anyone weighed their Corinium?

the Corinium is a very large van with mightily long rear overhang. it is available on the light (3.5t chassis) and also as an upgrade on the 4t chassis.
I think that there are 'almost certainly' weight issues for those who have chosen the light version, but not only that, the 'neavy' option doesnt necessarily mean these issues go away, it moves the van from 'probably not manageable' to ' manageable with care'....IMHO, of course.

however, I will set out my thinking and then ask if anyone has weighed their fully loaded Corinium, light or heavy, complete with axle weights, as it is the rear axle that is particularly vl erable in a long van like these.

with Corinium on the 'light' chassis, it has axle weights of front 1850 and rear 2000kg...
the AS tech page gives the MIRO as 3237kg leaving a very small payload of 263kg, yet includes no fresh water (say 100kg) nor your passenger (nominal 75kg) nor for any of the 'packs' you might have ordered (say 50kg)....thats increased the weight to 3462kg BEFORE you put ANYTHING in the van.....
not only that, given the huge rear overhang, the weight distribution is likely to be approx 40/60 front/rear which gives a eear axle loading of 2077 against its legal maximum of 2000kg.
so.its certainly possible that the rear axle limit of 2000kg will have been reached or very close to, again with nothing in it...
remember, any upplating to (say) 3650kg WILL NOT increas any axle limits.

i dont post this to scare anyone, merely to raise awareness that vans approaching 8m with long rear overhangs will be difficult (perhaps impossible) to run on the 3500kg chassis.....this van (and other similar ones from Swift and Bailey) are aimed at folk with lesser license groups but should have been produced on the heavy 4250kg chassis to give an increased rear axle weight of 2400kg.
however, as set out below, there could be issues even on the 4t 'heavy' chassis.

firstly, the 'heavy' chassis weighs approx 40kg more than the light one, this brings the MTPLM upto nearly 3300kg. add in a tank of water, packs and your OH and thats another (approx) 200kg gone.
your realistic 'payload' is now not the 'apparent' 750 ish kg, but close to 500kg....
of course, its easy to think that this should be more than sufficient (although generally accepted to be about the minimum) for a touring couple.
however, as above on the 3.5t example, with the length of the van and the huge rear overhang, the axle weight distribution is likely to be 40% front, 60% rear...
so, 60% of 3500kg is 2100kg, this would be the weight on the rear axle...whose limit is 2400kg on the heavy chassis.
so, of that 500kg, you now have just 300kg spare capacity on the rear axle....not 750kg, nor 500kg...going down, but still sounds a lot, though?

but hang on, for every kg loaded at the rear end, out beyond the rear axle will, by the fulcrum effect, 'weigh' more than one kilo....the overhang is around half the length of the wheelbase so the fulcrum effect will add 1.5kg for every kg loaded into the rear....
so, with an apparent capacity on the rear axle of 300kg, this is really only a usable 200kg....

so, due to the exaggerated layout of this series of vans (massive overhang, main storage at the rear) your van that came with a massive '750kg ish' of payload actually has nowhere near this capability.
the 200kg loading available has to cope with ALL items placed in the van.....clothes, food, electrical items, tables, chairs, bbq, awnings, windbreaks, water carriers, leads, hoses, bikes etc, etc.

so, my suspicions are that the 3.5t van will be 'extremely difficult' to run legally at this weigh, with the rear axle going over its 2000kg maximum even with a very light loading...
even the 4t version might be 'very easy' to overload' but at a higher level.
on either version, anyone considering (say) bikes monted on a towbar or rear rack should check weights before hand.
i actually think it would be advisable for owners on the heavy chassis to weigh their vans as even these may fall foul of the configuration.

as i said earlier, i dont post this to scare any owners, but to highlight an issue that very often gets glossed over in the sales process especially when being shown other 'more eye catching' aspects of the van like upholstery schemes and the like.

so, come on all you Corinium owners out there (light and heavy), ive guessed youve all weighed your vans (as we all do) so what were the results?

