This is the 3rd and final report by Automotive Engineer Colin Young at Caravan Council of Australia; The Status of the Caravan Industry in Australia - RV Books

Possum3 wrote:

---

This is the 3rd and final report by Automotive Engineer Colin Young at Caravan Council of Australia; (8) Caravan Council of Australia | Facebook

---

 Hi Possum3,

Rob just accessed your link and he has asked me to thank you for putting it up.

Regards

Angie

That was a good article, Possum. Thanks for putting it up

I found this snip interesting

No: 3 Consideration:

The distance from the Coupling to the rear-axle of the tow-vehicle is critical. The shorter, the better. Semi-trailers and 5th-wheelers have the Coupling / King-pin (virtually) directly above the rear-axle, and provides predictable handling on curves.

Caravans have the Coupling a long way behind the rear-axle, and provides undesirable and potentially-lethal handling on curves. When the driver turns the steering wheel to move in one direction, the front of the caravan moves in the opposite direction.

I think back to about 55 years ago

In those days, (in Western Australia), we would get any old caravan we could, and tow it with any old vehicle we could

We would then load up both the tug and van, any old way we could

Blind Freddy would have been able to see, that this was a mismatched combination

But...

In those days, very few caravan accidents happened
I put this down to the fact that

1. There was a speed limit (50 MPH/80 KPH I think), when towing any trailer
   
   
2. The vehicles were a bit underpowered, so probably not able to go much faster when towing
   
   
3. The roads were not the best, some were only one vehicle width of bitumen, so be prepared to get two wheels off the road, so not advisable to speed

Perhaps speed has something to do with caravan accidents

No Facebook and not interested in anything published on it.

CCA have their own website why not publish there?

The new regulations requiring Type Approval for caravans will commence on the 1st of July this year.
We are a bit short on detail at the moment but this will be a major shake up of the van manufacturing industry.

Type Approval means that each model a manufacturer builds must have a proto type approved by the Dept of Infrastructure before he can start building and selling them. Once approval is granted, like motorhomes, changes to the model will not be allowed. There are also major changes to electrical and gas compliancing.

This new regulation will most likely spell the end for custom building.

Covered by Road Vehicles Standards Act to come into effect on July 1st.

Montie

montie wrote:

---

The new regulations requiring Type Approval for caravans will commence on the 1st of July this year.
We are a bit short on detail at the moment but this will be a major shake up of the van manufacturing industry.

Type Approval means that each model a manufacturer builds must have a proto type approved by the Dept of Infrastructure before he can start building and selling them. Once approval is granted, like motorhomes, changes to the model will not be allowed. There are also major changes to electrical and gas compliancing.

This new regulation will most likely spell the end for custom building.

Covered by Road Vehicles Standards Act to come into effect on July 1st.

Montie

-- Edited by montie on Monday 1st of February 2021 07:02:30 PM

---

 And isn't it about time!

montie wrote:

---

Type Approval means that each model a manufacturer builds must have a proto type approved by the Dept of Infrastructure before he can start building and selling them. Once approval is granted, like motorhomes, changes to the model will not be allowed.

---

Whilst this is generally a good thing the regulations *and costs* should be drafted with consideration for "re-approvals".

I imagine caravan building has a lot of ongoing product development, ie. the manufacturer discovers item X in the van doesn't work very well once it's in the field and decides to improve or replace it, if the re-approval testing is going to cost $20,000 then he may well not bother thus resulting in a worse product for the customer. I have seen this issue frequently with EMC (electronic) compliance; testing is so expensive that many smaller manufacturers simply cannot afford re-tests and keep it quiet that they have changed the product.

Except in cases of major structural change re-testing should be be a paperwork exercise only and at very low cost - a few hundred dollars perhaps.

Possum3 wrote:

---

This is the 3rd and final report by Automotive Engineer Colin Young at Caravan Council of Australia; The Status of the Caravan Industry in Australia - RV Books

-- Edited by Possum3 on Tuesday 2nd of February 2021 07:25:28 AM

---

 Sorry Possom3 immediatly I see Caravan Council of Australia, it gets my back up because the title is misleading, the CCA is one man Colin Young! Its a registered business name no more than that, be it may he is an Automotive Engineer, but his opinion carry no more weight than others in the industry.

Type Approval means that each model a manufacturer builds must have a proto type approved by the Dept of Infrastructure before he can start building and selling them. Once approval is granted, like motorhomes, changes to the model will not be allowed.

Thanks for that info, Montie

This was something I was unaware of, it sounds as though we may be getting some better caravan builds in the future

bgt wrote:

---

Some years back I was involved in this same issue. I can tell you now that reports go no where. At the end of the day each state will do their own thing. ADRs aren't applicable and each state will fiddle with them anyway. A frame towing was a prime example of each state doing their own thing. I doubt anything will change.

---

 The Type Approval system has worked extremely well for motorhomes for many years. The Dept of Infrastructure issue second stage plates for motorhomes once they have issued approval for the Type, and it cannot be registered without it.

It is Federal Regulations.

