AL KO axle issues
I have noticed many items relating to failed/collapsed axles under discussion. I have a Sterling Eccles, two years old, with this problem. I assumed easily sorted under warranty, but not so as AL KO are claiming overloading is the cause. My wife and I have travelled a total of just 127 miles since the previous annual inspection, all correctly loaded. In order to challenge ALKOs assertion, it has been suggested that I obtain an independent assessment from the iaea, that is the institute of automotive engineers assessors. Does anyone have experience of this process, as in how successful they have been?
Comments
-
Are axle problems common? Have manufacturers started using cheaper axles? Mine is rated at 1350kg. There is no leaway if I accidentally go over the MTPLM.
0 -
From my experience with a Bailey.
When alko inspect they weigh the van, if you are then over MTPLM you are overloaded, proven. Basically hard luck! If you are under MTPLM then they can say you have overloaded and you can say you haven't. In my case I was under and as a gesture of goodwill the axle was changed and the outcome so far is satisfactory, so well done Bailey/Alko for sorting it out. Not so well done for the poor bodywork design of Bailey and probably the QC of Alko rubber suspension material.
For some time I have thought that this axle issue could not be solely affecting Bailey vans of 2015/16 era. The reason it shows on Bailey first is they have less clearance between tyre and wheel arch, hence the meet and abrade. Other makes have much more clearance so a collapsed axle won't show until it is quite extreme. Check the swing arm of the suspension approx horizontal for a loaded van which should recover to below horizontal when unloaded. If above horizontal a stays there irrespective of load you could have the axle syndrome.
Regarding axle spec - correct there is very little leeway about 50Kg on mine which can be taken to the limit by re plating. So you end up with a 1550 van on a 1550Kg axle.
0 -
Thanks for helpful comments, and there has been an outcome. ALKO have come back with a response that the van is within tolerance although there is a lean of 15 mm or so. This conclusion was reached apparently after I visited a weighbridge and produced a ticket demonstrating that with typical loading the van was 47 kg under max weight. So no action to be taken.
0 -
I don't quite get how a problem can be acknowledged, but then it be turned around and blamed on a vehicle being suspected of being overweight. Bailey acknowledged a problem with the ALKO axle in 2017 when they released a document advising owners how to tell if they had a collapsed axle. They have never released a document before this on previous vans as the problem did not generally exist, and I can't understand why they should release a document if they didn't acknowledge this as a problem.
David
0 -
Or indeed if they or Alko have changed the design of the replacement axle! The whole exercise of the Alko inspection appears to be to identify evidence of overloading and the angle of the swing arm.
I believe that they did not realise the scope of the problem and it is not just Bailey vans as evidenced by the OP and others on CT.
As I have suggested before Bailey got the clearance wrong and Alko got the rubber wrong so this compounded means that Baileys are first to have a problem, others to follow? We shall see!
0 -
It would be interesting to know if they have changed any of the components in the replacements. If they have, then surely this is a good enough sign that they had little faith in the original component and is almost like an admission of the unsuitability of the original component.
It folk are taking their vans back empty, then I can't see what proof Alko have that the van is overweight. Furthermore, if the van is still overweight, then the manufacturer of the caravan should be at fault for producing a caravan with the incorrect MRO.
I'm no expert, but it seems rather like they are 'chancing their arm' with this lot!
David
0 -
Having experienced this problem and made my own measurements I believe the replacement axle is set approx 10mm or so lower adding to the clearance. With the new axle clearance improved from <20mm to about 55mm.
My van was inspected with gas and most other items needed for a short stay gas, fluids, chairs, water and waste containers, kitchen kit and other bits and bobs etc but under plated MTPLM. I doubt many are inspected empty but I maybe wrong.
Another odd thing when my van was diagnosed as having a problem I aske Alko if it was safe to use, they said yes! I then asked Bailey as the vehicle manufacturer to confirm this but they declined to reply But within a week I had the gesture of goodwill letter.....
0 -
I have written on this before but just to repeat briefly, our series 3 Unicorn suffered the dreaded 'broken axle' and was repaired under warranty although Bailey claimed it had been overloaded. This led me to look more closely at payload and realise that after taking account of the leisure battery and mover the remaining 95kg (approx) was nowhere near sufficient for a 6 week excursion to France, Italy and Germany, which is what we had done. As soon as the Bailey was returned, we swapped it for a Coachman VIP which we had replated to 1800 kg. I have had this 'van on a weighbridge and as a result, we no longer, for instance, stock up on food to take away. I have looked back at caravans we owned in the '80s and'90s and the payloads were much higher than modern'vans
0 -
I have just checked our Bailey Olympus 464 (2010) and the clearance above the wheel is 40mm, stub axles level. The payload over the basic delivery weight is 195kg which I judge to more than cover our normal travelling equipment plus battery and gas etc.. Worth noting also that my newly fitted E-go Titanium weighs in at 30+ kg.
This, I guess, indicates that my axle is OK so far. Must check the weights of clothing etc next time out. I am not permitted to supervise the OH clothing storage!!
My own take on this is that the permitted axle bearing capacity assumes even distribution. Designers re-sited gas bottles etc for convenience. This can, and does if you check, certainly on some vans means that the weight is very much biased to one side.
Has anyone whose axle has failed checked this possibility?
0 -
I have previously reported on this issue having had a failed axle on a Swift 514 which we had to pay for a replacement.
It is my opinion that manufactures have designed many caravan layouts with all the heavy appliances on the offside of the van, this probably has contributed to the high number of axle failures on any van which is fitted with the ALKO axle.
The fact that many owners have had to foot the cost of repair due to what appears to be a fundamental design fault is disappointing,as far as I can see Bailey is the only company that has acknowledged that there is an issue with the design or rating of the axle, this may lead to the conclusion that ALKO are not at fault but it is the van manufacturer who specified the weight limit or design specification.