I’ve not weighed mine at all, and I don’t accept all your points, though some are valid.
The rear under bed storage is large but to put all the heavy kit in it would possibly create the issues you raise.
There’s a large storage area under the front bench, and some under the other bench.
Aside from that, the rear storage area does not reach the rear of the van, and if you store heavy kit toward the axle then you don’t get the wieght compound issue that you would if e.g you put heavy gear in the bathroom.
So in all, sensible loading of the vehicle will not put you over any limits..
The water of course is toward the front end, and you don’t have to travel with a full tank.

Ray

Ray, as i said, just highlighting some of thenpotential issues with this type of van....not necessarily your van...
so, which chassis do you run on and are you planning to weigh the van?
perhaps, not quite as important on the heavy chassis, as there is a bit more margin, but the 3.5t version would be 'tricky' to say the least.
personally, i think all dealers should weight the actual customer's van as part of the handover process.
i wanted to run my current van at 3.5t (for various reasons) after coming from a 4.25t van with bags of payload.
however, i wanted to sure, so got my dealer to weigh 'my' van (was a stock vehicle) prior to me continuing with the deal.
i also knew exactly how much all my 'stuff' weighed as it came out of the previous van...
i also needed a margin for the items we were having moved from one van to the next one....satellite system, twin leisure batteries, inverter, bike rack in the garage, refillable gas system.
all the above need to factored in...although i realise the Corinium has an underslung gas tank.
ill wager there are many users on the road who dont know about MTPLM and payloads, or dont understand them or just don't care.
none of these are an excuse, but i do feel manufacturers shouldnt put customers in this position with vans like the 3.5t Corinium and dealers should be far more upfront with customer about these things.
removing all fresh water weight from the MIRO to make the van sound like it has a larger payload is just 'sleight of hand' and a disclaimer in tiny print at the end of a brochure/webpage doesnt make it right.
so, will you be weighing your van so as to enlighten myself and any other prospective owners....

It’s a discussion worth having, I have considered weighing the van but it won’t be for around 10 weeks when I know I’ll be well loaded for Spain..
My wife and I weigh 140 kg together, so that leaves a little extra weight that I can push forward.
I went to The east coast and onto northern France in October, 6 weeks away..I was pretty loaded I’d say with 100 kg of astrophotography equipment on board.
My biggest issue was storage room believe it or not.
I have to say; the Corinium behaved impeccably, handling was good with the weight.
I travelled with a friend who own a Bolero, abut 0.5 mtr shorter than mine.
To be honest, I think the Corinium is better laid out in the distribution of weight...despite the shorter overhang..
Batteries at the far rear, water at the rear....3500 kg chassis up plated to 3850kg.

The Corinium heavy chassis I believe could be up plated to 4350kg!
So the margins are good as I see it compared to the Bolero!
The real point of the heavy chassis, is up rated brakes, up rated suspension (though I’m not sure that is correct) I believe.

That is where the extra 40kg comes from perhaps.
I agree with your assessment of the 3500kg chassis...but...we have to acknowledge that owners are not daft, and they will manage the situation to their comfort and legality.
The other point of course; discussed often on this forum is the legal position with respect to overloading...

Seems to me that many owners simply don’t worry about it!
My view is one of reliability.
I don’t want to over stress my suspension and suffer the cost of early replacement, the longevity of the Al-ko suspension is good (apparently) but constant overloading will no doubt shorten its life.

My chassis, is the 4 tonne ver: and I see no physical difference apart from noted above to the 3.500kg chassis.
It also runs 16 inch wheels which allows the higher axle weights so the axles are the same I guess as the 3500 ver: but the 3500 ver also runs 16 inch wheels so I don’t really know what limits the weight? Tyres, axles, brakes, suspension, chassis???

Ray

Hi Bolero Boy, You are singing from the same song sheet I have used for ages. Could not agree more with what you say. Ironically, we are in process of swapping our 3500kg Nuevo ES (uplated to 3700kg with air rides) for a Bolero at 4250kg. One of the factors in this decision was the impossibility to keep legal with weights. The converters and dealers don't care about weights any more than most buyers do - vans are built to a "weight" to capture the widest market of drivers with 3500kg limitations. We have seen some appalling obvious overweights which in my view can only encourage VOSA to pull you over and politely ask you to get on the scales. The blame must lie with the converters who give the impression that they have never actually used a MH in anger so just ignore the potential issues they are giving their customers. Even silly things like levelling ramps - have you ever lifted a pair of Milenco quattro ramps (fork truck required!).We saw this Nuevo recently which looked very bum-heavy. I think your post SHOULD scare people - it's an important issue usually ignored by owners. 

