11–20 of 156 posts
I've read so much knocking their appearance, which is so confusing to me. It's ultimately function over form in this case; who cares if you don't like how it looks? I can only dream that the visibility and safety of having features like such a low hood and large bumpers would be incorporated into other vehicles (i.e., every SUV ever).
I don't mind the appearance if it serves a function, but what's the function? An electric truck wouldn't need a traditional engine compartment.
I've read so much knocking their appearance, which is so confusing to me. It's ultimately function over form in this case; who cares if you don't like how it looks? I can only dream that the visibility and safety of having features like such a low hood and large bumpers would be incorporated into other vehicles (i.e., every SUV ever).
> It's ultimately form over function in this case Doesn't "form over function" mean the opposite of your usage? Form = appearance Function = usefulness
I'm proud to have helped implement the brand new dedicated ERP system that is used to build these trucks. Nice to see the final product is hitting the streets.
I don't mind the appearance if it serves a function, but what's the function? An electric truck wouldn't need a traditional engine compartment.
I'm proud to have helped implement the brand new dedicated ERP system that is used to build these trucks. Nice to see the final product is hitting the streets.
Can you provide some more information as to what the ERP system is built on? (i.e. open source software, "from scratch", etc?)
Say what you will about the Grumman LLV, but every one of them you see on the road today is at least 30 years old, and some could be pushing 40. (The similar-looking Ford-Utilimaster FFV is ~25 this year.) As uncomfortable as it must be to sit in one for hours on end (I never had the privilege myself) you've got to respect their longevity. Here's hoping these new trucks make it to the 2050s and beyond.
In fact, the Postal Service had to contract an alternative supplier to reverse engineer and manufacture the chassis frame to keep the LLV operational. As a result, the average annual maintenance cost exceeds $5,000, with 7% of LLVs exceeding $10,000 annually. Additionally, they are less fuel-efficient and unsuitable for future delivery needs given projected changes in market demand, mail mix, and increasing delivery points.
The LLVs also lack modern safety features such as airbags, anti-lock brakes, air conditioning, back-up cameras, blind-spot warning systems, daytime running lights, and seatbelt reminders." https://uspsngdveis.com/documents/USPS+NGDV+FEIS_Dec+2021.pd...
Sort of a Ship of Theseus vehicle. Yes, some have lasted over 40 years, but that's with potentially multiple drivetrain replacements, at an annual maintenance cost of $5,000 - $10,000. That feels high, given how simple those vehicles are.
I've read so much knocking their appearance, which is so confusing to me. It's ultimately function over form in this case; who cares if you don't like how it looks? I can only dream that the visibility and safety of having features like such a low hood and large bumpers would be incorporated into other vehicles (i.e., every SUV ever).
for utilitarian purposes, like the guy was quoted "it gets the job done", but for soccer moms and their SUV looks are important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's ultimately form over function in this case Doesn't "form over function" mean the opposite of your usage? Form = appearance Function = usefulness
I took this to mean that critiquing appearance is itself form over function.