Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#231

Post by dingaling » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 5:52 AM UTC

jcrawfordor wrote: post #115

meepmorp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US mail trucks have the driver on the right hand side (as opposed to the left), so that they can deliver mail without having to get out of the driver's seat. Which naturally means we can't just reuse trucks made for the UK or other Commonwealth markets because... China or socialism or whatever.

While USPS is not subject to "Buy America" requirements, like most quasi-governmental organizations it does have an acquisition policy of purchasing vehicles from US manufacturers rather than overseas when possible. This aligns with the general US system of preferential government purchasing, in which federal purchasing decisions are based partially on policy objectives such as promoting small businesses and US manuf…

What surprises me us that the USPS is buying the vehicles directly from Oshkosh as a customer, rather than buying the technical design package and contracting construction out to several smaller companies.

Unit cost would be higher but it would be laying the groundwork for the next generation of vehicle, sustaining those smaller companies and encouraging innovation. As well as avoiding too much reliance on one supplier.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#232

Post by TylerE » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 5:55 AM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #172

shkkmo wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect there is a high level of variance in both the length of different routes and the availability of power in parking areas for mail trucks.

Grumman LLVs only have a 120 mile range. This is already double. And sure, maybe you’ll want an RV style outlet (also pretty cheap) in case of 5% of vehicles where 120V wouldn’t be enough.

The LLV can refuel in 5 minutes at over 160,000 public locations.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#233

Post by dorfsmay » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 5:56 AM UTC

colineartheta wrote: post #216

hellbannedguy wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine they will keep a few gas powered vehicles for very hot climates.

What? AC is unrelated to the energy source of the drivetrain.

At the end of the day, you need enough energy onboard, and gas is much more dense.

Hybrid cars turn the ICE engine on at intersection when AC or heat is on, to convert gas into electricity and avoid depleting the batteries completely.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#234

Post by TylerE » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 5:58 AM UTC

josho wrote: post #153

cialowicz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Did you watch the video? The Volkswagen faired as ‘safe as a car’. It was the other manufacturers that failed miserably. My conclusion from watching is that it seems like safety is a design problem that not every mfg designed for.

Cars were many times less safe in 1984.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#235

Post by TylerE » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 5:58 AM UTC

KingOfCoders wrote: post #227

olivermarks wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICE firewalls are designed to deflect the enginedown and under in a head on collision. Vans with engine sitting between the driver and passenger in a doghouse, or worse engine in back makes their knees first on the scene of impact with little protection. The more bodywork and chassis/monocoque between you and the crumple zone the better.

Did you watch the video? It says the exactly opposite thing. No impact to knees. No impact from steering wheel. Comparable to normal cars with hoods.

Cars in 1984 were death traps, too.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#236

Post by Evidlo » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:00 AM UTC

tolbish wrote: post #201

creato wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's annoying to have to constantly wonder if I'm saying something offensive when I absolutely do not intend that. In this case, I wouldn't have thought anything was wrong with "mail lady" and might have said the same thing if my mail carrier were a woman (which she is). Now I read this thread and realize that some people would think it is a problem. This cultural wave of making seemingly harmless language into probl…

It's not that the term "mail lady" offends anyone. It doesn't. The point is that singling out her gender is needless, and kinda seems a bit strange if gender was never really pertinent to the story in the first place. "Cancel culture" would be going through high school recommended reading lists and removing books that focused "wrongly" on gender or something.

> It's not that the term "mail lady" offends anyone. It doesn't.

I think that's too generous. I've definitely met people who just enjoy feeling indignation at anything.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#237

Post by alacombe » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:03 AM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #147

s0rce wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the charging infrastructure isn't available?

A literal 120V exterior outlet? 83% of these vehicles drive in the city. They drive on average 18 miles a day (typical routes being about 45 miles). You don't need a 150kW Supercharger station, you just need a 1.2kW regular old 120V exterior outlet used for trimming the bushes. Even a cheap RV hookup would be overkill. If a federal government agency in the most powerful national on the planet can't take the most obvi…

One outlet is certainly fine, 100 outsets, not so much.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#238

Post by alacombe » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:05 AM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #174

kube-system wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are probably very few outlets where mail trucks currently park. These things are parked in the middle of parking lots, not in garages. And you need more than one outlet, you need one for every truck that parks there. And I am sure no current USPS office has power service hooked up for several hundred amps of draw that was never anticipated to be used. There's no way to do a project this big without phasing…

These vehicles ARE being phased in slowly. And installing 100-200 Amps of commercial service is cheap, and I actually think would largely be unnecessary as they can be set to charge at night when office demand is super low.

A 100 vehicle fleet would require not 100-200 Amps service, but 1500 Amp service, and that's a whole different problem.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#239

Post by kube-system » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:06 AM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #207

kube-system wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not saying and have not said electricity is the hard part. The logistics of steering the world's highest volume postal operation (with financial issues as it stands) is the hard part. The USPS handles 43% of the world's mail. There are no projects of this size that aren't phased in, which is apparently what they are doing. Some of these vehicles will be electric, so it stands to reason that they will also be bui…

Except these vehicles are not going to be immediately dumped onto all USPS parking lots. They are going to be built over a period of years. Adding an outlet for each vehicle would cost on the order of 1% of the vehicle cost and would be paid for in fuel savings within a couple months. Look, I don't know where this idea came from that electricity is this hard problem. It's not. As it is now, many of these LLVs have to…

Parking spaces in the US are, by and large, not commonly populated with dryer outlets or RV hookups. This is a common issue that affects EV adoption, particularly when people lease the property where they park their car.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/business/electric-cars-ci...

You are entirely correct that the concept of an electrical outlet is not difficult. Commercial real estate is a bit harder, however.

Bear in mind that this contract is for a company to build trucks, and what you describe would be work that is out of scope anyway. The current fleet is way past its replacement date, and needed to be replaced about 10 years ago already. The USPS has funding issues at the moment and it is entirely possible that they cannot afford to do everything at once.

While you claim that it is "1% of the vehicle cost", I think some quick math would indicate that there's no way this is right. 4.8 million dollars to retrofit 40,000 locations for EV charging? That's $120 per station. You won't even be able to pull a work permit for $120.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#240

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:07 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #232

Robotbeat wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grumman LLVs only have a 120 mile range. This is already double. And sure, maybe you’ll want an RV style outlet (also pretty cheap) in case of 5% of vehicles where 120V wouldn’t be enough.

The LLV can refuel in 5 minutes at over 160,000 public locations.

It sure can!

That's also much much more flexibility than it needs. For a low-mileage fleet vehicle it's deep into diminishing returns.