Whatever the conclusion it cannot be right that owners have had to pay for repairs to a van that may not be fit for purpose and we should maybe look at collating a database of ALKO axle failures with which to prepare a case for those owners who have had no option but to pay up, any volunteers ?
0 -
isn't that what the NCC is for. I thought that they are the ones that should be the mediators ( so to speak ) to bring the manufacturers and dealers and customers together and resolve issues or are they just a waste of time . what is the point of the NCC.
0 -
The NCC is basically a trade organisation which looks after its members’ interests. Its members being the trade, not customers.
0 -
This sounds as much like a description of the CAMC as it does the NCC. What are they doing for members suffering this problem? I'm sure they have the odd database expert in their team somewhere!
0 -
Now you would think that as we all pay to be CAMC members that one of the most useful functions of such a club would be to pursue safety related defects on behalf of its membership, or quality issues. But alas no the CAMC are more interested in assisting LV manufacturers in selling us members more of the same old offerings of dubious design, build quality and IMO safety concerning axles.
0 -
Neutral? See my earlier post re the NCC. No one protects customers' interests other than the law. How I would love to be proved wrong!
0 -
Hi. I came across this discussion as I have a Lunar that I suspect has this problem. It’s just 3 months old and been with the supplying dealer for the last month.
i first noticed that it ‘leant’ to the offside a month into ownership, a when I measured the height of the wheel spat each side there was a 20mm discrepancy. In addition the gap between the wheel arch and tyre was so tight that I could not get my hand in to measure the distance between the top of the tyre and the inner wheel arch.
Alko has sent an engineer and we are awaiting his report. Lunar (without even seeing the van) have been very defensive and just said in essence it’s the design of the van.
The point that caught my eye was that’s from ‘cokee the cat’ when they said they had a 15mm lean. I’d be interested to hear if/how things have progressed.
0 -
I know the technical department are aware of the axle issues with Bailey and other manufacturers. Anyone who has experienced this problem should write or email them. If they get sufficient response I'm sure they will take further action. Basically it needs as many as possible to email technical@camc.com outlining the problem and what action has been taken by the manufacturer/ dealer.
We identified a problem which we reported to our dealer. They arranged for an inspection by Alko, who confirmed we had a dropped axle and that it needed replacement. Bailey agreed to do it as 'a measure of goodwill' and our caravan is due to go in for repair in March. They claim that the van may have been overloaded at sometime during its ownership. I know how careful I have been, to the point of being neurotic about not overloading the caravan. Never in 30 years have I before had an axle problem, so I challenge this statement. However, at least Bailey have agreed to replace the axle as a measure of goodwill. The problem is 'goodwill' at this point could very well mean if it happens again, neither Bailey or their extended warranty supplier will consider it under warranty following the 'goodwill' replacement.
There is a Facebook group with a specific interest in Bailey axle problems called 'Bailey Axle Problems Family'. It would certainly be worthwhile joining, if you have or have had an axle problem with a Bailey Caravan.
The axle problem is not perculiar to Bailey. If you have a problem do let the technical advisors aware of the problem.
David
0 -
If you are having the Alko engineer visit ask to be present. Make sure you van is under MTPLM by taking it to a weighbridge before the visit.
My axle was deemed a failure with 18mm ns and 23mm os. Wear could be seen on the plastic wheel are liner, i.e. there is no bumpstop to prevent the wheel entering the body of the van. The new one fitted was 55mm ns and 60mm os unloaded. I believe the new axle is modified to give an approx extra 10mm of clearance over the previous axle by moving the mounting points.
0 -
Yes goodwill but still with the accusation of overloading and a reminder to review the caravan handbook. If that was the case then why modify the replacement axle? I believe there is caravan design issue combined with a failure of the rubber suspension component used.
Caravan design, lack of wheel arch clearance combined with specifying max axle rating too close to MTPLM.
Rubber suspension component possibly incorrectly processed / cured leading to the progressive collapse of the suspension.
I would guess that there are van manufacturers out there with large wheel arch clearances whose owners will never know they have an axle problem unless a service picks it up.
Of course speculation on my part but I have taken a special interest in this since being afflicted.
Btw if your axle has been replaced watch out for brake squeal. I had scored drums and shoes replaced on my new axle at 600 miles!!
I can't see anything happening on this unless it becomes a safety issue .
0 -
I had my axle sorted out but I see for others it could have unfortunately been a problem.
As I mentioned before safety maybe the way to make the manufacturers take notice.
IMO If you are having problems getting an axle replaced and overloading cannot be proven ie when the van when tested by Alko is measured under MTPLM.( If over you have no chance! ) Pursue safety Ask the question, is my van still safe to use with a failed axle? Write a letter to the van manufacturer and the axle supplier recorded delivery asking if the van is safe to use, ask for an answer by return. copy DVSA. Enough numbers may get attention.
Again IMO after subsequently looking at the axle design I believe there is nothing to stop the suspension arm fully rotating in the case of the rubber completely shearing / failing. Surely a collapsed axle is heading this way? Safety issue, I would hope?
If VW or Ford had a batch of springs fail I imagine there would be a recall, is this that different?
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-recalls-and-faults/report-a-serious-safety-defect
Advice above from DVSA, if there are many reports maybe something might happen?
Maybe an alternative or parralel route to the club technical department?
0 -
Thanks viatorem. My email went yesterday and I got a supportive reply from them almost straight away saying they are collecting information - hence my post above. They are also aware that the axle problem is effecting other caravan manufacturers too. I wouldn't post anything on CT that might compromise any possible response/ action by the Club.
David
0
