wrote:
I have followed this post for a while and am now posting, to show how much comment is ill informed.
Firstly I must add my comments refer to current ADR's and the OLD Federal Motor Vehicles Act and associated Regs, I stress old Act etc as the new Act is in the process of been progressively implemented.
Am I qualified to comment. Several years as MVR senior technical officer, resolved these types of disputes and Secretary of Modified Vehicle Committee at State/Territory level AND IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL STANDARDS. I authored vehicle standards bullentins to pull together all legal stuff/ADR's etc.
I offer a simplified (very simplified example)
If say a vehicle has a GVM of say 3,500kg and rear axle capacity of say 2,400kg AND a company such as Lovells/engineer goes to the axle manufacturer NOT the car producer he can recertify the GVM to say 3900kg and rear axle to say 2,800kg, (for this example only) provided it continues to comply with all current ADR's and the current Act and Regs.
So unless you know what someone like Lovells has ACTUALLY DONE to recertify the vehicle, you are ill informed, VERY ill informed.
Many posters rely solely on GCM/axle ratings etc supplied by vehicle manufacturer NOT THE COMPONENT MANUFACTURER.
Most vehicle manufacturers under rate or derate components for longevity and to save money hoping for longevity and reliability of brands.
I have witnessed testing of truck suspensions which were rated at x kg BUT the truck manufacturer derated the axle to ensure long life,,, testing dictated this reduction.
I hope this simple example will be food for thought for the "experts",,, and I'm NOT an expert, I read real stuff not just grab stuff off the internet.
My 2 cents worth.
Nay sayers refute with facts if you have them.
Cheers Baz
Hi Baz.....like Monty,I agree with everything you write. All our figures have been based on the NEW axle ratings from Lovells. Undoubted these new ratings were done in collaboration with the axle manufacturer,and the ratings now are 1450kg front axle and 2150kg rear axle,for a new GVM of 3600kg and new GCM of 7100kg.Those figures never have been in dispute.What is of concern is that the OP seems to believe that he can hook his 3500kg van to his fully loaded 3600kg GVM car,and set sail! Not possible as he will be 350kg (assuming 10% ball weight) over his GCM.And lets not even mention axle weights! Thankyou for your valuable input.Cheers
I agree boab as I stated in a past post- its Yobarrs delivery of his argument/advice that needs attention. I've highlighted in larger letters what I feel is abuse and nothing short of it especially suggesting "young traveler" is insane. Very unacceptable no matter how right you are Yobarr- abuse is abuse. I note you Yobarr have repeated yourself many times in this thread so your quote of Einstein is ironic.
Also, you can offer members to email you or other ways of contact but in a free world they are not obliged yet you continually intimidate the OP for not doing so. You might well be correct with your facts but you are standing over him in a way Boab has described- that he is a moron.
Young traveler like many of us find weights very confusing. By introducing intimidation and abuse you are not helping him and you are exceeding your authority as a basic member imo. What part of that last sentence do you not understand?
Tony
boab wrote:
I have contributed nothing to this argument until now and to sort out what is correct i have just gotten off the phone with lovells state manager in nsw and he tells me the original poster is perhaps a little bit confused because he said the gcm after the upgrade is 7000 kg less the ball weight he also told me lovells do not endorse 7100 kg for a dmax so if the op paper work states 7100 kg he should have that checked and changed so i feel yobarr is correct in his assessment but i also feel yobarr could curb the way he expresses his opinions as no one enjoys being spoken to as if there complete morons
Hi Gary...thankyou for clearing this up for us.You may not be aware,but the OP started this thread shortly after a previous thread was closed by Admin.In that thread similar assertions were made,and I presented the facts to show that they were incorrect.Apparently those facts did not suit the OP,and I was advised by him that I had no idea! Then,surprise surprise,this thread was started instead.Then another member joined in,offering absolutely incorrect advice,and giving assurances to the OP that they were indeed legal.Straight away I thought to myself,Iva problem here,so I changed tack a little.My philosophy always has been to Say what you mean,and mean what you say. Unfortunately,this sometimes results in sensitive souls taking offence. At no stage did I intend to portray others as Morons,but when the facts presented by Monty and I are continually challenged by persons with little knowledge,and even less interest in learning,I tend to get a lttle frustrated.Not knowing things is acceptable......we all have to learn.......but to have your supplied factual information openly disputed is another thing altogether.Anyway,let us hope that your information is heeded and the OP drops 500kg off the cars rear axle....that is the only way he will be legal,as,IF he has the legal 3150kg GTM and around 1300kg on the front axle,there is nowhere else that the other 2650kg can be,surely? Thanks again for getting the truth straight from the horses mouth,so to speak,and using facts to put this matter to rest.Cheers
P.S First he should weigh each axle group separately.....if he is indeed running at 3500kg GTM,he will first need to lose 350kg from the axle group of the van,but only 150kg will have to be removed from the weight carried by the rear axle of the car.Once the axle weights have been established,we may be able to help him get sorted? My offer to help remains open.Cheers
-- Edited by yobarr on Wednesday 31st of July 2019 04:53:48 PM
Hi all,
I think I will close this now. Just a quick reminder to please ensure that posts are respectful and focused on the topic, not on the person who posted. Thanks.