Alec Pringle Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Discussion elsewhere prompted mention of just how much a TR5 can, or can't, carry . . . . . and hence I've been asked for figures on other TRs. These figures do matter, especially if you're unfortunate enough to be involved in a big woopsie - insurance assessors and engineers earn good money picking up on such detail, and thereby enabling the insurer to kick your claim into touch. That can happen, and does happen. End result, you can be personally liable for one hell of a lot more than just the damage to your own car. Ignore that possibility at your own (and your family's) financial peril. Maximum laden weights, private cars rather than commercial vehicles that is, weren't a big issue in the 1950s. I'm not convinced that Standard Triumph issued any definitive figure for the sports cars. Of course I'll be delighted if someone can come up with factory recommendations for sidescreen TRs . . . . . and for Swallow Doretti, Peerless and Warwick for that matter. As a matter of simple common sense, I'd reckon a TR2 through to TR3B should not be hauling any more load, in terms of kgs above kerb weight, than a TR4. Just my opinion, and the local weighbridge is your friend here. I'd suggest 200kgs absolute max . . . . . just my opinion, gut feeling if you prefer. As far as TR4-6 models are concerned, the 1977 Repair Operation Manual ought to be the definitive article. This lists basic kerb weights (including water, fuel, oil and tools), and gross vehicle weight. The difference between the two is the maximum load of passengers, luggage, spares and whatever else you choose to load your TR with. TR4 and 4A live axle - 1015kgs and 1213kgs, which leaves you with 198kgs of load capacity. TR4A with 1004 and 1213 allows a little more load of 209kgs. TR5 and 250 are 1034 to 1226, just 192kgs of avoirdupois.. The pre-1971 TR6 is listed at 1085kgs and 1308kgs, 223kgs of load in other words. 1971 onwards TR6 in contrast offers 1085kgs kerb but 1360kgs laden, 275kgs of potential load. USA spec TR6s were a tad more complicated - pre-1970 offered 223kgs, whereas 1970 models offered only 177kgs, heaven knows why . . . . and in contrast 1971-74 cars could handle 260kgs, and the last 75-6 cars 274kgs. No, I don't know the logic, don't ask me ! But if you have air conditioning fitted, knock 37kgs off that load capacity. Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TR5tar Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Quick question Alec: You say that Basic Kerb Weight includes water, oil, fuel and tools, but do you know if that also includes the weight of the spare wheel? Or, is that part of the laden weight? Darren Quote Link to post Share on other sites
McMuttley Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 mmmmmm, i weighed in at 91.3kg this morning after a large lunch yesterday, the wife say 65 (being polite there), the hardtop lined must be 20-25? our holiday luggage is normally 12-14 each, so say 1/3 of that forca weekend - we are already over before any tools or camping gear are loaded (TR3a) - the tent alone weighs 14 !!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Hi Austin, at 14Kg I think you will find that tent is actually a flat pack Ikea log cabin. Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Hi Folks, on the subject of car luggage weight and camping. If you go for absolute luxury things get heavy but there are ways of reducing the weight of most thiings. Sleeping bags - if you are summer/warm climate camping get a one or two season bag - much lighter. Blankets - nice thick woolly blankets keep you warm but HiTec fleece (Inside the bag) keep you warmer. Cooking - simple plastic cups and plates. get a nice high power Gaz burner - these are light compared to the multi burner ranges that some people use. Tent - two people in a two man tent is a squeeze - use a quality hikers three man tent - low weight and room to put your socks on (just) I've noticed that in camping low weight items = high price. Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
littlejim Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Thanks Alec, and Parry for kicking it off. Wouldn't have given it a second thought, but very handy information. About to write it in my TR workshop manual. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted June 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Spare wheel and tyre was by tradition normally included in dry weight, and therefore also kerb weight . . . . . TR7 weights were something of an anomaly, along with many other aspects of BL in the 1970s. Unladen weight, as kerb weight had been renamed by then, varied considerably between markets and specification levels . . . . . anything from 1060kgs through to 1140kgs, depending on which of the numerous different published figures you believe. Gross vehicle weight varied similarly, anything from 1290-1350kgs depending on publication etc . . . . . As the TR7 Repair Operation Manual notes, " These figures must be taken as a guide only and vary according to market, model year and equipment fitted." Well thanks a bunch BL for such a definitive analysis ! The implication, by my reckoning, is that effective total load lies somewhere in the 210-230kgs bracket . . . . . . as a personal observation, I wouldn't wish to carry more than 200kgs in total without uprated rear springs. Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chilliman Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Did they not include the driver in kerb weight back in the 60's as they seem to now? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
barkerwilliams Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) Did they not include the driver in kerb weight back in the 60's as they seem to now? John, I have a 1970 PI, two weeks ago I had my car's total weight and corner weights measured by a BMW race car builder on their electronic corner scales and the car came in at 1128Kg without driver. (Trying to balance the suspension) There were my "normal" spares of distributor cap and rotor arm and injector, spanner / socket set, small lightweight jack etc. in the boot, a tank brim full of fuel, floor mats, a full glove box and spare jacket, spare wheel, a bottle of drinking water. The car has a few extras such as oil cooler, electric fan, a new chassis, a few extra layers of paint and cavity wax, has five new tyres, but nothing out of ordinary just an average TR6 in it's normal state.. So I think the plated weight on my car of 969 -1380 did not include driver and gives me a margin of 252Kg for passengers and luggage. ........I'd best start on the diet. Alan Edited June 26, 2015 by barkerwilliams Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TR5tar Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Spare wheel and tyre was by tradition normally included in dry weight, and therefore also kerb weight . . . . . Thanks Alec. Useful to know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 " Did they not include the driver in kerb weight back in the 60's as they seem to now? " The EU brought in the idea of a 75kg (I think) driver being included in kerb weight, and that must have been 20-odd years ago. In TR days the concept of kerb weight invariably defined a car with its catalogued complement of tools and spares, oil, water and fuel . . . . . not necessarily a full tank of fuel though - some makers, Standard Triumph included, generally (but not invariably) rated kerb weight as including a full tank whereas other manufacturers included a but partially filled tank. Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Larnder Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Alec What happens if you are towing a small trailer as opposed to a caravan.It used to be half the weight of the towing vehicle, but which weight?I am thinking of those trailers made out of the rear end of a 3A or a 4 as we saw years ago at the IWE. Dave Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Hi Dave, to quote from AKM 3646 (1977), referring to TR4/4A/250/5/6 " Maximum recommended trailer weight 1016kgs when the trailer being towed is equipped with brakes. 200kgs when the trailer being towed is not equipped with brakes - providing that the total car and trailer laden weights do not exceed the maximum gross vehicle weight. " Which implies nothing more than a VERY small unbraked trailer . . . . . I'd suggest that the sidescreen cars, being a tad lighter, should be hauling not more than say 90% of the above . . . . . in contrast, AKM3079B (1980) for the TR7 lists " towing capacity - braked trailer . . . . . . 762kgs " and no mention of unbraked trailer. Personally I would not use an unbraked trailer behind a Wedge, given the modest size of the front brakes . . . . Roof rack capacity of the fixed head is listed at 50kgs max. Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MRG1965 Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Well this seems to a problem. I'm guessing witb two adults, boot full of spares and general cr@p along with a boot rack and back seat filled with other stuff I'm about 100kg (at least) over weight when we go camping. Support vehicle called for! Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 There was a time when the necessary carrying ability of a proper sports car amounted to a toothbrush and a packet of three . . . . . . oh yes, and of course a glove box large enough for WB's Rolleiflex. Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Fremont Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Nice and informative discourse - so how did TRIUMPH arrive at the limits? If I were to speculate, it might be the point where the bump stops of the suspension could be expected to deploy in the course of normal driving on normal, or possibly extra-normal surfaces. As far as the braking is concerned, added weight won't change the friction coefficient so minimum stopping distance theoretically can be maintained provided the commensurate increase in pedal force is applied . Doubts about this I concede probably factored into said limits. Our road trip in 2009 saw the driver loaded close to if not a bit over the limit, and the splay on the rear wheels was considerable, even a bit embarrassing. ( Of course, lots of later Federal TR6s looked the same in that respect as they weighed lots more. ) Replacement springs all seem to be stiffer, as they give positive camber which has to be tweaked out . Cheers, Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Motorsport Mickey Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Nearly Alec, back in the 70s the kerb weight of commercial (truck and van) vehicles was stated to include that of driver or crew and was anticipated as being 70kg each (actually we used to use Imperial but then it all changed). Not only did the weight morph into metric but it also increased to 80kg per driver (standard fat UK allowance) which as far as I remember is where it remains today. Then we realised that certain manufacturers had changed their statements in the small print and we were not all singing off the same hymn sheet, they having removed the weight of driver and/or passenger from their spec sheets (which coincidentally camouflaged the fact that their vehicle was heavier), also as you stated the full fuel tank reduced to 20 litres. So if I was worrying or trying to work out the kerb weight of my ancient TR I would use an inclusive weight of +170 kg for a complement of 2 personnel, (on the basis of being able to argue to point against a PC plod some 30 years my junior and not be contradicted). Then make due allowance for the extra 70kgs of likely weight which needs to be allocated to include tents/cookers/clothes and all other necessary social functions within the stated GVW 1380kg weight. Mick Richards Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Hi Mick, it's complicated enough on private cars, I deliberately avoided commercials to reduce potential confusion !! As you probably know, some European countries included driver in kerb weight of cars long before it became common practice here in the UK, but even those countries' manufacturers tended to quote a lower kerb weight, ie excluding driver, in the UK market. I reckon a wise TR man would be well advised to err on the side of caution when it comes to loading weights - in today's litiginous society neither insurers nor third parties tend to take prisoners, and they also tend to go for the financial jugular if the worst happens. A weighbridge will give you an accurate weight of your TR in its ordinary trim, bathroom scales will deal with passengers and luggage . . . . . and a wise man presumes that his wife weighs herself and her luggage whilst clad in rose-tinted reducing spectacles . . . . . Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stuart Posted June 27, 2015 Report Share Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) All the modern brake rollers at MOT stations weigh each pair of axles so you might find that an easy way of checking weights, have a voluntary brake test done (Most MOT stations would be happy enough to do that though there will be a charge.) and you can check both at the same time. (Interesting to note my solid axle 4a with a 16st MOT tester aboard and my normal touring tools/spares in the boot has an absolutely perfect 50/50 weight distribution!) Stuart. Edited June 27, 2015 by stuart Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.