[HN Gopher] USPS' long-awaited new mail truck makes its debut to...
___________________________________________________________________
USPS' long-awaited new mail truck makes its debut to rave reviews
from carriers
Author : achristmascarl
Score : 168 points
Date : 2024-09-12 20:05 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| casefields wrote:
| They look ugly as hell but if it works and makes carriers job
| easier and more efficient then it's a success in my book.
| pishpash wrote:
| Will these not roll over easily?
| MBCook wrote:
| The EV version would certainly have a very low center of
| gravity. The gas one wouldn't be as good but they must have
| tested for that right?
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| That's the difference between UX and mere aesthetics. Great UX
| sometimes looks goofy, until you live with it for a bit.
| Kye wrote:
| The USPS has a podcast with an episode on the process behind it:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShhBZVE68-0&list=PL1NEtJgO49...
| philwelch wrote:
| Is there an explanation for why the USPS needs custom-designed
| vehicles built by a defense contractor when every other last mile
| delivery company just buys ordinary vans and trucks?
| drfuchs wrote:
| UPS trucks are custom designed for UPS; they used to have a
| nice documentary about it. New Amazon trucks around where I
| live are clearly custom (and also not very pretty, if you ask
| me).
| robohoe wrote:
| New Amazon trucks are built by Rivian.
| MBCook wrote:
| I saw a Rivian mobile service van for the first time about
| two weeks ago. I was behind it in traffic. It's exactly the
| same design as Amazon, just different paint.
|
| All I could think of was "they repainted an Amazon van".
|
| I know Rivian makes them all. But seeing so many Amazon
| vans has changed who "owns" the design in my mind.
| pishpash wrote:
| None have huge windows like this. Are the tasks that
| different?
| kelnos wrote:
| Perhaps the next generation of UPS trucks will have large
| windows like the new USPS trucks. If it seems to be a
| useful feature, others will adopt it eventually.
| petejansson wrote:
| Last mile delivery companies don't handle the volume of non-
| package traffic that the USPS does. At that scale, tailoring
| can really pay off in productivity.
| queuebert wrote:
| Are you saying that the USPS delivering a handful of
| advertisements in addition to the odd package has greater
| demands than UPS/Fedex/Amazon delivering the bulk of the
| large packages in our society?
| kelnos wrote:
| Not necessarily greater (though I'd think so, yes), but
| certainly _different_.
| philwelch wrote:
| It's definitely way more than a handful; spam makes up the
| vast majority of my USPS service by quantity and probably
| the largest share by volume.
| enriquec wrote:
| seriously - what a waste of money. Guaranteed the maintenance
| is rife with corrupt arrangements. Also guaranteed that almost
| any American car manufacturer (Rivian, Tesla, Ford, etc.) would
| have done a far better job for far less. Did they even pretend
| to have a fair bidding system? Oshkosh Defense? Seriously?!
| What a joke.
| Kye wrote:
| How is this any different from the _Grumman_ Long Life
| Vehicle it replaces? It worked well last time.
| pishpash wrote:
| The only thing that comes to mind is maybe defense co. has
| experience building with indestructible materials, and the
| specs are for lasting 50 years, which when amortized is
| optimal for an entity like the government that can dump
| huge amounts of capital ($40B) at once that a private
| sector CEO can never do.
| MBCook wrote:
| It is, to some degree, a jobs program. Whoever wins is
| guaranteed a lot of work for a long time. So contractors
| really want it.
|
| I don't think Tesla or Rivian are used to working with
| government contracts. I'm not sure how much someone like
| Ford does either outside of mild customization. But
| defense contractors spend _all_ their time working with
| the government, building to their specifications,
| handling the requirements and compliance /etc.
|
| They're simply very very well equipped to work on such a
| contract.
|
| They'd also be very used to making something for decades
| because that's what the government wants. Does Ford have
| a vehicle they make that's nearly unchanged for 30 years?
| I'd assume even the transit vans have changed a lot in
| that timeframe.
