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

381–390 of 398 posts

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#381

Post by fingerlocks »

aidenn0 wrote: post #372
fingerlocks wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn’t. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Transporter

I see a nose; looks like it sticks out about 6" past the bottom of the windshield? And the wikipedia article makes it sound like that is exactly the portion used as a "defomation area" to protect the legs of those in the front of the cab?

If that's a nose, then what isn't a nose? The next generation Eurovan and up had a very distinct "nose", which is what is being discussed in this conversation.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#382

Post by mauvehaus »

Robotbeat wrote: post #375
mauvehaus wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 chargi…

Except this is a PERFECT application of battery electric drivetrain. I literally can’t think of a better one. If this isn’t “good enough,” then precisely what is? What WON’T be sunk by short-sighted risk averseness (actually nothing risky here) or plain indifference if this can’t be electric? And now they’ll have forced themselves into expensive conversions if they ever want to go electric in the next 3 decades. It’s…

You're not wrong, but as somebody who buys cars used and hangs on to them for a while, I'm sitting out going electric for at least another 5 years in the hope that things shake out somewhat on the charging side.

That, and for all of the reasons the USPS is sitting this out. The TCO has some pretty big unknowns over a multi-decade timescale at this point. I do a lot of my own work on my cars, and long-term parts availability is a real struggle at times.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#383

Post by zelon88 »

TylerE wrote: post #244
zelon88 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's slightly better, but they have used Crown Victoria's in the past. Kind of hard to continue using them when they've long been discontinued. But still, why the Impala? Why an 18mpg, FWD, 300hp transversely mounted engine design? Why kneecap yourself with a shit car? When do they use the full potential of the Impala, or the Crown Vic, or the EcoBoost Explorer? Even in the 90s and 2000s. Why not solicit contracts…

They have power because they need to chase things. Basic fleet models would have gotten the base 200hp engine. In an application with multi shift operation (like shared taxis) there is a lot to be said for an understressed v8. Availability is likely worth more than a bit of marginal fuel cost - which likely didn’t see that many miles... lots of idling, which btw small turbo engines generally don’t like

I've done some thinking on this since my original post. The conclusion I came too is that the reason that police vehicles are de facto high end production cars is because of buying power.

The fed runs USPS so they buy 100% of the postal fleet. That's a lot of buying power. So much, infect, that companies will trip over each other trying to sell the fed their vehicles. The fed has all the chips, and can dictate practically every aspect of the final design including price and production rates. As the fed, the entire market is just YOU.

But local police departments are fragmented. They all face different budgetary challenges and their financial resources are divided. The market is crowded and suppliers are geographically splintered. The market for police vehicles is ripe for the car companies to divide and conquer. Why would they even make small cars with small engines when the margin on larger cars is better?

Maybe I'm wrong and there's more behind the scenes than meets the eye, but I think if police departments pooled their buying power into one cohesive purchasing entity that they would get more favorable deals from suppliers.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#384

Post by elihu »

mauvehaus wrote: post #382
Robotbeat wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this is a PERFECT application of battery electric drivetrain. I literally can’t think of a better one. If this isn’t “good enough,” then precisely what is? What WON’T be sunk by short-sighted risk averseness (actually nothing risky here) or plain indifference if this can’t be electric? And now they’ll have forced themselves into expensive conversions if they ever want to go electric in the next 3 decades. It’s…

You're not wrong, but as somebody who buys cars used and hangs on to them for a while, I'm sitting out going electric for at least another 5 years in the hope that things shake out somewhat on the charging side. That, and for all of the reasons the USPS is sitting this out. The TCO has some pretty big unknowns over a multi-decade timescale at this point. I do a lot of my own work on my cars, and long-term parts avail…

I think J1772 has basically won in the U.S. for AC charging. It's hard to imagine something replacing it at this point. The competitors are Tesla's charge port and the other DC charging standards. DC chargers though require a lot of power and are expensive, so it's not realistic to expect them to be ubiquitous. J1772 is not much more than a 110 or 220 outlet with a fancy plug and electronic handshake protocol, and can be installed just about anywhere that a regular 110 or 220 outlet is, assuming adequate power is available at the site.

(A typical house might have dozens of outlets, but no one expects to be able to run a space heater off of every single plug all at once. Someone installing dozens of chargers, on the other hand, probably intends to use them simultaneously.)

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#385

Post by arpinum »

BoorishBears wrote: post #373
arpinum wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smooth delivery of power has surprising downstream effects. The wear on ball joints and tyres for EVs can be significantly less due to not having as much jerk (derivative of acceleration) from their motor.

Wear on tires and ball joints are more due to increased weight and high torque from zero RPM. https://www.fleetowner.com/equipment/tires/article/21147010/... Not sure why you thought otherwise.

Cited article is about _potential_ torque loads and the need to design for it, and does not address light duty typical use case for mail delivery.

