Licensing a motor caravan
Page 54
Page 57
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Classification of living vans : 1. I refer to the Questions and Answers feature in which a letter was printed requesting information about the vehicle excise licensing position of a Ford van which had been converted into a motor caravan.
2. Your columnist stated that the installation of bunks, cooking facilities etc would alter the character of the vehicle to the extent that it would no longer be a " goods " vehicle as outlined in the Vehicle Excise Act 1971. I should like to point out that this is contrary to the view of this Department. We are of the opinion that the fittings constitute fixed burden and that all living vans (which term includes "motor caravans" and any vehicle converted to such) are " goods " vehicles by construction. The question of classification for vehicle excise licensing purposes is therefore dependent on the use to which the vehicle is put. For example, if the living van is used in connection with a trade or business the " goods" rate is payable. The vast majority of these vehicles are used only for holidays and private purposes and may be licensed at the flat " private " rate. D. J. HOLT, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre, DoE, Swansea. Although the DoE has given this ruling, it is confirmed at the same source that it has never been tested in court. But in some instances vehicles with "fixed fittings" which are not capable of carrying other goods may be regarded as goods vehicles for tax purposes. Those fittings are generally of such a nature that they are considered to be used in the course of business.
In our opinion, equipment in living vans is of a different nature.] the sequence, notably that between fifth high and low with maximum speeds of around 61 and 45mph respectively. This gap was very noticeable on the gradients on M1 where the engine was struggling at around 50mph in the highest gear, but there was no suitable alternative in the box.
I have always been at a loss to understand why Fiat makes its Eaton two-speed axles work so much more constantly than other manufacturers. Throughout the test the ratio change worked with great success, which meant that it could be used in practice, rather than just in theory, as a 10-speed gearbox. On the steeper parts of the operation trial route, for example Fish Hill, out of Broadway, the 130 showed the same lack of enthusiasm for gradients as the larger 619.
The greater part of the climb had to be accomplished in first Photographs by Dick Ross low, which resulted in a very slow time on this timed portion of the test run. This characteristic showed up on most of the inclines on the A-road section which with its 40mph (or less) speed limit prevented a run ak the hills. I must admit that I think the 130 is stretched to its limit when running at 23 tonnes gross with this particular axle option. For haulage operation on other than motorway classifi
continued from page 37
cation roads, the 6.14/8.38 to 1 axle would be a much better bet. For an operation which involved mainly motorway running, the test ratios should be adequate as the 130 would cruise happily at 55mph plus when given the space.
At MIRA it proved impossible to restart from rest on the 1 in 6 gradient.
Fuel consumption
The first stage of the CM Midlands route is all motorway, which the 130 covered at an average speed of 80.31cm/h (49.9mph) in patchy traffic. The fuel consumption for this section worked out at a reasonable 25.2 lit/100km (11.2rmpg) considering the number of times the truck was baulked.
On the A-road section, between the end of M45 and Minster Lovell there was a very marginal improvement, but the amount of time spent in first gear on the hills would not exactly have helped the fuel consumption. The overall figure for the complete 194mile route was 27.2 lit/1001cm (10.4mpg)—disappointing when compared with the 12/13mpg which the Fiat personnel hoped the truck would achieve.
Although it is of academic interest only, I would like to compare the fuel consumption achieved with the "high" Eaton axle combination on the motorway with figures achieved on the A-road section with the lower geared option.
Great interest is apparently being expressed in the 130 NT for use as a oar transporter and this would make a iot of sense as the slightly lower gross weight would improve the marginal bhp/ton figure