| philwelch wrote:
| I think it's mostly that defense contractors are
| specialized in selling to the government, which entails
| jumping through regulatory compliance hoops and placating
| elected officials by distributing the supply chain across
| as many congressional districts as possible.
| thowawatp302 wrote:
| Do you have any evidence or do you just feel like that?
| MBCook wrote:
| There was a whole thing with proposals from multiple
| companies. Did any of those companies even bid? I don't know.
|
| It was all in the open. It's not like they were just picked
| in secret without anyone else getting any consideration.
| RIMR wrote:
| >Guaranteed the maintenance is rife with corrupt
| arrangements.
|
| Any evidence of this, or are is this just verbal diarrhea?
|
| >Also guaranteed that almost any American car manufacturer
| (Rivian, Tesla, Ford, etc.) would have done a far better job
| for far less.
|
| Let's do the actual math.
|
| Amazon's Custom Rivian Van costs $90k/vehicle.
|
| The USPS has invested $9.6B to commission 106,480 new USPS
| vans.
|
| That comes out to... $90k/vehicle.
|
| >Oshkosh Defense? Seriously?! What a joke.
|
| Yeah, the company that makes the majority of our military
| vehicles is unprepared for the task at making mail trucks.
| You're a joke...
| helgie wrote:
| Yes, there was a bidding process, you can see some of the
| entrants that lost here: https://jalopnik.com/here-are-all-
| the-mail-trucks-that-didn-...
|
| In any case, even if the process was terribly corrupt, I'm
| not sure why that would have you so bothered. Last sentence
| from the USPS press release on Oshkosh winning: "The Postal
| Service receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and
| relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund
| its operations." https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-
| releases/2021/0223-...
|
| Both results are on the first page of a google search for
| 'usps truck bids'.
| philwelch wrote:
| > The Postal Service receives no tax dollars for operating
| expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and
| services to fund its operations.
|
| The Postal Service has a legally enforced monopoly that it
| abuses to deliver literal metric tons of spam into our
| mailboxes every single day.
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| Because they don't deliver to mailboxes on the curb opposite
| the driver in a LHD vehicle?
| aeturnum wrote:
| Name one last mile delivery company that doesn't have a purpose
| built van supplier? Amazon is getting Rivian to build theirs
| (after trying buying off the shelf)[1]. UPS uses a ford chassis
| but custom body work[2]. Fedex is perhaps the closest as they
| work with many manufacturers, but they have their vehicles
| custom built for them[3].
|
| [1]
| https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/transportation/everything-y...
|
| [2]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Trucks/comments/ppo5tu/what_model_a...
|
| [3] https://trucksauthority.com/who-makes-fedex-trucks/
| sofixa wrote:
| French, German, Dutch, Swiss, British, Spanish etc etc etc
| post office, alongside DHL/FedEx/TNT/etc. in each of those?
| aeturnum wrote:
| I do not have detailed knowledge about the various national
| postal services you mention, but I suspect you also don't?
| The German post uses custom EVs[1].
|
| If you really want to disagree please find a source that
| says a service uses off the shelf vehicles.
|
| [1] https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103326_germans-
| to-buil...
| sofixa wrote:
| Sorry, made an outdated assumption about Germany in
| particular.
|
| The French post office, a pioneer in EVs (they've used
| them on and off since the early 20th century) and until
| recently the biggest postal user of EVs, uses off the
| shelf vehicles like the Renault Kangoo:
| https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/04/08/la-
| poste-...
|
| They also use electric bikes for urban areas.
| voytec wrote:
| They are testing "ordinary" vans as well. They purchased 6
| Canoo vans[0] for testing and announced plan to buy 9000 Ford
| E-Transit vehicles[1] earlier this year.
|
| [0] https://www.press.canoo.com/press-release/canoo-reaches-
| agre...
|
| [1]
| https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2024...
| bombcar wrote:
| They want to be able to buy the exact same vehicles for the
| next 40 or 50 years.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| How is that a good idea?
