PEUGEOT TPMS ADJUSTMENT

Steve928 - welcome the ASOF!  This is what Bailey told me a few weeks ago after I noted from on-line manuals that Bailey motorhomes on Peugeot Boxers have a lower plated front CP tyre pressure - 50 psi rather than 73 psi (54 psi for 6 berth/passenger models):

Due to extensive testing, and with the assistance of both the tyre manufacturers and the change of weights and work carried out with Peugeot, the tyre pressures have been recalculated to reflect the changes from a standard Boxer van to our motorhome. When the vehicle has its Peugeot PDI they adjust the TPMS system to reflect the amended pressures. At the beginning of each new motorhome range the tyre pressures become part of the overall VWTA ( vehicle whole type approval ) sign off by the independent testing house.
I hope this helps explain our change of tyre pressures.

Caraman - thanks, I've emailed the link to the document to marconi.
I hope it's useful to you all.

With thanks to Steve. Here is the link to the information:- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NHQlUQ5z_sEwD1M76JHdcdHtHolXFiRR/view?usp=sharing

I have tested the Download it works fine. The set up is not too complex for those who are used to such things. For the vehicle enthusiast, who could resist it, me thinks. Talk to your OBD via BlueTooth, nice.

Something to whet the appetite.

Have a look at this device, I have ordered one

www.fit2gotpms.com

its a tyre pressure checker with a digital readout, i know not a substitute for the tpms issue .

Use promo code BM20 for20% discount

RG

I have now had a response from DVSA. I reproduce it below. Despite my having explained to them that, for my vehicle's front axle weight, I would be running with grossly over-inflated Continental tyres if I adhered to the Peugeot pressures, they didn't address that point.

"Further to my colleagues previous email;

 DVSA investigates safety defects within the terms of the Code of Practice on Vehicle Safety Defects (the Code), which has the support of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 (as amended). Please find attached a copy of the Consumer’s Guide to Vehicle Safety Defects and the link to the Code of practice below for your information

 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-on-vehicle-safety-defects-and-recalls/vehicle-safety-defects-and-recalls-code-of-practice

The aim being to establish if the defect is a failure due to design and/or construction. Typical examples of this could be a sudden loss of braking or steering.
 
DVSA has assessed the available information to determine any further action under the code of practice.

The manufacturer of the initial build (1^st stage) Peugeot has reported that they set the tyre pressures to the homologated pressures for the supplied product. As such, the respective tyre pressure label/plate and the vehicle meet type approval with these settings.

 The vehicle is then supplied to the second stage builder/convertor who determine the tyre pressures for the new use (possibly after discussions with the approving authority, vehicle manufacturer and/or tyre manufacturer) and is their responsibility to determine the tyre pressure label/plate on the vehicle and adjust the settings in the TPMS system  if necessary. .

In the case of the second stage builder/converter, Auto-Sleepers,  we are advised they use the recommended vehicle manufacturer’s settings for tyre pressures and label on the vehicle for type approval. [text emphasised by Cymro]

 DVSA are guided by vehicle manufacturers’ design and approval requirements. Having reviewed the available information, DVSA conclude your vehicle is manufactured and approved within type approval limits.  As such, DVSA will not be taking further action under the Code of Practice.

 DVSA will now close this case.

 For further information on your vehicle and any amendments you should contact the manufacturer which in this case would be the company who completed your motorhome conversion.

 Thank you for contacting DVSA."


Hopeless.



Cymro

The Chief Executive of the VCA also recommends contacting the DVSA via the form HERE:- https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-recalls-and-faults/report-a-serious-safety-defect
The DVSA gave me the same advice in March which I followed.  The Vehicle Safety Branch's response was almost identical to Cymro's.  It's a blind alley from which there is no appeal.  I have since followed the VCA complaint procedure:

https://www.vehicle-certification-agency.gov.uk/company-policies/complaints-procedure/

I am about to submit my Level 3 complaint as I was dissatisfied with the response I received to my Level 2 complaint.

Cymro wrote :- Hopeless.




And they now hope you go away.