Roy, thanks for replying, and a good one too....yes, we should be open and discuss this issue as its often one buried well,away from which colur scheme to choose...
buyers are easily distracted from these 'boring' issues with 'comfort upgrade packs' and the latest design wall covering...
ill not say that buyers are 'daft' but there are very many who are naive' ...often those who come from a caravanning background and are used to lobbing all the stuff straight into the back of a towcar and think they can do exactly the same woth their new huge white box....well theres ven more room, isnt there.
i'm glad you're in the heavy chassis, i would be interested in seeing your all up weights as you head off for Spain...your axle weights will (should) probably scare the living daylights out of anyone on the light chassis.
re the heavy chassis....while i agree on the bigger brakes (to stop a heavier van), for most folk it must be the payload increase thats the attraction. it certainly isnt the ride quality, having moved from heavy to light in Jan, the light chassis, with correct (not manufacturers) tyre pressures has transformed the ride......however, another issue....for another day?
ps....God i hate this forum for the typing box.....text too small, box too small, difficult to scroll......grrrrrr

I don’t understand the point that if you overload your vehicle, it’s somehow the dealers or converters fault.

There are dozens of different configurations available to the buyer, each with Information about its load limits and capability.

Surely it’s the buyers responsibility to look at the purchase and decided how much weight they need it to carry?
Not withstanding that, you can tow a trailer for extra weight capacity..
Come on guys you can’t blame the manufacturer for these issues.

Ray

Barry, nice to find someone who is ready to face this issue rather than hope it will go away. i know one or two MHers who have fallen foul of this, one a very experienced vanner....
for those who are probably thinking....'what about your van...?'..
i have a 2017 Carthago c-compactline i 138 (smallest A-class in their range at 6.4m x 2.12m with a short overhang)
.my total weight is 3420kg (incl full water, fuel, gas, the two of us, all clothes and kit and bikes for a 3 month plus stay) and the axle weights are 1600kg front, 1820kg rear (a well balanced van) so penty of spare on each axle.
knowing the weights also allows me to set the correct tyre pressures according to Continental 44psi front, 54psi rear...
but thenpoint of the thread is that more manufacturers are building bigger vans, loading in more kit, yet trying to flog them to the expanding audience of younger vanners who dont have the grandfather license groups we older chaps enjoy.
i subscribe to many MH forums and weights, and the issues thrown up, are a recurring them, with posters yo-yo ing between total understanding and total naivety....

Ray, the point i was making was that (not to put too fine a point on it) IMHO the 3.5t Corinium is on the point of being unfit for purpose.
a younger buyer comes into the AS showroom and want to part ex his Nuevo for a nice shiny Corinium that, on the face of it, has oodles of storage (but you and i know better....) and loads of space to enjoy the van.....so Mr Salesman starts getting stars in his eyes as £75k of pound notes (coins) float before him....
Ah, the buyer says, i havent got B/E groups on my license so where do i stand...?
dont worry, says our lip smacking salesman, we can do this beauty at 3.5t so ypull be able to drive it.....its even got 273kg of payload....
wow, says the buyer, that seems like an awful lot, thers only the two of us and our dog/cat.....where do i sign....
alas.....not a happy ending.....
the thing is, any buyer who WAS savvy about weights wouldnt be looking at a Corinium at 3.5t because it doesnt work, so, by implication, any salesman selling one to a customer must be selling one to an UN-SAVVY buyer or one who should be able to demonstrate to said salesman that he has thought through (and fully understood) all the implications....
BTW, this isnt me having a pop at AS, Swift and Bailey also have 8m vans in their ranges for this year, with long overhangs and can be ordered on a 3.5t chassis.....some cant even be had on the heavy chassis.....

