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

361–370 of 398 posts

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#361

Post by clort »

Sanzig wrote: post #343
makomk wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Low pressure sodium vapor lamps are also very yellow [1], whereas a modern LED is much more broad-spectrum and thus looks nicer. Unfortunately, it does mean that LED lamps are a greater hazard for light pollution. [1] Low-pressure sodium vapor lamp spectrum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp#/media/File:...

interesting, perhaps the new design for the lamp covers is part of it but in my direct experience from a boat there is massively less light pollution with the LEDs which shine downwards only and show in a town on the side of the hill as a set of twinkling fairy lights and in a city over the hill as not much at all whereas the sodium lights produce an orange glow which can be seen for 20 miles or more at night. However, that doesn't say anything about the frequency which could of course be more damaging locally even if it scatters less.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#362

Post by Johnny555 »

brummm wrote: post #321
Johnny555 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and is comparable to normal cars with a hood Well, at least when compared to cars from 1984. I wonder how it would fare against a modern car? Cars are much safer today, the paper below says that the probability of a driver being killed in a new 2008-2012 car is 0.29 versus 0.42 in a new 1985-1993 model year car. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... (another interesting finding from that pap…

One could also just use the current version of that car to compare to other cars. VW has been making that type of car forever and still does.

VW doesn't seem to make any van in the USA, I took a quick look and don't see any current rear-engined VW vans like the Vanagan sold in any country, but do see some front-engined styles sold in other countries.

Where do they still sell a rear engined Vanagan style van?

Wikipedia says the T3 was the last of the VW rear engined vans (last made in 2002 for the African market, and 1990 in Germany).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Type_2_(T3)

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#363

Post by xeromal »

Robotbeat wrote: post #144
m463 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from the other linked article: > While some will be EVs, some of the NGDVs will come with modern, fuel-efficient internal combustion engines. As electric vehicle infrastructure improves, these NGDVs will be able to be retrofitted with the battery-electric powertrain later on.

That doesn't make any sense. All the "electrical infrastructure" needed to drive the typical 45 mile route is a regular old 120V exterior outlet. The retrofit cost is going to probably be double the marginal cost it would've been to just make it electric in the first place. Whoever is making these decisions either wasn't given competitive bids or they're poorly informed about electric vehicles.

120V is tremendously inefficient when converting to DC. 220V is a little less so but it's better to have other means of charging.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#364

Post by xeromal »

diggan wrote: post #10

Why have a specific design anyways? In both Sweden and Spain, the cars carrying mail is typically just a normal half-truck (not sure about the correct name) with the post office branding. Here are two examples: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DA5TW8/yellow-correos-spanish-post... - https://st2.depositphotos.com/3982569/5739/i/950/depositphot... Seems to work fine. Packages gets carried in bigger trucks, but still just busi…

Another point is now once your train the entire work force in a specific vehicle, you can trust most everyone employed knows how to use the one vehicle you use. Easy to rotate and repair vehicles when they're all the same.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#365

Post by xeromal »

gambiting wrote: post #32
lisper wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA actually explains all this pretty well: "The requirements dictated the step-in height, the glass height (including the low side glass), the vision angles, the internal height, and the maximum roof height," wrote Kahn in a tweet. "That was all locked in." Other constraints included the ability to reach the mailbox while in the seated position, and the requirement to see the ground around the vehicle...

The true marvel about all of this is how somehow every other country in the world manages just fine without these requirements.

There's relatively few countries in the world that are as large and sparse as the US. Sprawling metropolis's are rare. In the rural areas, houses are miles apart.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#366

Post by dorfsmay »

colineartheta wrote: post #347
dorfsmay wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for explaining energy density to me! Now explain why AC matters when the new contract is for ICE vehicles. You and the original commenter I was responding to seem to be worried about nothing.

I think OP meant that needing AC in a lot of vehicles in the US (everywhere it gets really hot) a 100% electrical fleet didn't make sense, and that this consideration might have influenced the decision to go with ICE.

If you are not being sarcastic about learning about density, check out why, it was mind boggling for me!

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#367

Post by core-questions »

colineartheta wrote: post #347
dorfsmay wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for explaining energy density to me! Now explain why AC matters when the new contract is for ICE vehicles. You and the original commenter I was responding to seem to be worried about nothing.

I think you're thinking of Alternating Current and they're thinking of Air Conditioning.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#368

Post by pengaru »

Evidlo wrote: post #243
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...

I laughed, but I think the postal workers already put up with enough shit. No need to make them wear uncomfortable costumes.

It just seemed like a missed opportunity to make lemonade from these design constraints. Though maybe it'd be a safety issue to make the mail delivery vehicle excite the kiddos as much as my little old red miata does because it resembles Lightning McQueen.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#369

Post by marshmallow_12 »

gsnedders wrote: post #173
kbenson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly because as a global company, it's easier for them to have shared vehicles and parts across their entire service area (most the world). They can probably just fly the vans/trucks and parts in wherever they are needed, since they run their own fleet of (very large) planes as well.

At least the majority I see around here are relatively standard European chassis-cabs (recently Mercedes-Benz Sprinter) with a custom body. While yes, that's more custom than just having a custom fitting inside a van, it's much less extreme than a custom vehicle.

To my untrained eye, they look bespoke, i will just take your word for it that only the body is custom. thanks.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#370

Post by creato »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #335
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 easy to offend without intending to, so I don't get how your intentions are relevant. Yes it can be annoying and difficult to consider the impact of your words and how they might be perceived by other, different, people. It would be simpler if you didn't have to think about that at all. But is that really the argument? It's a big hassle and you'd rather not have to do it?

For me, it's a minor hassle and I move on. I think for many people, it's an easy thing to rebel against, and generates conflict where there is no need for it.

Instead of people correcting mistaken assumptions about themselves and moving on (which happens to everyone in many ways, not just trans peoples' gender), we have this stupid culture war about the topic.

Post reply on HN