| eesmith wrote:
| UPS doesn't just buy ordinary vans and trucks.
|
| 'UPS Orders 10,000 Electric Vans from EV Maker You Probably
| Haven't Heard of' at https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-
| cars/a30716811/ups-order...
|
| > "Together, our teams [at Arrival] have been working hard to
| create bespoke electric vehicles, based on our flexible
| skateboard platforms that meet the end-to-end needs of UPS from
| driving, loading/unloading and back-office operations,"
| tocs3 wrote:
| It is always a little refreshing to hear of a successful
| government project. Congratulations.
|
| I was skeptical of Louis Dejoy's appointment to the USPS but
| maybe it will turn out OK.
| MBCook wrote:
| I'm still very skeptical. I think we're at this point due to
| pressure, the failing old fleet, and lawsuits.
|
| But I'm glad this is happening. I remember all the discussions
| around it but have never seen one in person so I had no idea
| what the status was.
|
| To know they're out there is great. I can't wait until they get
| to my area. And I'd like to hear an update after carriers have
| really lived with them for a year and really know the flaws and
| benefits inside and out.
|
| I'll miss the old Grumman LLVs though. They are the post office
| to me, being there basically all my life. Such an unmistakeable
| symbol. But it's time has come.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _I'll miss the old Grumman LLVs though. They are the post
| office to me, being there basically all my life._
|
| Same. I was 6 years old when they started rolling out, and
| don't really remember the previous vehicles. While I actually
| like (or at least don't mind) the look of the new trucks,
| they give me that feeling when I'm traveling in a different
| country, and the normal/standard service vehicles look
| different and "weird".
| falcolas wrote:
| > I'll miss the old Grumman LLVs though. They are the post
| office to me, being there basically all my life. Such an
| unmistakeable symbol. But it's time has come.
|
| Living in a rural area, the mail car was a right-hand-drive
| station wagon with their spare tire on the roof (to make more
| room for mail inside). My entire childhood, that is what I
| saw delivering mail. Now? Now it's an Outback with the spare
| on the roof...
| MBCook wrote:
| Makes sense.
|
| From time to time I'll see another kind of vehicle, often a
| white van. But living in suburbs they've been the majority
| by far for me.
| kelnos wrote:
| I'm more than skeptical, still. DeJoy would prefer to scale
| down operations and privatize as much of mail delivery as
| possible, as well as raise rates for regular mailpieces in
| (what I consider) a misguided effort to make the USPS more
| self-sustainable financially. I fundamentally disagree with his
| basic stance here: the post is a public service, and should not
| be run like a business. Certainly we should eliminate waste and
| inefficiency where possible (something most governments could
| stand to do in many areas), but not at the expense of service,
| and not by making mail costs more expensive for average people.
| (Jacking up rates on bulk mail is something I can get behind,
| though.)
|
| I see his capitulation around EVs and in other areas not as a
| change of heart, or as a realization of what's actually the
| right thing, but as resignation (the lawsuits must have been
| exhausting) and self-preservation. While POTUS can't fire the
| postmaster general, the board of governors can, and if/when
| Democrats have a majority on the board, he could be voted out
| of a job if he's not playing ball. I very much expect that the
| next time a Republican is in the White House, if he's still in
| the position, he'll act much like he did when appointed, since
| he can assume he's relatively safe if board of governors seats
| open up.
|
| Ultimately, though, it does seem that the USPS is moving in
| (IMO) the right direction for now, and DeJoy does deserve some
| credit for that, even if this isn't what he envisioned
| originally.
| xracy wrote:
| I wish we had a metric of "acceptable government waste,
| because we're providing a public service."
|
| When we provide public services the goal needs to be that we
| provide them to _everyone_ within a reasonable cost-basis.
| Too many gov 't programs are the subject of budget cuts
| because people cry out "Waste!" when in reality the amount
| you save by addressing that waste undercuts the impact of the
| program.