My reply has just arrived as well from John Corcoran. I won't bother to read it its word for word the same as yours. Despite me mentioning that I was referred to the procedure by the Head Engineer of the VCA.

Here goes to the Complaints procedure.

The DVSA do do some good work, only yesterday on BBC1 Defenders they were chasing up a guy for re-selling re-called Suzuki parts. Mind you it was the Police who had to do the Fraud Case. I did get a couple of names from the program.

I have this morning replied to the carbon copy of Cymro's letter I received, to the sender.

The complaints Procedure for the DVSA is not as clear as for the VCA above.

During my search I almost lost the will to live and sent it to DIGNITAS.

Auto sleeper have determined their specifications and gained type approval and my understanding is the approval has been confirmed by the approval authority.

In other words they are passing the buck to their sister organisation - the VCA - who are the approval authority.

When I remonstrated to the DVSA after my VSB response they said:

"Unfortunately, there is nothing more the DVSA can do to assist you as this is essentially a dispute between the vehicle’s manufacturer and the convertor. However, from personal experience, neither party would welcome bad publicity, especially in the current economic climate. It may well therefore be interesting to see what a well-researched and written article on this matter, in a prominent outdoor leisure magazine, may achieve." 

I don't think there is any dispute between Peugeot and Auto-Sleepers as Peugeot is happy to adjust the TPMS if Auto-Sleepers determines with the tyre manufacturer that it should be set to a lower level, as Bailey has done.  The CAMC has told me:

“this issue is very widespread” … “and sits squarely with the vehicle convertor to address, probably with support and guidance from the NCC.”   
 
The NCC has told me: “Your motorhome is Whole Vehicle Type Approved and this type approval covers the wheel, tyre and tyre pressures which have to be agreed by the Type Approval body and therefore the NCC cannot overrule or comment on the approved tyre pressures however our Technical Standards and Compliance department have commented further on your individual situation as follows:  All vehicles are plated with the tyre pressure for the maximum load that the vehicle can carry and it will be the drivers’ responsibility to vary this pressure if they wish to use the vehicle in a unloaded condition.” 

I believe this issue sits squarely with the VCA who so far haven't acknowledged to me that there is a problem or explained what they are doing about it noting that:

The type approval system provides assurance to buyers that safety standards are upheld when a vehicle is travelling and also the safety of occupants and external people in the case of a collision. 

Cymro wrote:

I replied to DVSA as follows:

“Dear Mr ....

Whilst I am obliged to you for your response, it does not address the point which was central to my concern:
Auto-Sleepers chose to adopt the tyre pressures as originally determined by the vehicle manufacturer. That inevitably results in the front tyre pressures being grossly over-inflated. Had Auto-Sleepers chosen to adopt the pressures recommended by the tyre manufacturer, and re-plated the vehicle accordingly, the tyre pressures would be safe.
Whilst Auto-Sleepers may be entitled so to do, it is an unsafe practice which results in an unsafe vehicle if the unchanged pressures are applied by an unsuspecting owner. I submit that there is indeed an issue here which warrants correction by DVSA. 
Yours faithfully,”

Commendably promptly, I received today the following brush-off:

“Thank you for your email and I note your comments.

I would refer to my previous email in that DVSA are guided by vehicle manufacturers’ design and approval requirements. Peugeot produce this vehicle in several variations  with specifications type approved. Auto sleeper have determined their specifications and gained type approval and my understanding is the approval has been confirmed by the approval authority. Any variation in design  is for the manufacturer(s) to consider and approve.”


Why can’t they see that the issue is significant and warrants consideration?


Cymro

Was that John Corcoram I wonder.
I received a very similar response this morning.
To appeal he advised. [url=corporatereputation@dvsa.gov.uk]corporatereputation@dvsa.gov.uk[/url]

They know, they can see, they have to concoct evasive statements its their job. The Guy at VCA that I had the Video Conference with was visibly embarrassed by some of my questions and apologetic.

How do they and Auto-Sleepers sleep at night. Would you like the email address for DIGNITAS.

Yes, Marconi and Yes!

I sent this earlier today. 

"Thank you, Mr C.., for your prompt, if disappointing reply.

