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

141–150 of 398 posts

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#141

Post by m463 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #132

It's interesting that "cost" is the reason given for why these vehicles aren't electric, but... how could that be? Batteries for electric carmakers are not that expensive any more, maybe $150/kWh. LLVs are currently horrendously inefficient (fleet average of about 9mpg). They have a ~13 gallon tank for a range of about 120 miles. They drive about 18 miles a day on average (total fleet average, so some are idle and pr…

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.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#142

Post by Mountain_Skies »

daveslash wrote: post #57

I had never seen a USPS vehicle until I was a legal adult and moved to college. I grew up in a very rural part of New England, America - on a dirt road. Winter had plenty of snow and plowing wasn't a guarantee at all . Considering the USPS Creed "Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds" -- Snow is the first one ! Our "mail lady"** drov…

For what it's worth, that's never been USPS's motto or policy. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/87770/neither-snow-nor-r...

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#143

Post by BadInformatics »

xxpor wrote: post #66
BadInformatics wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL, thanks. Maybe it's different for rural areas, but here in (sub)urban Canada postal workers hit a few houses at a time (and you can tell because most of them wear comfortable walking shoes too). I just looked it up and it seems like their new electric vehicles aren't RHD either, would be curious to know how that decision transpired :)

I heard a few years ago that Canada Post was forcing everyone to use a communal mailbox at a semi-central location close to their house, even in fairly rural areas. If that's the case, it'd also make a lot more sense to just have a normal van, IMO.

I think that plan may have been axed, as (anecdotally) the number of communal mailboxes seems to be relatively low among the few cities I've visited/lived in over the past couple of years. Also anecdotally, I'm not sure why the majority of houses (in the burbs) seem to have a mailbox by the door or a mail slot instead of box by the curb. They definitely exist, but feel like a minority outside of rural areas.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#144

Post by Robotbeat »

m463 wrote: post #141
Robotbeat wrote: post #132

It's interesting that "cost" is the reason given for why these vehicles aren't electric, but... how could that be? Batteries for electric carmakers are not that expensive any more, maybe $150/kWh. LLVs are currently horrendously inefficient (fleet average of about 9mpg). They have a ~13 gallon tank for a range of about 120 miles. They drive about 18 miles a day on average (total fleet average, so some are idle and pr…

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.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#145

Post by tomerico »

exabrial wrote: post #18

I'm always in disbelief at the sheer volume of waste they deliver. I maybe get one meaningful or useful piece of paper a month, the rest is hundreds of pounds of paper, hauled by thousands of gallons of diesel fuel. How this organisation continues to exist in is current form is mind blowing. Nearly everything it hauls could be emailed. And don't forget the cost to have trash trucks haul the thousands of pounds of was…

They publish their revenue and expenses numbers [1]. The marketing mail junk revenues are around $150 per household, and equals to two pieces per day per household.

So it’s a lot of junk as you said, but it’s also a lot of money. I’d wager that less than 10% would pay that $150 annual fee for an “ads-free” model.

[1] https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2020/1113-...

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#146

Post by Larrikin »

kumarvvr wrote: post #89

Why are looks so important anyways? Clearly USPS is trying to look after its employees, trying to ensure they have the best vehicle, suited for their work with minimal hassle.

HN is usually pretty utilitarian, I'm sure there are a lot of people on here that admire Mark Zuckerburgs "style" and seek to emulate it by not caring at all about how they dress and simply optimizing for clothes that will last the longest.

But there are also people out there who are influenced by wanting to look in a way they perceive as nice or cool and still have a satisfying life. I appreciate the tech culture that helped eliminate the suit but mostly because I like the way I dress and it's a form of expression for me. Plus it's nice regularly getting comments for putting in a little effort without having to resort to business casual. I know specifically my younger cousins admire that I can do a programming job and still wear (and are able to afford) clothes they'd want to wear.

Perhaps if the USPS trucks weren't the ugliest design that satisfied specs and instead seemed like some cutting edge vehicle there might be people out there who are growing up that would actually find it kind of fun or cool to drive around a USPS truck. It might be nice for it to be a job people want to do versus it being a secure job where you're the joke for driving around the ugliest vehicle on the road while dodging people's dogs.

As a simple example that well design can still be top quality, look at any of the trains on the Tokyo subway and train systems versus any train system in the US. They're far better functionally than any of the trains in New York or Chicago and look alot better inside and out as well. Maybe it looking impressive and not a tin can on wheels contributes to the increase in ridership for all groups of people, maybe that makes the job to be a conductor highly competitive to the point of it being a college degree worthy job. There are other things the train system does well but you still want to not hate riding on the vehicle.

An even simpler to understand example is the early days of android vs iPhone. Android was simply uglier but wasn't that different functionally. It was just extremely ugly to the point of people not wanting to buy it if they could afford to otherwise, so much so that Google invested a ton of money in creating Material Design

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#147

Post by Robotbeat »

s0rce wrote: post #136
Robotbeat wrote: post #132

It's interesting that "cost" is the reason given for why these vehicles aren't electric, but... how could that be? Batteries for electric carmakers are not that expensive any more, maybe $150/kWh. LLVs are currently horrendously inefficient (fleet average of about 9mpg). They have a ~13 gallon tank for a range of about 120 miles. They drive about 18 miles a day on average (total fleet average, so some are idle and pr…

Maybe the charging infrastructure isn't available?

A literal 120V exterior outlet? 83% of these vehicles drive in the city. They drive on average 18 miles a day (typical routes being about 45 miles). You don't need a 150kW Supercharger station, you just need a 1.2kW regular old 120V exterior outlet used for trimming the bushes. Even a cheap RV hookup would be overkill.

If a federal government agency in the most powerful national on the planet can't take the most obvious step toward electrification in a case which is the best possible situation for an electric vehicle (very stop and go traffic, slow speeds, short routes, long total miles on odometer over life of vehicle), what hope does the rest of the world have in taking action on climate?

Greta Thunberg is right. People don't care about climate. Literally everything else is a priority.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#148

Post by asquabventured »

patrickyeon wrote: post #135
thepasswordis wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay I'm genuinely curious why "mail lady" wouldn't fly today. ...why not?

Gendered terms are becoming less popular to describe people in situations where their gender doesn't matter. So we might say "mail person" or "mail carrier", the same as we say "firefighter" instead of "fireman". It's not "cancel culture" as the sibling comment suggests; it's rarely people being outraged about imagined attacks. It's just language evolving as society evolves. As an added bonus, sticking with non-gende…

I'd like to unsubscribe from this alternative reality of the world please.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#149

Post by Mountain_Skies »

I wonder what they're going to do with the old vehicles that are being replaced. During the last replacement cycle, the used vehicle market was flooded with surplus Jeeps. One of my brother's friends got one for $12 at auction. They were inexpensive first vehicles for teenagers though not all that safe.

My understanding is that UPS scraps their vehicles once they've exhausted their usefulness, which is why you don't see used UPS vehicles driving around with the logo painted over. Would USPS do the same?

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#150

Post by shkkmo »

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.

I suspect there is a high level of variance in both the length of different routes and the availability of power in parking areas for mail trucks.
Post reply on HN