Fiamma Bike Rack Failure

I am not convinced that it is only the top rail that needs to be well secured. A severe sleeping policeman could cause quite an uplift on the bottom rail. If you are tooled up to fit a couple of toggles then you might as well fit four. (or 8 even), particularly since the lower ones are (from the sound of it) easier to get to.

The installation instructions for the 'fix' say there is no need to reinforce the lower mounting bar.  But you are right.  A sharp upward jolt of a fully loaded rack could be enough to pull the lower mounting bar off.  There is very good access to the back of the lower mounting bar batten so there would be no need to use toggle bolts.  Conventional bolts would do, so no need for the drilled holes to be oversize.  However, only one bolt at the end of each mounting bar can be used.  A-S have butchered the mounting bars by drilling holes through them to take their wood screws at the four points the rack is secured to the mounting bars.  The only way of fitting more bolts would be to break and remove the adhesive holding the mounting bars to the back of the van and then fit coach bolts whose heads are captivated by sliding them into the mounting bar's profile as per Fiamma's fitting instructions.

Honestly, the more I read of this thread the more annoyed I get with AS. Quite ridiculous that owners have to go through such hoops or take it to willersey or dealers for fixing a problem which should have  been foreseeable. 
Cymro

It gets worse.  Yesterday out of the blue I had a call from my Marquis dealer.  They have never phoned before.  I thought they were going to tell me about the bike rack fix and invite me to have it done.  Nothing of kind.  When I asked about the fix they knew nothing about it.  All they were doing was seeing if we still had our Nuevo.  As we know, Marquis and A-S are joined at the hip.

Paulmold wrote:All enquiries go through the leentech system, you just have to register an account.

Thanks Paul.

We are now at Camping de Haro, on our way back having driven all the way down through France, Barcelona and Benicassim. Sorry for the tardy response, we didn't want to jinx anything, but I am happy to report that our 2x23kg ebikes have travelled safely on the rack with our toggle bolts insitu.

We have had some minor unrelated issues but will post these elsewhere. We will use the leentech system when (not if!!) we need it in future.

Thank God for this forum. I've just 'upgraded' my 2012 Nuevo to a 2022 Nuevo and seen I can no longer transport my lekky bikes. I guess I will have to get a towbar fitted, but that extra weight concerns me. Have any of you got any recommendations for a lightweight towbar? Thanks.

You might want to check this but I estimate that the COG of a tow bar will be 180 cm behind the rear axle and the COG of a loaded tow ball rack will be 240 cm behind the rear axle.  

As the Nuevo wheelbase is 300 cm, the additional weight on the rear axle will then be 180/300 x the tow bar weight + the tow bar weight + 240/300 x the loaded tow ball rack weight + the loaded tow ball rack weight.  So if the tow bar weighs say 28 kg and the loaded tow ball rack weighs say 80 kg, the overall increase in weight on the rear axle will be 188.8 kg.  The increase in weight on the rear axle will be less if you use lower figures. 

From the 2023 A-S Handbook, the 2022 Nuevo ES Boxer appears to have a rear axle loading margin of 394 kg.  However, if you take your Nuevo to a weigh bridge when it is fully loaded for a trip less tow bar and bikes, you will get an actual rear axle mass.  Subtract this from 2,000 kg and it will tell you how much rear axle loading margin you have left for a tow bar and loaded tow ball rack.  

If your Nuevo has its original tyres, they will have a load index of 109 = 1030 kg.  The UK tyre industry and TyreSafe recommend that an axle mass should not be more that 90% of its tyres maximum permitted load.  For the 109 load index tyres this works out at 1854 kg.  So although the Nuevo's rear axle has a MTPLM of 2,000 kg, the UK tyre industry and TyreSafe recommend it should not exceed 1854 kg if it has its original tyres.  I am pretty certain that if you fit a tow bar and a loaded tow ball bike rack, your rear axle mass will be more than 1854 kg which is food for thought.  If this concerns you you could fit slightly wider 225 tyres to your R15 wheels with a higher load index of 112 = 1120 kg, which would allow all of the rear axle's MTPLM of 2,000 kg to be used.

Thanks for your advise.

I've seen a chassis mounted bike rack suitable for E Bikes called the Memo M-Star. Its strong and should be lighter than a towbar mounted rack.

Does anyone have any experience of these?

Thanks

I own a 2022, AS Burford Duo from new.

In 2023 on my way to Tipperary with two Claude Butler bikes attached.
On arrival Bikes, rack and bars had detached somewhere on route.
Being well aware of the maximum 60kgs loading including the bike rack, total weight was under 40kgs.

AS HQ service centre on inspection of what glue was left on the rear of the MH and the way it was applied, said there was insufficient adhesive applied to the bars.
They replaced bars and bike rack FOC, however they fitted an Ebike rack which is against AS guidance.

2024 the MH has developed a stress crack on the offside wall at bottom right corner of front window, internal separation wall has detached from offside wall, rising about 60cm from floor leaving a 5mm gap, and nearside front moulding has developed two cracks.

