Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yes, it ‘looks like a duck,’ but carriers like the new USPS mail truck

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 156 posts

Re: Yes, it ‘looks like a duck,’ but carriers like the new USPS mail truck

#91

Post by laurencerowe »

m463 wrote: post #39
klik99 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably in the minority, but I actually like the look of them. I find so many modern car designs indistinguishable from each other. Cars such a narrow range of design that's considered "good aesthetics" that everything looks so uniform.

I think when it comes to vans they've kind of let go of traditional designs. like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Dodge-Ra... Now they've gotten the european influence to be very square: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/2015_For... or like the european designed mercedes sprinter, very tall too: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Mercedes...

The European equivalents to the Dodge Ram Van are the smaller Transit Custom or VW Transporter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Transit_Custom

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

The equivalent US trucks mostly used by FedEx and UPS are much squarer than the European designed Transit or Sprinter vans that are now replacing them.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FedEx_Express_truck....

Re: Yes, it ‘looks like a duck,’ but carriers like the new USPS mail truck

#93

Post by reaperducer »

techjamie wrote: post #80
garciansmith wrote: post #7

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).

The low hood is almost definitely to help prevent scraping mailboxes and other objects, but especially mailboxes. My dad was a rural USPS carrier that used his own vehicle, and despite him having been an excellent driver with no accidents on record in his life, he still ended up swapping minor paint with mailboxes a few times. Can't imagine how often it happens across the country.

The low hood is almost definitely to help prevent scraping mailboxes and other objects, but especially mailboxes.

The USPS states that it's to keep from hitting pedestrians.

Re: Yes, it ‘looks like a duck,’ but carriers like the new USPS mail truck

#95

Post by reaperducer »

whalesalad wrote: post #27
smitelli wrote: post #3

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.

From my desk at home I see the lil LLV come down our private road every single day. With retrofitted LED lighting.

From my desk at home I see the lil LLV come down our private road every single day.

They seem very durable. I've forgotten the number of times I've seen one plowing an improvised short cut through the scrub brush between desert ranches.

Probably cuts an hour off the time with little change in comfort compared to using what passes for "roads" in some places.

Re: Yes, it ‘looks like a duck,’ but carriers like the new USPS mail truck

#96

Post by abeppu »

mschuster91 wrote: post #60
klik99 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably in the minority, but I actually like the look of them. I find so many modern car designs indistinguishable from each other. Cars such a narrow range of design that's considered "good aesthetics" that everything looks so uniform.

> Cars such a narrow range of design that's considered "good aesthetics" that everything looks so uniform. The issue is fuel efficiency. Modern cars are all built to be as aerodynamic and fuel efficient as possible, and the constraints are virtually the same, so the designs are very similar as well. However, these mail trucks don't travel 85 miles an hour, most of them will be on average less than 25 mp/h or less, wh…

I don't know that efficiency is really an explanation. If you look at a list of very aerodynamic cars, there are a bunch of older ones with very different designs. https://carbuzz.com/features/most-aerodynamic-cars/

And the still-not-released Aptera looks very distinctive and is claimed to have a drag coefficient of 0.13. https://electrek.co/2020/12/07/aptera-super-efficient-electr...

Re: Yes, it ‘looks like a duck,’ but carriers like the new USPS mail truck

#97

Post by varikin »

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #51
varikin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the LLV line was only suppose to be in service for 20 years, but the government gonna government and not find a replacement till it's almost too late. So yes it was a lot of scrounging and probably a lot of USPS mechanics needing to be creative, but the LLV lasted twice as long as it was designed for. I expect this same conversation will happen again in another 40 years.

> the government gonna government and not find a replacement till it's almost too late Actually they were going to convert to EVs back in 2006 when Bush stepped in to prevent that and punish them on behalf of his oil buddies with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The problem isn't government, it's politicians voted in to destroy it in favor of corporate interests.

I wasn't aware Bush was not part of the government in 2006. Thank you for the correction.

Re: Yes, it ‘looks like a duck,’ but carriers like the new USPS mail truck

#98

Post by reaperducer »

ggreer wrote: post #86
chomp wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How in the world is a mail carrier going to deliver mail in a huge esprinter, you going to have them open their door and climb out at every mailbox?

My point was that a much more capable vehicle could be purchased for a similar price. Depending on the use case, of course other commercial vehicles would make more sense. The smaller versions of the Ford Transit are a popular option among non-US postal services. And if US Postal Service was willing to buy foreign vehicles, they could have even smaller and cheaper options. (Though they'd have to deal with EPA and NHT…

if US Postal Service was willing to buy foreign vehicles,

It's not. Offshoring critical infrastructure is always a bad idea.

they'd have to deal with EPA and NHTSA rules

Possibly not. They don't even have license plates, as the Postal Service outranks state governments.

Re: Yes, it ‘looks like a duck,’ but carriers like the new USPS mail truck

#99

Post by saltminer »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #88
saltminer wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One key difference between USPS and UPS/Fedex is that USPS does not do freight, and they do a lot more lightweight items (i.e. letters), so cargo capacity is much less of a concern. The fact that junk mail is so common actually reduces the need for cargo capacity since their routes tend to be made long not because of physical volume/distance so much as dwell time (that is, if someone is using EDDM[0] to target a neig…

> Given that they are in residential areas (and thus, in proximity of kids playing outside) far more often than UPS/Fedex... That isn't the case at all in my experience. In any neighborhood I've ever lived in, you see at least one van from each organization come through daily. And if anything, UPS and FedEx come through more than once per day sometimes, whereas USPS doesn't. Per your earlier point about freight I can…

I wish there were publicly available data on this stuff, as we can only discuss anecdotes. In any case, in the neighborhoods I've lived in, it's not uncommon for UPS and Fedex to have zero deliveries at least one day of the week.

If Fedex is rolling around twice in one day, it's never the same line (that is, Fedex Express vs Ground/Home; Express incurs a special surcharge for residential deliveries and thus is usually only used by companies that primarily deliver to commercial addresses or who don't care about cost).

UPS is similar; usually, they only roll around in the evening, and when they roll around in the morning it's for one package with a specific delivery window obligation.

During December, of course, this goes by the wayside. Even USPS will roll around twice a day on the weekends leading up to Christmas.

Re: Yes, it ‘looks like a duck,’ but carriers like the new USPS mail truck

#100

Post by bsder »

abeppu wrote: post #96
mschuster91 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cars such a narrow range of design that's considered "good aesthetics" that everything looks so uniform. The issue is fuel efficiency. Modern cars are all built to be as aerodynamic and fuel efficient as possible, and the constraints are virtually the same, so the designs are very similar as well. However, these mail trucks don't travel 85 miles an hour, most of them will be on average less than 25 mp/h or less, wh…

I don't know that efficiency is really an explanation. If you look at a list of very aerodynamic cars, there are a bunch of older ones with very different designs. https://carbuzz.com/features/most-aerodynamic-cars/ And the still-not-released Aptera looks very distinctive and is claimed to have a drag coefficient of 0.13. https://electrek.co/2020/12/07/aptera-super-efficient-electr...

It's aerodynamics and safety combined.

Those bars that you smack into everytime you get into your car and those bars that give you enormous blind spots to hit pedestrians? Yeah, they're there because of safety regulations.

When you put the requirements to be able to roll over and not cave the roof along with aerodynamics, the design constraints are pretty heavy.

Post reply on HN