bolero boy wrote:Roy, thanks for replying, and a good one too....yes, we should be open and discuss this issue as its often one buried well,away from which colur scheme to choose...
buyers are easily distracted from these 'boring' issues with 'comfort upgrade packs' and the latest design wall covering...
ill not say that buyers are 'daft' but there are very many who are naive' ...often those who come from a caravanning background and are used to lobbing all the stuff straight into the back of a towcar and think they can do exactly the same woth their new huge white box....well theres ven more room, isnt there.
i'm glad you're in the heavy chassis, i would be interested in seeing your all up weights as you head off for Spain...your axle weights will (should) probably scare the living daylights out of anyone on the light chassis.
re the heavy chassis....while i agree on the bigger brakes (to stop a heavier van), for most folk it must be the payload increase thats the attraction. it certainly isnt the ride quality, having moved from heavy to light in Jan, the light chassis, with correct (not manufacturers) tyre pressures has transformed the ride......however, another issue....for another day?
ps....God i hate this forum for the typing box.....text too small, box too small, difficult to scroll......grrrrrr

I have to admit that I’m easily distracted when I see a new vehicle, all bells n whistles, like many you point out, I came from 30 years with a caravan to a Motorhome!
I was a little hand tied by my wife’s insistence that we try to replicate the caravan style when we bought our first motorhome; a Broadway ek.
The truth is that she did not share my vision and that led to buying a bigger motorhome the next year!
I don’t really regret that because I believe the 2017 Corinium had some good improvements over the 2016 model, my point is that not everyone appreciates th3 complexity of buying a motorhome!

I’ve noticed that Autosleeper Derby are trying to address that situation, they are publishing guides and advise on the choice of weight and size vs practicality.

My good friend weighed his caravan sometime ago, he was way over the safe limits, his wife’s crockery had to go amongst other heavy items.

It’s been discussed many times but we are all guilty of wanting the gear and all the add ons to help us in our quest for freedom and safety, many realise that it often ends up in the attic

Oddly enough, I’ve looked at the tyre pressures and options open to me, it seems I don’t really have any option..
The tyre monitor don’t make it eas to adjust them and the loading on my tyres demands a high pressure!

I need to load it to the gunnels to soften the ride

Ray

#
Sorry - must disagree. The dealers also need to accept some responsibility as well. When we were doing our excahnge as referred to above, I asked the sales manager what the GVW and user-payload were, He had to look them up (even though I already knew!) and commented - "Cripes, nobody ever asks about that". As I said, converters build to a weight tolerance - it is surely no coincidence that 90% of vans are 3500kg?? If you bought a new Ford Escort, you wouldn't expect to be ale to carry a piano in the boot, but MH buyers expect to do the equivilent.
Seems to me that many owners simply don’t worry about it!
You are of course quite correct, but they should. When VOSA make you unload 500kg of overweight and abandon it at M/way services before you are allowed to drive on, it is a little late for the penny to drop.
I do blame the manufacturers and the dealers for making and selling potential time bombs without adequate and comprehensive warnings.
Incidentally, we did consider a Corinium but were deterred by the GVW - AND the price!!

bolero boy wrote:Ray, the point i was making was that (not to put too fine a point on it) IMHO the 3.5t Corinium is on the point of being unfit for purpose.
a younger buyer comes into the AS showroom and want to part ex his Nuevo for a nice shiny Corinium that, on the face of it, has oodles of storage (but you and i know better....) and loads of space to enjoy the van.....so Mr Salesman starts getting stars in his eyes as £75k of pound notes (coins) float before him....
Ah, the buyer says, i havent got B/E groups on my license so where do i stand...?
dont worry, says our lip smacking salesman, we can do this beauty at 3.5t so ypull be able to drive it.....its even got 273kg of payload....
wow, says the buyer, that seems like an awful lot, thers only the two of us and our dog/cat.....where do i sign....
alas.....not a happy ending.....
the thing is, any buyer who WAS savvy about weights wouldnt be looking at a Corinium at 3.5t because it doesnt work, so, by implication, any salesman selling one to a customer must be selling one to an UN-SAVVY buyer or one who should be able to demonstrate to said salesman that he has thought through (and fully understood) all the implications....