Greg 1 wrote:

---

There are a couple of things that concern me about all of this. The 30% rule for the tow vehicle to be heavier than the van. Sorry don't agree with this at all. Whilst I think that it is always a good idea to have the tug heavier than the trailer, 3o% is way over the top. Trailer stability is affected by a variety of factors and you can have a perfectly stable rig where the tug is close to or slightly heavier than the trailer. To enforce a 30% limit would be a nonsensical piece of over the top legislation. I am worried about the type approval as well. Sounds good in principle but what are the limits on the type approval? Will it be for a certain size van that the chassis and body construction plus positioning of axles and major weight components remain the same or will it lock in the entire layout internally of the van? If it is the latter, that will cause many manufacturers to fold, as there are a good deal of very good smaller builders who cater for those people who want a layout change. My wife and I are a prime example as she is a paraplegic and we had to get a van custom made to suit the wheelchair. I see no reason to totally lock in layouts. However, like Individually constructed cars, an engineer could be employed to approve any major changes. It will add considerable cost to a new van. I am not sure that this is the way to go to be honest. It raises more questions than it answers and I can see certain State licensing authorities making a complete pigs breakfast out of it like they currently do with ICV's. The other thing I would like to see is the mandatory testing of components that go into a van. For example doors and windows. I have lost a door made by a well known manufacturer on an almost new van. This was due to the cheap crappy plastic door hardware that failed and allowed the door to come unlocked and subsequently blew off. I have investigated this and found that it is a quite common occurrence and we are not orphans by any means. I have since machine up some parts from aluminium which has stopped them breaking, but not everyone has a mill in their shed. The manufacturer of the door did not want to know and would not even contemplate a warranty claim. I would have thought that they might get interested, particularly considering what the consequences might have been had my errant door hit someone following behind.

---

 There is no current legal regulation for Tug/Van weight ratio. In the interest of safe towing I would recommend that the tug exceed the van weight by around 10%.

Look up Road Vehicle Standards Act for more info.

Specialist vehicles can be inspected and approved individually, however one off custom building will be very difficult and expensive.

Hi Gundog Thanks for tipping me off about the Caravan Council of Australia being one man Colin Young. After posting a response on their ( his ) Facebook page I invited them ( him ) to an off forum chat about some of their ( his ) points that I disagreed with not wanting to call out an industry body in an open forum environment rather than highlight my disagreements in Private and try to turn their ( his ) statements around. Twice now I have private messages my concerns about statements I disagreed with asking for facts and statistics to back up statements without response and also highlighted why I disagreed with statements like that it was due to underpowered towing vehicles that caused road trains to overtake caravaners generating Venturi effect crashes. In my experience even pitifully underpowered vehicles can maintain posted ( or more importantly, sensible ) speeds on the flat or going downhill and very rarely is an accident caused by the Venturi effect during an overtaking manoeuvre performed whilst the passing vehicle is travelling uphill and passing at this time due to a power deficit in the passed vehicle. I am happy to be told I am wrong if someone has facts to the contrary.
In fact it is more often powerful tow vehicles towing big rigs and impatient with their slower brethren or roadtrains on a tight deadline and in a hurry passing on the flat or even downhill runs that contributes to these Venturi effect crashes in my view.
As for 30 percent higher towing weight for the towing vehicle than trailer weight again this is in my view unnecessary on larger rigs where cabin controlled electric trailer braking is available as long as the weights are at least relatively similar. At a 30 percent higher tow vehicle weight recommendation or requirement you would virtually eliminate most towed packages be it caravans or larger boats.
Having safely towed tens of thousands of klms with 3.3ton on the back of tow vehicle weighing just under 3 ton with this setup in horrendous road and weather conditions, up and down mountains and right across the country I speak with some experience. View my avatar for my previous tow vehicle and yacht package. The trouble with many forms of regulation is in my view that our progressively more insistent nanny state wants everything regulated down to the lowest common denominator precluding those with knowledge and skill from using them in its goal of making it impossible for the uneducated and the idiots to get themselves into too much trouble.
Just my two cents worth.

Greg,

Trailer Sailor,

Hate to be the critical one, but if you want others to be able to comfortably

read your posts, why not break the narrative up into paragraphs, and try

limiting the length of lines.

That block of words becomes almost unreadable as it stands

Trailer Sailer wrote:

---

Hi Gundog Thanks for tipping me off about the Caravan Council of Australia being one man Colin Young. After posting a response on their ( his ) Facebook page I invited them ( him ) to an off forum chat about some of their ( his ) points that I disagreed with not wanting to call out an industry body in an open forum environment rather than highlight my disagreements in Private and try to turn their ( his ) statements around. Twice now I have private messages my concerns about statements I disagreed with asking for facts and statistics to back up statements without response and also highlighted why I disagreed with statements like that it was due to underpowered towing vehicles that caused road trains to overtake caravaners generating Venturi effect crashes. In my experience even pitifully underpowered vehicles can maintain posted ( or more importantly, sensible ) speeds on the flat or going downhill and very rarely is an accident caused by the Venturi effect during an overtaking manoeuvre performed whilst the passing vehicle is travelling uphill and passing at this time due to a power deficit in the passed vehicle. I am happy to be told I am wrong if someone has facts to the contrary.
In fact it is more often powerful tow vehicles towing big rigs and impatient with their slower brethren or roadtrains on a tight deadline and in a hurry passing on the flat or even downhill runs that contributes to these Venturi effect crashes in my view.
As for 30 percent higher towing weight for the towing vehicle than trailer weight again this is in my view unnecessary on larger rigs where cabin controlled electric trailer braking is available as long as the weights are at least relatively similar. At a 30 percent higher tow vehicle weight recommendation or requirement you would virtually eliminate most towed packages be it caravans or larger boats.
Having safely towed tens of thousands of klms with 3.3ton on the back of tow vehicle weighing just under 3 ton with this setup in horrendous road and weather conditions, up and down mountains and right across the country I speak with some experience.           View  View my avatar for my previous tow vehicle and yacht package. The trouble with many forms of regulation is in my view that our progressively more insistent nanny state wants everything regulated down to the lowest common denominator precluding those with knowledge and skill from using them in its goal of making it impossible for the uneducated and the idiots to get themselves into too much trouble. 

Just my two cents worth.

-- Edited by Trailer Sailer on Tuesday 2nd of February 2021 06:05:55 PM

---

    "......safely towed tens of thousands of klms with 3.3 ton on the back of tow vehicle weighing just under 3 ton....". Common sense,logic and simple physics would dictate that such an "achievement" is more a result of good luck than it is of good management.If safety is of any concern,always the  towing vehicle should be at least 10% heavier than the van/trailer it is towing.This is why it is law that if a vehicle has a GVM above 4500kg,it cannot tow a PIG  trailer that is heavier than the towing vehicle.This is to minimise the chances of the tail wagging the dog,and why earthmoving contractors,for example,often have to throw a few buckets of dirt into the truck body when using a PIG trailer to transport their excavators etc.Simple physics at work. Cheers

montie wrote:

---

Specialist vehicles can be inspected and approved individually, however one off custom building will be very difficult and expensive.

 

---

 I am more optimistic than that Montie.

Engineering approvals do not always need to cost a bomb, depending on the change made.

Our own DIY OKA included a complete one off body, suspension modifications, wheel and tyre changes, sideways facing seats in the rear either side of a fixed table, with seatbelts, an approved child seat mounting on the engine hatch in the cabin, GVM and GCM increases (which included all the research plus physical brake testing on a hired private airfield), a lifting winch for spare wheels and a DIY tow bar rated to 3.5T, plus other bits that I can not remember any more. Total all up cost for the engineer (including the report which went to the RTA) was under $5k. As a result of that report, the RTA did not even want to see the vehicle.

Other OKA owners are having reports prepared for things like chassis extensions for well under $1,000.

Put into the context of the end value of a vehicle, these cost are not "expensive" in my view and it is no more physically difficult to design and build a one off then it ever was before. I have just begun another and the engineering cost that will be involved will be a relatively small consideration in the scheme of things. AND the RTA will not challenge the report, which is a significant plus (as well as saving a major inconvenience plus and minor cost saving).

Cheers,

Peter

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

montie wrote:

---

Specialist vehicles can be inspected and approved individually, however one off custom building will be very difficult and expensive.

 

---

 I am more optimistic than that Montie.

Engineering approvals do not always need to cost a bomb, depending on the change made.

Our own DIY OKA included a complete one off body, suspension modifications, wheel and tyre changes, sideways facing seats in the rear either side of a fixed table, with seatbelts, an approved child seat mounting on the engine hatch in the cabin, GVM and GCM increases (which included all the research plus physical brake testing on a hired private airfield), a lifting winch for spare wheels and a DIY tow bar rated to 3.5T, plus other bits that I can not remember any more. Total all up cost for the engineer (including the report which went to the RTA) was under $5k. As a result of that report, the RTA did not even want to see the vehicle.

Other OKA owners are having reports prepared for things like chassis extensions for well under $1,000.

Put into the context of the end value of a vehicle, these cost are not "expensive" in my view and it is no more physically difficult to design and build a one off then it ever was before. I have just begun another and the engineering cost that will be involved will be a relatively small consideration in the scheme of things. AND the RTA will not challenge the report, which is a significant plus (as well as saving a major inconvenience plus and minor cost saving).

Cheers,

Peter

 

-- Edited by Peter_n_Margaret on Wednesday 3rd of February 2021 04:23:39 PM

---

 Pete none of the mainstream motorhome builders will custom build because of the disruption getting a one off type approval.

There are a couple who will accommodate a custom build but a lot more expensive than the mainstream builders.

It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds with caravans.

Greg 1 wrote:

---

Montie, I do know that currently there is no legislation regarding the weight proportion between tug and van. I was commenting on Colin Young's proposal of 30%. I believe that if there is to be such legislation then your suggestion of 10% is much more in line with what I believe to be correct and more practical. To Brodie, on the screen I do break up my paragraphs but whenever I post from my phone or tablet this silly forum bunches it all together. Doesn't happen on other forums I visit regularly. Really don't know how to stop it as there are no controls visible to me other than the keyboard.

---

 Greg,

The 10% suggestion is just my opinion and seems more practical than other opinions.