It was delivered to Marquis Preston at 10:00 on  Monday 21/11/24 to return it to AS manufacturing , which is now into its seventh week, which equates to 2 months less warranty.

I had two independent engineers reports which both saying the entire offside wall needs replacing.

Marquis stress that AS will only repair to there S.O.P.

Has anyone had anymore issues with motorhomes cracking after repairs?

Kind regards

Lawrence Deehan

Not what you're asking but did they pay for replacement bikes?

Hi All.
Apologies for delayed reply.
AS replaced bike bars and bike rack FOC.
They refused to compensate for the two bikes.
AS held a meeting lasting some 4/5 hours to discuss weather they should do a recall or issue a service bulletin to dealers to check bars when doing a service.
As a driving Instructure I advised of the serious implications these detachments could have on road safety and that they had a legal and moral obligation to proceed without delay.
I have never been informed of a recall regarding this issue.
The replacement bike rack was an E Bike rack, which goes against the AS guidance as listed below.

The installation of the Fiamma Cycle Carrier Mounting Rails on the backs of Auto-Sleeper coachbuilt ranges has been specifically designed for the standard Fiamma Pro C range of cycle carriers and under no circumstances should any E-Bike carrier, Fiamma or otherwise be fitted to these rails nor shall Existing Fiamma Pro C carriers be upgraded by fitting the Fiamma Kit Upgrade E Bike.

This is what Fiamma say which you have probably read:

Carry-bike Pro C new style for 2023. Rear bike carrier for coach built motorhomes for carrying 2 bikes as standard but can be made to carry up to 4 standard bikes with the optional upgrade kits. The new design now features a rail plus with round tubing allowing you to carry 2 E-bikes with no additional kit needed.
The tall and highly adjustable frame size of the Carry Bike Pro mean it is very stable and can be adjusted so installation brackets can be worked around almost any obstruction in the motorhome wall. Fiamma Carry Bike Pro is highly recommended by experts in the industry as the strongest bike carrier in the market.
The bolt-through-wall installation makes the Fiamma Carry Bike Pro range suitable for motorhomes without pre-installed bike rack mounting brackets, and the bike rack comes with all required fixings and mountings. The compact size of the Pro C model mean it is ideal for installation below the motorhome rear window or where you want the internal bolt plates to be hidden inside the garage compartment or a low cupboard.

If I were in your shoes, no way would I settle for them refusing to compensate for the loss of the bikes.

There is enough evidence to be gathered online from others experiencing identical problems to prove that this method of attaching the rack mounting is not fit for purpose.

Options to consider would be via Trading Standards or else instigating a County Court Action which can be started via the HM Courts and Tribunals Service Money Claim Online website. A formal Letter Before Action advising your intention to do this is often sufficient to achieve a result.

In view of the number of people reporting this on here and on many other forums (fora?) I am surprised that folks haven't got together to start a Class Action (aka Group Claim in the UK) over this - I'm sure one of the specialist law firms might take this one on as there would seem to be a good chance of winning.

This has reminded me that I am not sure where my e-bikes are insured, but more to the point of this thread if one has legal expenses insurance on the vehicle policy (for uninsured losses) it may be possible to claim for the bikes via that. The LE lawyers would get their teeth into AS!

As it is my first venture into M/Homing, first insurance, I had no wish to put in a claim.
The other problem was identifying where the loss occurred, it could have been in the North of Ireland or Southern Ireland.
I only hope no one was injured or suffered due to the failure.
I received a letter from The Marquis aftersales manager regarding the loss, it was appalling.

I read elsewhere that you have instigated legal proceedings. In that case, it’s probably not an appropriate move to attempt to discuss the issue on a public forum.

Do let us know the outcome.

Hi Tinwheeler

My intentions are twofold.
1. To highlight the failings of my AS MH and management at Marquis and AS, for the protection of buyers and owners of AS products.

2. To seek help from others that have suffered similar failings and treatment from management. With the goal, to smooth a path for them to be treated fairly and promptly.

It would seem I am the only one taking the legal route for redress, I intend to furnish the information others may find useful to attain their goals for redress.

Stay safe.

If you are on Facebook,  there's a group called Auto-Sleepers owners group, enter 'bike rack' in the search facility of that group and there are lots of owners with same problem racks.

On the same group, put 'cracks' in the search and you'll find you are far from being alone.

LCDEEHAN wrote:Hi Tinwheeler

My intentions are twofold.
1. To highlight the failings of my AS MH and management at Marquis and AS, for the protection of buyers and owners of AS products.

2. To seek help from others that have suffered similar failings and treatment from management. With the goal, to smooth a path for them to be treated fairly and promptly.

It would seem I am the only one taking the legal route for redress, I intend to furnish the information others may find useful to attain their goals for redress.

Stay safe.

1. Along with many others, been there, done that and got the battle scars.

2. Take care that you don’t prejudice the outcome of your own case.

You may be the only one taking the legal route at this time but you are not the first.

Hi Paulmold

Thank you for the info, much appreciated.