BTW, this isnt me having a pop at AS, Swift and Bailey also have 8m vans in their ranges for this year, with long overhangs and can be ordered on a 3.5t chassis.....some cant even be had on the heavy chassis.....

Yes I do agree with you on that point, buyer beware in some circumstances, I can see the issue for the unwary and yes, in those situations the dealer has to take some responsibility.

However; the owner then has to look at his load limits and make a decision....do I ignore the limits or cut out the unnecessary gubbins....

This is where the owner has choice.
The number of younger inexperienced buyers of the 70k vehicle who then regret the purchase will be hopefully small.


Ray

"the AS tech page gives the MIRO as 3237kg leaving a very small payload of 263kg, yet includes no fresh water (say 100kg) "

Quoted from the opening post. I'm not getting into this discussion but would point out that the weights quoted above are for the RB model. There are two other models, the FB whose MIRO is 3207 giving payload of 293 and the Duo with a MIRO of 3137 giving payload of 363, a whole 100kg difference.

BarryP wrote:#
Sorry - must disagree. The dealers also need to accept some responsibility as well. When we were doing our excahnge as referred to above, I asked the sales manager what the GVW and user-payload were, He had to look them up (even though I already knew!) and commented - "Cripes, nobody ever asks about that". As I said, converters build to a weight tolerance - it is surely no coincidence that 90% of vans are 3500kg?? If you bought a new Ford Escort, you wouldn't expect to be ale to carry a piano in the boot, but MH buyers expect to do the equivilent.
Seems to me that many owners simply don’t worry about it!
You are of course quite correct, but they should. When VOSA make you unload 500kg of overweight and abandon it at M/way services before you are allowed to drive on, it is a little late for the penny to drop.
I do blame the manufacturers and the dealers for making and selling potential time bombs without adequate and comprehensive warnings.
Incidentally, we did consider a Corinium but were deterred by the GVW - AND the price!!

Truth is Barry, not all dealers are the same, maybe some are unscrupulous to a degree and look at the sale value rather than the purchasers well being..
It is the nature of the game to be fair, and unfair.

This is why one is always better off choosing a good well respected dealer over price (if possible)
My friend chose to travel 200miles rather than 10 in order to secure a better price, he’s been back n forth several times to sort issues out...

But that’s his choice, not mine.
To add into this conversation, I’ve fitted a Towbar to my chassis...35 kg right at the back......eek!!

Ray

Paulmold wrote:"the AS tech page gives the MIRO as 3237kg leaving a very small payload of 263kg, yet includes no fresh water (say 100kg) "

Quoted from the opening post. I'm not getting into this discussion but would point out that the weights quoted above are for the RB model. There are two other models, the FB whose MIRO is 3207 giving payload of 293 and the Duo with a  MIRO of 3137 giving payload of 363, a whole 100kg difference.

Indeed, mines the fb..but in my view it’s a good discussion your views are appreciated.

Ray

...so thats another 50kg loaded onto the rear axle Ray.....
soon mounts up doesnt it, even on your 4t, 2400kg rear axle youre getting there....
hmmmm, going to be a bit bum clenching when you go to the weighbridge.....unless ypu are planning on taking everythjng out and putting it in a trailer:up!:

Paulmold wrote:"the AS tech page gives the MIRO as 3237kg leaving a very small payload of 263kg, yet includes no fresh water (say 100kg) "

Quoted from the opening post. I'm not getting into this discussion but would point out that the weights quoted above are for the RB model. There are two other models, the FB whose MIRO is 3207 giving payload of 293 and the Duo with a  MIRO of 3137 giving payload of 363, a whole 100kg difference.

paul, interesting.....when you do the 'model comparison' the Duo has a MIRO of 3160, so perhaps AS dont know what the figure is?
either way, an extra 60 or even 100kg wont rescue the 3.5t model as the axle weights dont change.
the Duo van 'may' be 100kg lighter but only approx 60 of this would be available on the rear.....and when, as Ray has done, a towbar (or bike rack or.....) is added this wipes it all out.
please feel free to discuss as much as ypu wish, the more airing this topic gets, the better, is my view.

bolero boy wrote:...so thats another 50kg loaded onto the rear axle Ray.....
soon mounts up doesnt it, even on your 4t, 2400kg rear axle youre getting there....
hmmmm, going to be a bit bum clenching when you go to the weighbridge.....unless ypu are planning on taking everythjng out and putting it in a trailer:up!:

It does indeed add up, as you rightly point out, however one has to understand the compounding impact of weight the further back you add weight.
But to a degree this can be mitigated by keeping heavy items forward of the centre of gravity.
A weigh Bridge is really the only way to know what’s overloaded and what isn’t so it’s good practice to check when you’re unsure of the distribution.

