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

301–310 of 398 posts

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#301

Post by namibj »

gsnedders wrote: post #165
dangerbird2 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mail trucks have pretty drastically different requirements than a parcel delivery truck. Mail trucks are designed for a right sided driver and lots of stops on every block, so good visibility to avoid crashing into oncoming traffic or hitting pedestrians in the front is obligatory. Amazon, UPS, and friends have much more infrequent stops. USPS also needs vehicles that can last for decades with much lower maintenance…

And this is a significant difference to how mail is delivered in most of Europe, where the vast majority of last-mile delivery is done on foot or on bike, and relatively little is done by vehicle. Density undoubtedly plays a fair role here.

Not just density. Many neighborhoods aren't (safely) accessible without a car in the US.

They may only be connected to a highway, with no bus service to it.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#303

Post by chrisseaton »

dangerbird2 wrote: post #129
chrisseaton wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The same reason Amazon runs its own shipping network instead of relying on UPS or Fedex. Amazon use off-the-shelf vehicles though. > one of the requirements was long service life I wonder how they require that. Does the manufacturer have to warranty them all for 30 years? That's extraordinary!

Mail trucks have pretty drastically different requirements than a parcel delivery truck. Mail trucks are designed for a right sided driver and lots of stops on every block, so good visibility to avoid crashing into oncoming traffic or hitting pedestrians in the front is obligatory. Amazon, UPS, and friends have much more infrequent stops. USPS also needs vehicles that can last for decades with much lower maintenance…

> requirements ... obligatory ... needs ...

Yet other countries' mail services manage without all these things just fine?

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#305

Post by chrismorgan »

mypalmike wrote: post #278
gibolt wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Decreased demand would tend to result in reduced prices, not increased prices.

The laws of supply and demand only work that way if supply is limited, which is very often not the case. A lot of production benefits from economies of scale, where fixed overheads are dwarfed by unit costs. In such cases, decreased demand results in reduced production, which results in the loss of economies of scale as production overheads remain the same or similar, thereby increasing in magnitude relative to unit costs.

Maybe it costs ten gajillion dollars to produce one litre of petrol, but twenty gajillion dollars to produce one bazillion litres of petrol.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#306

Post by makomk »

clort wrote: post #265
SECProto wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised how much load runs through a chain of streetlights. 3phase/400V and they pull heavy duty conductors through the conduit. Could definitely handle multiple 120v/15A equivalents (but it'd be way cheaper and more effective to pull dedicated conduit + conductor)

also: In my city (in UK) the lamp posts date from a long time ago. Only a few years ago all the sodium lamps were replaced by lower power LEDs, which presumably means that much of the cabling is now massively redundant.

Don't underestimate the efficiency of old-fashioned sodium lamps, they're pretty close to that of LEDs from what I understand. I think part of the reason places are so keen to install LED streetlights is that on paper they have a much longer lifespan than the bulbs in the sodium lamps they're replacing. Also, they're more modern and everyone knows how efficient they are.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#307

Post by xtiansimon »

My local USPS are driving the Mercedes-Benz Metris van, which replaced the Grumman LLV. What I miss most is the low gear acceleration noise. It was distinct and more times than not, upon hearing this the vehicle outside was the mail truck. The Mercedes is stealth in comparison. The story is just funny right there, but for recent packages having been stolen while I was home. I miss the ‘windup’ LLV.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#308

Post by mauvehaus »

solarkraft wrote: post #290
jfoutz wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s more about timing. Rfp in 2015, the ev landscape was different, and not super clear battery technology would be where it is now.

To some people it was. I have wondered then and I wonder now how it wasn't clear.

The LLV's are not merely old, they're ancient. The EV marketplace still isn't particularly mature: there are competing charging networks, the charging standards are still evolving, and in the US, there are perhaps two mainstream manufacturers of pure BEVs (Tesla and Nissan).

If you're the sort of customer who keeps a vehicle 3 years and then upgrades, none of this is likely a worry for you. Any shakeup in the charging networks or incompatible changes to the standards will probably happen long after you sell the car.

The USPS, on the other hand is in this for the long haul. It seems reasonable to suppose that they'll have their own charging network, so problem solved, right? Wrong. They'll still need parts support every part of this operation for at least 35 years if they keep them as long as the LLVs.

Remember the lengths one dedicated person had to go to to resurrect the DE-19 connector[0]. You're looking at that problem multiplied by thousands of parts.

I've always coveted the original Honda Insight (the two seater), and one popped up for sale near me last year so I did some research. First party support is pretty well done. Third party support exists, but it's not a volume business, and it's priced accordingly. And that's a car that's only 15 years old.

The mail truck fleet will be bigger, but the price of parts will still be high if there are big shifts in the market and nobody's making anything similar. The market has matured and stabilized since Honda quit making the original Insight, but probably not enough to inexpensively support a vehicle for 3 decades.

[0] https://www.bigmessowires.com/2016/06/04/db-19-resurrecting-...

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#309

Post by peteradio »

mypalmike wrote: post #278
gibolt wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Decreased demand would tend to result in reduced prices, not increased prices.

Only instantaneously. In the long term supply decreases to meet decreased (now niche) demand which decreases duty cycle on operations, hence increasing per unit cost.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#310

Post by salmo »

buran77 wrote: post #298
solarkraft wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some people it was. I have wondered then and I wonder now how it wasn't clear.

Between all the people looking at a problem you'll probably get every possible solution and one (or more) of them could be correct. Hindsight reinforces that opinion and makes it look more certain than it was at the time. But would you have bet the farm for your assumption then? It's easy to "see the future" when you have no risks to consider.

Also, I think that view only looks at the vehicle itself and neglects the onerous funding model the USPS is saddled with and the investment required on the supply chain/logistics side.

The fleet itself is a massive capital investment. But changing the fuel would be sizable as well. The USPS already has a supply chain network and facilities for gasoline. Replacing that will be huge in itself.

Municipalities are a better first-step and have had some success with moving bus fleets and maintenance vehicles to NG or EV. But they usually just have a handful of fueling stations and suppliers.

Fleet renewal is a pretty well understood budgeting process in any large scale logistics network (airlines, military, delivery..). You reach a point where replacing the fleet is a better investment than maintaining the current one.

To migrate to EVs, the USPS would likely wait out success in the private sector (like FedEx’s announcement) to demonstrate ROI, and retrofit this design or phase in a 2nd or 3rd iteration on it as a separate budget/RFP process.

Post reply on HN