In the absence of influence or action from the various relevant agencies, let us hope that peer pressure from the example of other manufacturers (e.g. Bailey Motorhomes,who specify the tyre manufacturer's pressures - for the same base Peugeot vehicle) and pressure from experienced owners who understand the issue (and who, at their peril, adopt pressures appropriate for their axle mass) will combine to nudge Auto-Sleepers to adopt a safer practice.

I just hope that, until then, no novice owner will suffer the consequences of unwittingly using grossly over-inflated pressures as a result of adopting the generic maximum pressures plated by the base vehicle manufacturer."

Cymro

Last winter during the several thousand miles I drove, the non responsive steering was was unnerving at times. Recently I told the VCA Head Engineer face to face and he told me he sympathised with my concerns. During the 3 months I was away I gradually reduced my Front Tyre pressures as far as I dare (not knowing if the wheels might fall off if the TPMS triggered) 

My final figure was 4.5bar set in Northern Spain in March. Handling was a little improved by this. 

Today we went out to a layby opposite a C&MC Farm CL which is no more, to do some tests. We all know why the CL is no more. It used to be a great weekend retreat over 200m ASL, surrounded by Reservoirs, a huge field but a 1/4 mile up from the Farm house so no ones Mains Lead would reach. 

On the way the TPMS triggered reporting 4.5bar it was the coldest day on the road since March so the temperature change was enough to cause the trigger. I am now driving illegally so I may as well drop to the Continental recommended pressures.

Not only did my TPMS trigger yesterday it triggered at a set pressure of 4.5 bar and the Dashboard indication read that pressure. This is only 10% below the Tyre Label pressure of 5.0 bar.

I remember Caraman mentioning that he reckoned his Nuevo triggered at around 18% below.

I considered that the trigger took place on a long stretch of shady, possibly frosty road but temperature change should be compensated for. The usual figure mentioned for triggering is 25% less than the set level. Have Peugeot got it right.

Can I please check that I've understood you correctly, Marconi?

You wrote that "The usual figure mentioned for triggering is 25% less than the set level.". 

So is it the case that, notwithstanding that the trigger pressure to activate the TPMS alarm is - say (in my case, for front wheels) set at 50psi (3.5 bar), the pressure will have to drop to roughly 25% lower than that 50psi [i.e. 37.5 psi] before the TPMS alarm will actually be activated?

I didn't know that. I naïvely assumed that it would sound the alarm when the pressure had dropped to the set trigger point of 50psi.

If it only triggers at roughly 25% below the set value, then I can lower my front tyres a wee bit more than the 53 psi which I run them at. (I should have had the trigger point dropped to 40 psi, not 50 psi - according to the weighbridge, I should run at 47 psi but I assumed that the alarm would sound at the (set value) of 50 psi.)

Cymro

Cymro wrote:Can I please check that I've understood you correctly, Marconi?

You wrote that "The usual figure mentioned for triggering is 25% less than the set level.". 

So is it the case that, notwithstanding that the trigger pressure to activate the TPMS alarm is - say (in my case, for front wheels) set at 50psi (3.5 bar), the pressure will have to drop to roughly 25% lower than that 50psi [i.e. 37.5 psi] before the TPMS alarm will actually be activated?

I didn't know that. I naïvely assumed that it would sound the alarm when the pressure had dropped to the set trigger point of 50psi.

If it only triggers at roughly 25% below the set value, then I can lower my front tyres a wee bit more than the 53 psi which I run them at. (I should have had the trigger point dropped to 40 psi, not 50 psi - according to the weighbridge, I should run at 47 psi but I assumed that the alarm would sound at the (set value) of 50 psi.)

Cymro

Yes that's how I understand it, I don't think there are any set standards and 20% has been mentioned too.

With temperature change, as was proven for me yesterday, you couldn't possibly have the trigger happening as soon as the pressure goes below the set  pressure level. I think the 10% I experienced is far too small a tolerance.

In the end experimentation is the only way I suppose.

Gosh that was a quick response!

