Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 398 posts

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#131

Post by analog31 »

boothby wrote: post #110
analog31 wrote: post #101

If I could specify exactly what I want a vehicle to do, and have it designed for me, it would look weird too: 1. All electric 2. Can transport a double bass 3. But no bigger than necessary 4. Meets decent safety requirements

Real talk, my mom plays bass. We fit that, two adults, two kids, a pair of fiddles and backpacks for a weekend away: all into a Geo Metro. The trick is to put the neck down between the drivers with the rear seats folded down, and then fold them up. Wasn't terribly comfortable back there, but we were small enough to deal with it. Oh. You edited your post to say "decent safety requirements". A '91 Metro probably doesn'…

Indeed, I drive a small, old Toyota hatchback right now. Mostly I get around town by bike. My spouse and I would like our next car to be an electric if this one ever gives out, but my fear is that all cars seem to be getting bigger and bigger.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#132

Post by Robotbeat »

It's interesting that "cost" is the reason given for why these vehicles aren't electric, but... how could that be? Batteries for electric carmakers are not that expensive any more, maybe $150/kWh.

LLVs are currently horrendously inefficient (fleet average of about 9mpg). They have a ~13 gallon tank for a range of about 120 miles. They drive about 18 miles a day on average (total fleet average, so some are idle and probably the typical route is 45 miles, but 18 miles is good for our purposes) and burn 2 gallons of gas. At $3/gallon, that's about $6 a day in fuel costs (and let's ignore brakes and oil changes). We could put a 75kWh battery in that thing, easily get 250 mile range (double the range of what the LLV is). For an efficiency of about 3.33 miles per kWh, and an average commercial electricity price of 11 cents per kWh, that's 59 cents per day in electricity cost. So every day, the electric one would save $5.40 in fuel costs (net).

Even with that generous 75kWh battery, you're talking just 6 years for it to pay for the electric battery to pay for itself in fuel costs vs the old vehicle. And these things are designed to last for multiple decades, plus this will drastically reduce oil changes and brake servicing costs. Are they really that cash strapped they'll ignore something that can save them that much? The US federal government definitely isn't strapped for cash. Does this really boil down to punitive fiscal requirements for the USPS put on by Congress and DeJoy? Because if so, that's inexcusable.

Or perhaps no one bid a competitively low price for an electric powertrain?

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#133

Post by specialist »

Groxx wrote: post #124
kumarvvr wrote: post #89

Why are looks so important anyways? Clearly USPS is trying to look after its employees, trying to ensure they have the best vehicle, suited for their work with minimal hassle.

That's a stupendously low step-in height. Probably makes a huge impact in reducing RSI and other repeated-motion injuries. More weirdness please. Looks great to me.

Ya, this new design isn't nearly 'weird" enough.

Why have a nose at all?

Put driver's seat over the front wheels. Like the VW Vanagon (Eurovans). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Type_2_(T3)

These are gonna be EVs, right? Might as well do it right.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#135

Post by patrickyeon »

thepasswordis wrote: post #86
daveslash wrote: post #57

I had never seen a USPS vehicle until I was a legal adult and moved to college. I grew up in a very rural part of New England, America - on a dirt road. Winter had plenty of snow and plowing wasn't a guarantee at all . Considering the USPS Creed "Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds" -- Snow is the first one ! Our "mail lady"** drov…

Okay I'm genuinely curious why "mail lady" wouldn't fly today. ...why not?

Gendered terms are becoming less popular to describe people in situations where their gender doesn't matter. So we might say "mail person" or "mail carrier", the same as we say "firefighter" instead of "fireman".

It's not "cancel culture" as the sibling comment suggests; it's rarely people being outraged about imagined attacks. It's just language evolving as society evolves. As an added bonus, sticking with non-gendered terms means you don't accidentally insult someone by assuming something based on their body type or haircut, and it leaves space for non-binary or non-conforming people to not be accidentally made to feel unwelcome.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#136

Post by s0rce »

Robotbeat wrote: post #132

It's interesting that "cost" is the reason given for why these vehicles aren't electric, but... how could that be? Batteries for electric carmakers are not that expensive any more, maybe $150/kWh. LLVs are currently horrendously inefficient (fleet average of about 9mpg). They have a ~13 gallon tank for a range of about 120 miles. They drive about 18 miles a day on average (total fleet average, so some are idle and pr…

Maybe the charging infrastructure isn't available?

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#137

Post by Mountain_Skies »

adventured wrote: post #119
whomst wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USPS also uses Jeeps in the sticks, but those aren't common enough to be seen by most people.

In the sticks they frequently outsource to authorized personally owned vehicles. Those are common all throughout Appalachia for example. They call them rural carrier associates. Here is the pitch: "As a Postal Service™ Rural Carrier Associate (RCA), you will have a continuous, part-time job with a reliable employer. If you are retired, self-employed, an at-home parent, an educator, night student, or are employed on a…

My last house was serviced by RCAs. One had a Subaru Outback with a system of gears and pullies that let it be driven from the right side without removing the factory left side drive. Another had an actual right hand drive vehicle, probably imported. There's likely a small but strong demand for right hand drive vehicles that happen to end up in the US with RCAs buying most of them.

A few simply had two people in the vehicle, one driving and the other placing mail in the mailboxes.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#138

Post by lemoncucumber »

amyjess wrote: post #52

TBH I'd entirely support the NHTSA making the new mail truck's low hood height mandatory on all new vehicles. It would make being hit by an SUV have a far, far safer outcome.

“Over the past decade, automotive safety regulators in Europe have made pedestrian safety a priority. But their American counterparts have not adopted the same rules to protect people outside of vehicles. As pedestrian deaths rise alarmingly fast in the U.S., with nearly 6,000 lives lost last year, the difference between the American and European approaches to the regulation of car design stands out strongly.”

Source: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/12/07/while-other-countries...

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#139

Post by cialowicz »

specialist wrote: post #133
Groxx wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a stupendously low step-in height. Probably makes a huge impact in reducing RSI and other repeated-motion injuries. More weirdness please. Looks great to me.

Ya, this new design isn't nearly 'weird" enough. Why have a nose at all? Put driver's seat over the front wheels. Like the VW Vanagon (Eurovans). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Type_2_(T3) These are gonna be EVs, right? Might as well do it right.

Having a nose that crumples is helpful in case of accidents. Turns out that VW Vanagons are deathtraps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmixmEkfLu0

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#140

Post by drewzero1 »

thepasswordis wrote: post #86
daveslash wrote: post #57

I had never seen a USPS vehicle until I was a legal adult and moved to college. I grew up in a very rural part of New England, America - on a dirt road. Winter had plenty of snow and plowing wasn't a guarantee at all . Considering the USPS Creed "Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds" -- Snow is the first one ! Our "mail lady"** drov…

Okay I'm genuinely curious why "mail lady" wouldn't fly today. ...why not?

Probably just because of the gendered noun? "Mailman" and "mail lady" having been replaced in general use by the non-gendered "mail carrier" or "postal worker."
Post reply on HN