The picture of the Nuevo is misleading because cart springs do sag with age, the ground doesn’t appear flat and there may be two heavy adults and others sitting in the back.
But the point is well made, that overloading any motorhome can attract unwanted attention, the idea of leaving items on the road is worrying but I think reassuringly rare.

Ray

Ray, Possibly a slightly sloping car park, BUT, if there were two or more adults sitting at the back they must have been in the loo which on the Nuevo is a small cupboard! The van was a 2007 so not that old. Ours is older and even loaded doesn't sit this low. The point I suppose is that if I were plod and spotted this van on the M/way I would be inclined to pull it over and have it checked. Fact is - it LOOKS overloaded as do many nose-heavy caravans we all pass daily. Another reason to be weight-conscious is so as not to attract attention and court problems. We have all seen van conversions with rear carriers and two seater motor bikes on board. Must make the steering very light. The issue really is the widespread ignorance of buyers/users to their weight limitations which dealers and converters encourage rather than address. In Nuevo terms, the ES (4 berth is 3400kg whereas the EK (2 berth) is 3200Kg and yet I believe the chassis is identical. 
Awareness is the issue and this is where the trade needs to be more responsible I feel.
Barry

Whilst I have expressed my views, it is interesting that despite the OP title, there has been no response from anyone who has actually weighed their Corinium. Indeed, from anyone who has weighed anything other than themselves! BoleroBoy is right to seek wider views but disappointingly, only Ray and myself seem to have taken any interest. Looks like BB is attacking the proverbial brick wall. Says it all maybe??

I know I only have a Nuevo and not a Corinium but we had a free weigh by SVTech at a show a couple of years ago. We were pretty well loaded as we were going on from the show for a few days. Besides being loaded up, with the very large payload of the Nuevo we were still 200kg under max so have never worried since.

Paulmold wrote:I know I only have a Nuevo and not a Corinium but we had a free weigh by SVTech at a show a couple of years ago. We were pretty well loaded as we were going on from the show for a few days. Besides being loaded up, with the very large payload of the Nuevo we were still 200kg under max so have never worried since.

Paul, whilst it may not apply to yourselves or other Nuevo owners (but you never know) its not the amount of spare 'payload' one might have, but the impact on axle weights that will occur first.
some owners of rear biased vans might have '200kg spare' yet be right on the limit of the rear axle.
did you take note of yours when it was weighed..?

I weighed mine when away fully laden, total, rear and front axles.
Following that I weighed all the items on board and made a rough spreadsheet listing all items and their placement in the van.
I am underweight on all axles and can move items around to distribute weight if needed.

bolero boy wrote:

Paulmold wrote:I know I only have a Nuevo and not a Corinium but we had a free weigh by SVTech at a show a couple of years ago. We were pretty well loaded as we were going on from the show for a few days. Besides being loaded up, with the very large payload of the Nuevo we were still 200kg under max so have never worried since.

Paul, whilst it may not apply to yourselves or other Nuevo owners (but you never know) its not the amount of spare 'payload' one might have, but the impact on axle weights that will occur first.
some owners of rear biased vans might have '200kg spare' yet be right on the limit of the rear axle.
did you take note of yours when it was weighed..?

I did at the time and both axles were well under. SVTech use the portable scales that weigh only one wheel at a time and add them together, not the best way in my opinion. Luckily for us we have an open all hours weighbridge at the local council tip where the scale readings are visible through the office window 24 hours so I've popped on it a couple of times just to make sure each axle is well within limits. Can't get a printout that way but I'm happy.