Thanks, Marconi - and thanks for confirming my assumed interpretation. For me, as I mentioned, that will be useful. I've avoided running my cold front pressures at 50 psi or below because my TPMS trigger pressure is 50 psi. But now that I know that there's leeway before the alarm is actually activated, I feel that I can certainly run at 50 psi without being troubled.

Thanks for the info.

Have earlier today ensured fronts are at 53, ready for tomorrow's run to St David's in Pembrokeshire. Might tomorrow even drop them to 50.  It handles so much better - and any increased tyre wear is of course irrelevant.

Cymro

Apart from deflation of one tyre how do I know if the TPMS is fitted to my 2016 WXL.

FreelanderUK wrote:Apart from deflation of one tyre how do I know if the TPMS is fitted to my 2016 WXL

When you turn on the ignition all the warning lights appear briefly on the instrument panel.  If one of the warning lights is the cross-section of a tyre with an exclamation mark in it, you have the Peugeot TPMS.  If the TPMS has not been triggered, like the rest of the warning lights it will go out.  If the TPMS triggers the warning light comes on with an audible alarm.

Thanks Caraman


Edit 
Just checked the van dash and my 2016 WXL doesn’t have the warning light light up ,so no TMPS fitted

Cymro wrote:Gosh that was a quick response!

Thanks, Marconi - and thanks for confirming my assumed interpretation. For me, as I mentioned, that will be useful. I've avoided running my cold front pressures at 50 psi or below because my TPMS trigger pressure is 50 psi. But now that I know that there's leeway before the alarm is actually activated, I feel that I can certainly run at 50 psi without being troubled.

Thanks for the info.

Have earlier today ensured fronts are at 53, ready for tomorrow's run to St David's in Pembrokeshire. Might tomorrow even drop them to 50.  It handles so much better - and any increased tyre wear is of course irrelevant.

Cymro

When I had my TPMS adjusted at Hamble Motors the technician who did it was too busy to talk to me and the person on reception knew nothing about it.  All I could glean is that the TPMS has 4 reference pressures:

1. Front axle tyre reference pressure
   
2. Front axle tyre reference pressure at high speed
   
3. Rear axle tyre reference pressure
   
4. Rear axle tyre reference pressure at high speed
   

Prior to adjustment 1 & 2 were set at 5.0 bar (about 73 psi) and 3 & 4 were and still are set at 5.5 bar (about 80 psi) which are the plated pressures.

We know it is possible to run the tyres below their reference pressures without the TPMS triggering but how much lower can only be determined, as far as I can see, through trial and error.  We also know that when the TPMS triggers the tyre has to be re-inflated to its reference pressure and run for a short distance for it to reset.  For me this was a couple of hundred yards.  I do not know the difference between the 'tyre reference pressure' and the 'tyre reference pressure at high speed'.  I asked the receptionist to find out but I got no sensible answer.  It's quite possible they didn't know.  I don't think they adjust TPMSs very often.

I may have missed something here but since the vans are always at least 80% laden and the unladen weights would indicate pressures of 4 and 4.25 bar front and rear. However I doubt very much that anyone's van is ever completely unladen, unless being sold. So perhaps we should be looking at 3000Kg as a practical minimum. Assuming even loading in proportion to axle capacity, then we are looking at 1585Kg front and 1714Kg rear. So that is 4bar front and 4.5bar rear. That said, I suspect that no one goes away in the van with anything like these figures. So if we salad 300 Kg in loading, (75Kg for a passenger, quite probably another 50Kg for pushbikes and if you are for example wild camping  and can't guarantee a water supply, 100Kg water) then the axle weights go up to about 1725Kg F. and 1874Kg R. this gives pressures of 4.5 and 5.0 bar respectively. Given that this is only 0.5 bar (about 7psi) below the sticker indicated pressures, is it worth the hassle because you could easily find yourself above these weights? My source of figures? see below.