|
| There are so many basic programs where we cut people off
| because of "WASTE!", and we'd be better served trying to
| offer broad services at a base-level, and addressing
| individual needs more targeted. Feels like a Mountain vs.
| Valley approach. Gov't programs should be Mountains that we
| build up with a wide-base to cover the wide needs and that we
| can address smaller needs with more targeted approaches.
| Rather than the valley approach of wide need, and we cut
| support based on where we think we see waste.
| jerlam wrote:
| The new mail truck program started in 2015 before Dejoy started
| in 2020. Contracts for prototypes were awarded in 2016, testing
| and evaluation started in 2017, and the production contract was
| signed in 2021. I wouldn't credit Dejoy too much.
| tocs3 wrote:
| Thanks for the info. I thought it was a little strange that
| he did this (Trump appointee, conflict of interest, EVs). We
| will see what the future brings.
| MBCook wrote:
| Like the article said, the LLVs are 12 years past service
| life and catching on fire. Gotta do something.
|
| And there's no way he'd get away with doing nothing. So
| something had to happen.
|
| I'd still expect he tried to slow-walk it somehow and the
| no-EV thing seemed very politically motivated.
| Dwedit wrote:
| Big bumper in the front.
| MBCook wrote:
| I wonder what's up there in the EV version. Maybe more battery?
| jerlam wrote:
| They are probably not putting one of the most expensive and
| unrepairable components in the bumper. The bumpers look ugly
| because they aren't integrated into the car body/metawork,
| and can be more easily replaced.
|
| I do wonder if bumpers that low will have mismatch problems
| with higher modern cars (aka SUVs and trucks), whose bumpers
| may go right over the mail trucks' bumpers and cause major
| damage.
| MBCook wrote:
| I wouldn't think you'd do it full length to the front, just
| closer to behind the dash where you could get some extra
| battery in but still have lots of crumple zone in front of
| it.
|
| Just a guess. I'd love to see a video giving a deep
| overview of these the way you see car reviews on YouTube.
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| Quick online search suggests it's for pedestrian safety and
| preventing damage which makes sense, mail trucks are driving
| super close to stuff all the time
| RIMR wrote:
| Does anyone know where one might go to buy the retired vehicles?
| jerlam wrote:
| Possibly government surplus:
| https://www.gsaauctions.gov/auctions/home
|
| Although I suspect since the transition will take a long time,
| the "retired" vehicles will be kept for spare parts where the
| old vehicles are still being used, and many will still be kept
| just in case.
| lucifargundam wrote:
| https://www.govplanet.com/?h=
| lgdskhglsa wrote:
| you may want to watch this review first :)
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3g2p4KKS74
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > Does anyone know where one might go to buy the retired
| vehicles?
|
| My son had looked into this and it looks like you can't.
|
| Some of it is due to the LLV being manufactured with exemptions
| from certain US car standards. Some of it is due to a
| obligation (with Grumman IIRC) that the LLV be destroyed after
| retirement.
|
| We settled for a 31k mi 1992 Buick with the same Iron Duke
| engine.
| RIMR wrote:
| Damn, if the intent of electrifying the fleet is to be more
| ecologically friendly, allowing these older vehicles to be
| recirculated seems like a compelling thing to do. I suppose
| the weird configuration of these vehicles doesn't make it a
| very good option as a personal vehicle, so destroying them is
| probably just as ecological as selling them to hobbyists like
| me. It will be sad to see these things disappear from
| existence though. They've been a part of my life since I was
| a kid.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >Damn, if the intent of electrifying the fleet is to be
| more ecologically friendly, allowing these older vehicles
| to be recirculated seems like a compelling thing to do
|
| Why do you think that? These are terrible general purpose
| vehicles that have hundreds of thousands of miles on them
| already and have atrocious fuel efficiency even at what
| they are good at doing; start-stop driving.
|
| Continuing to use these for another 50k miles is probably
| worse for the environment than buying a brand new hybrid or
| electric vehicle.
| bdowling wrote:
| If you did buy one, you might not be able to license it in your
| state. Your mileage may vary.