Jerk causes chatter (slippage) between parts and can significantly reduce designed life. Electric motors are amazing at smoothing out discontinuities. Nokian has stated EVs are easier on tyres for this reason.

In this case for short-distance batteries I estimate battery pack mass of 150kg more than ICE equipment. Increased mass would not have a major impact on ball joints and tyres, these loads will be designed in.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#386

Post by Rule35 »

tolbish wrote: post #201
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 not that the term "mail lady" offends anyone. It doesn't. The point is that singling out her gender is needless, and kinda seems a bit strange if gender was never really pertinent to the story in the first place. "Cancel culture" would be going through high school recommended reading lists and removing books that focused "wrongly" on gender or something.

It would be weird if you were just saying "the female-mail carrier" for no reason. But we usually describe people to differentiate them from someone else for conversation.

Like "the mail lady says she likes our cat", differentiating from the mail guy who we also don't know personally, but who doesn't like the animals.

Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to.

> "Cancel culture" would be going through high school recommended reading lists and removing books that focused "wrongly" on gender or something.

That certainly is, but it doesn't end with their most egregious actions.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#387

Post by Rule35 »

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?

> But is that really the argument? It's a big hassle and you'd rather not have to do it?

No, that the people "being offended" are just lying to get their way. You know it's true.

> so I don't get how your intentions are relevant.

Right, because the baying mob never has time for relevance or subtlety.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#388

Post by jerf »

antattack wrote: post #380
jerf wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roll down to your post office during off hours and count the number of trucks. I live in a very small city (people used to SF or NY wouldn't even call it a "city") and we've got dozens. Not sure where you're getting the 1000Wh/mile number, but if it's from "normal driving" it won't apply. Mail delivery is stop and start, which is much worse. (If regenerative braking was 100% it'd be fine, but it's nowhere near that.)

Model 3 in Winter with heating on uses 420Wh/mile when driving 70mph. I think 1000Wh/mile is very generous estimate.

I think you are all greatly underestimating how much damage it does to drive down a neighborhood, stopping every hundred feet, and re-accelerating. Cruising speed consumption is not a useful number here.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#389

Post by BoorishBears »

arpinum wrote: post #385
BoorishBears wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wear on tires and ball joints are more due to increased weight and high torque from zero RPM. https://www.fleetowner.com/equipment/tires/article/21147010/... Not sure why you thought otherwise.

Cited article is about _potential_ torque loads and the need to design for it, and does not address light duty typical use case for mail delivery. Jerk causes chatter (slippage) between parts and can significantly reduce designed life. Electric motors are amazing at smoothing out discontinuities. Nokian has stated EVs are easier on tyres for this reason. In this case for short-distance batteries I estimate battery pa…

There are literally hundreds of sources you could find for how EVs have worse wear.

I have no idea what you're on about with "chatter" without specifying any specific part of a drivetrain...

Like your whole comment reads like someone trying to apply extremely general theoretical concern while handwaving away actually connecting it to practical application...

And where are you getting the idea that:

a) the weight difference will only be 150kg. These things can end up doing 50 miles with a heavily loaded truck in high heat. They'll need the same cooling systems the ICE does, they'll need battery packs over-provisioned to meet their 25 year life span mandate.

b) even 150kg wouldn't increase weight. I don't know what you think "designed in" means. It means either make the parts beefier so that they can withstand greater wear before replacement, or it means replace parts more... neither option erases the problem.

ICE or EV obviously they're going to design the suspension to handle the curb weight + occupants and cargo but adding to the curb weight will have the result of making something more expensive. Doesn't really matter if you're paying for it upfront or later, you're paying for it.

My Spec Miata's suspension alignment was designed with my weight in mind and literally every pound counts. Even the weight of the gas in the tank opposite me can have a noticeable effect on how the suspension sits, which in turn affects tires wear.

The same thing plays out on a "normal" car in much slower motion

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#390

Post by sjwright »

kube-system wrote: post #346
sjwright wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand your point. For your argument to be valid, you'd have to assert that a factory can build new mail trucks faster than you could add charging points. There will be one factory pumping out cars on a specialised, serial production line. It will be competing with 30 thousand locations operating in parallel.

It’s an issue of distribution. LLVs are past their expiration date everywhere and likely need replaced all over the country. But, it doesn’t make sense to add charging capability ad hoc for a single parking space in a lot when a new vehicle is sent out - the marginal cost of each space is not linear — you’d retrofit an entire parking lot at one time. If 10 locations have 10 existing vehicles each, and all of them nee…

You wouldn’t replace mail trucks individually, you would fully transition each location as a unit.

Also, you overestimate the complexity of installing charging points. In many cases the parking will be directly against the post office building. In many cases you would only have to dig a small trench. In some cases you would string up a new overhead wire. When you’re doing 10 at a time, this isn’t complicated or expensive on a per vehicle basis.

Post reply on HN