Pete F: could you please use the "insert a link" and re-post (or edit your post of 5:39 above) because I can't seem to copy that line in order to open it as a link?
Thanks
Cymro

Pete F wrote:I may have missed something here but since the vans are always at least 80% laden and the unladen weights would indicate pressures of 4 and 4.25 bar front and rear. However I doubt very much that anyone's van is ever completely unladen, unless being sold. So perhaps we should be looking at 3000Kg as a practical minimum. Assuming even loading in proportion to axle capacity, then we are looking at 1585Kg front and 1714Kg rear. So that is 4bar front and 4.5bar rear. That said, I suspect that no one goes away in the van with anything like these figures. So if we salad 300 Kg in loading, (75Kg for a passenger, quite probably another 50Kg for pushbikes and if you are for example wild camping  and can't guarantee a water supply, 100Kg water) then the axle weights go up to about 1725Kg F. and 1874Kg R. this gives pressures of 4.5 and 5.0 bar respectively. Given that this is only 0.5 bar (about 7psi) below the sticker indicated pressures, is it worth the hassle because you could easily find yourself above these weights? My source of figures? see below.

Pete F - If you go to a weighbridge you will discover your Nuevo is rear heavy and front light.  I contend it is impossible for the front axle mass to exceed 1500 kg without the rear axle MTPLM of 2000 kg being exceeded and therefore the Nuevo's MTPLM of 3500 kg being exceeded.  My 2019 Nuevo is the Low profile model and when fully laden its front axle mass is around 1375 kg.  This changes very little whether it is loaded or not.  The ETRTO and Continental recommend a front CP tyre pressure of 3.0 bar for a front axle mass of 1425 kg and below.  TyreSafe recommend a pressure of about 3.2 bar for a front axle mass of 1375 kg.  Before my front TPMS was adjusted I couldn't get it below 4.3 bar without it being triggered.

Caraman wrote:
I am about to submit my Level 3 complaint as I was dissatisfied with the response I received to my Level 2 complaint.

I have had a response from the VCA CEO to my Level 3 complaint.  I have reordered what I consider to be the key bits of the response below:


"Once tyres to be fitted to the stage 1 build have been approved the vehicle manufacturer declares the tyre pressures as part of the type approval process.  The tyre pressures declared by the manufacturer will be constant for all type approval tests that the vehicle is subjected to.  The stage 1 manufacturer will communicate to any second stage manufacturers building on their vehicle type the parameters within which they can make alterations to a particular system.  In the case of your vehicle, our understanding is that the second stage build is within the boundaries of the first stage approval in terms of tyre pressures.


The second stage builder could talk to the first stage builder about applying different tyre pressure parameters through the TPMS but this would mean that they would be required to take responsibility for this, applying for an approval in their own right.  This is a decision for the second stage manufacturer and is not something we are in a position to compel them to do if they are operating within the boundaries of the base approval, which they are in this case.


........ I see from the information supplied that you have ... (spoken to the DVSA) and that having considered your case, DVSA feel that your vehicle is manufactured within the type approval limits and that there is insufficient evidence at this time to take further action under the Code of Practice (on Vehicle Safety Defects).  


The type approval regime is underpinned by a framework of standards agreed at international level.  VCA and other certification bodies are required to apply those standards as part of the approval process.  VCA does not have a role in negotiating type approval standards:  this function sits with our policy colleagues within the International Vehicle Standards (IVS) division of the central DfT. 


..... if you are agreeable, I am happy to make colleagues within the IVS team ..... aware of your concerns so they can be considered in the context of standard development? 


.... If you feel that your complaint has still not been dealt with satisfactorily by VCA then you can ask us to pass your complaint to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA)." 


My take on the DVSA response I received last year was that "there is insufficient evidence at this time to take further action under the Code of Practice (on Vehicle Safety Defects)" was because the TPMS is not defective. 

I have not asked for my complaint to be passed to the VCA as they cannot look at complaints about legislation or government, departmental or agency policy which this issue is about.  However, I have asked for it to be passed to the IVS and to be given feedback.

At the CAMC's request, I have also passed CEO VCA's response to the CAMC.  As last year the DVSA suggested the matter should be given publicity, I have again asked the CAMC to write an article on the matter in their Club Magazine.  As such an article could be critical of convertors, they may be reluctant to do so.  I have also asked them again to represent their members interests by applying pressure to the DfT, NCC and convertors to resolve this issue.