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

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#241

Post by TylerE » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:09 AM UTC

lemoncucumber wrote: post #138

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…

Ironically pedestrian safety standards have generally raised hoods. The idea being that’s it better to not fling them up and over like a shovel

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#242

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:11 AM UTC

alacombe wrote: post #238

Robotbeat wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Outlier locations will have outlier problems. That's not necessarily something to be worried about.

The average post office has six delivery vehicles if I did the math right.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#243

Post by Evidlo » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:12 AM UTC

pengaru wrote: post #71

This vehicle would be so much more adorable if they'd given it a more face-like front end, like an NA Miata, or anything more fitting to the Cars movie franchise.

We could create a cute USPS mascot and make it a job requirement to wear the costume. Japan has tons of them.

https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/Y9p1j/s4/mitsubishi-minica...

I propose this eagle:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61M%2BFV3aD...

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#244

Post by TylerE » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:15 AM UTC

zelon88 wrote: post #163

raldi wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYPD uses Impalas

That's slightly better, but they have used Crown Victoria's in the past. Kind of hard to continue using them when they've long been discontinued. But still, why the Impala? Why an 18mpg, FWD, 300hp transversely mounted engine design? Why kneecap yourself with a shit car? When do they use the full potential of the Impala, or the Crown Vic, or the EcoBoost Explorer? Even in the 90s and 2000s. Why not solicit contracts…

They have power because they need to chase things.

Basic fleet models would have gotten the base 200hp engine.

In an application with multi shift operation (like shared taxis) there is a lot to be said for an understressed v8.

Availability is likely worth more than a bit of marginal fuel cost - which likely didn’t see that many miles... lots of idling, which btw small turbo engines generally don’t like

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#245

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:15 AM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #200

nradov wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At most post offices the trucks are parked outside without electrical outlets nearby. Sure those can be built but it will take a while. In many cases the circuit supplying the facility will have to be upgraded.

Any parking lot with lamp posts has electricity. Takes way less time to install an exterior outlet than it does to build a vehicle.

[deleted]

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#246

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:19 AM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #239

Robotbeat wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Be…

$482 million is just the first payment. They're not making the vehicles for $12k each.

And while 1% is too optimistic, you'd presumably install multiple outlets at a time.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#247

Post by eecc » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:19 AM UTC

Don’t these “bespoke design” make these tenders skyrocket in price? Couldn’t they have retrofitted a standard van?

These excesses - typically designed to feed the government undergrowth - remind me of what the early Thatcherites complained about.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#248

Post by fingerlocks » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:20 AM UTC

gibolt wrote: post #229

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you are comparing a theoretical modern EV to the terrible efficiency of the old LLV. They didn’t choose to continue buying the old LLV, they are buying a vehicle with a new ICE. So the comparison makes little sense.

Repair and maintenance are probably far more expensive than the gas costs, especially as a government contract. Gas prices will also increase as demand falls of a cliff over the coming decade. Electric wins on all fronts in cost, simplicity, and city health

I doubt maintenance & repair costs be more expensive for an ICE engine. The actual engine part requires little maintenance: occasional oil changes each year, spark plugs every five years, and maybe a belt in 10 years? I guess brake pads might be more common, but those are still a once every few years thing and inexpensive.

All other common repair items would the same for an EV: suspension, various ball and CV joints, tires, AC, body damage, sensors, bushings, etc

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#249

Post by BoorishBears » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:29 AM UTC

gibolt wrote: post #229

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you are comparing a theoretical modern EV to the terrible efficiency of the old LLV. They didn’t choose to continue buying the old LLV, they are buying a vehicle with a new ICE. So the comparison makes little sense.

Repair and maintenance are probably far more expensive than the gas costs, especially as a government contract. Gas prices will also increase as demand falls of a cliff over the coming decade. Electric wins on all fronts in cost, simplicity, and city health

There is no reason an efficient ICE can't have cheaper maintenance than an EV.

In this day and age, reliable ICE drivetrains are pretty much a solved issue if you're not trying to make tons of horsepower (which they're not)

Most of the maintenance with a modern ICE has nothing to do with the drivetrain. Tires, brakes, suspension components, filters, all things that EVs still have (brakes get a respite from regen, but the extra weight takes the savings back for the tires).

Oil changes with modern synthetics and low performance demands can be 15k+ apart.

Then there's the fact you can get an ICE drivetrain repaired anywhere and fuel up anywhere.

The cost of building up a repair and charging infrastructure alone would probably have killed any savings.

This is not an anti-EV post, but it is an anti-antiquated-ideas-about-ICE post.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#250

Post by fingerlocks » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 6:35 AM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #212

robocat wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wikipedia article gives examples of safety tests where the T3 tested as relatively safe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Type_2_(T3)#Safety_...

The T3 has a nose though...

No it doesn’t.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Transporter