|
| Note: USPS is exempt from state regulations because it is a
| U.S. federal government agency. That is also why they don't
| have state license plates; they don't need them.
| jawns wrote:
| I was always under the impression that the lack of air
| conditioning in these vehicles had less to do with budget
| constraints and more with process constraints. If they're driving
| mailbox to mailbox, they'll likely want to keep their window
| down, and they frequently need to get in and out of the vehicle
| to deliver packages. Wouldn't that lead to a lot of dissipation
| of cooled air?
| MBCook wrote:
| It may have made their already abysmal mileage even worse. If
| it nocked off 2 MPG that would be an almost 25% reduction.
|
| Glad the poor postal carriers are finally getting it. Having
| some in sweltering heat, even if you're always in and out, is
| better than just a little fan.
| kelnos wrote:
| A/C with windows down and frequent door opening is still going
| to be a lot more comfortable for the driver than a crappy fan.
|
| Even if that makes it wasteful, and makes the vehicles more
| expensive to operate, our postal workers deserve some comfort
| while they're driving around all day, 5-6 days a week.
| analog31 wrote:
| I admit that A/C with windows down is how I use it when driving
| around town. Just for when I get into a hot car. When the car
| cools down, I turn the A/C off.
|
| I do run A/C on highway trips, partly because I suspect that
| the noise with windows open can cause hearing damage.
| non- wrote:
| > Noisy and fuel-inefficient (9 mpg), the Grummans are costly to
| maintain.
|
| > Environmentalists were outraged when DeJoy announced that 90%
| of the next-gen vehicles in the first order would be gas-powered.
|
| I was gonna say they environmentalists were wrong for this, if
| the new trucks get significantly better mpg performance that's
| still a big win.
|
| But apparently with the AC running the new trucks still only get
| 9mpg.[1][2]
|
| [1] https://earthjustice.org/press/2022/message-delivered-
| usps-c.... [2] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/the-epa-and-
| white-house...
| dgfitz wrote:
| I can't quickly find the mileage with the AC not running. More
| to the point, it is mostly a myth that running the AC uses a
| significant amount of fuel. The compressor is usually driven by
| the serpentine belt, and adding the clutch plate for the AC
| into that system does not add significant drag. A little, yes.
| FateOfNations wrote:
| It can have some added effects for more modern vehicles. For
| example, if the AC is running in my car, the engine auto
| start/stop is disabled.
| anamexis wrote:
| I would assume it's not the clutch plate that adds
| significant drag, but the AC compressor itself.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| > it is mostly a myth that running the AC uses a significant
| amount of fuel
|
| What?
|
| Modern car AC compressors use about 1 HP (.7kW) of power,
| with a duty cycle highly dependent on temperature but if you
| break the seal periodically, like by opening the window to
| put mail in a box, it will be running 100% of the time even
| on an 80 degree day. For a hatchback at 70mph that's up to
| 10% of your energy usage. It's much harder to quantify for
| stop and go traffic because you have a bimodal situation of
| either zero HP generation or like 50 HP to accelerate in slow
| city traffic, but all ICE vehicles use more energy (have less
| economy) in city driving than highway driving, so on average
| it's using a higher percentage of your energy consumption in
| city driving.
|
| So turning on the AC on a hot day will reduce your economy
| car's mileage from 33 to 30, your truck's mileage from 12 to
| 10.8, and your Prius from 48 to 44 and worse for city
| driving. The numbers they claim in the above studies suggest
| they are using a higher capacity compressor to deal with the
| air volume constantly being opened to the outside.
| dgfitz wrote:
| What do you mean "what?"
|
| You ignored a word: significant
| wnevets wrote:
| > Oshkosh's proposed vehicle will only average 8.6 mpg (27.35
| L/100 km) according to the EPA, a barely noticeable improvement
| on the current Grumman-made LLV trucks, which average 8.2 mpg
| (28.68 L/100 km).
|
| Such a wasted opportunity
| MBCook wrote:
| It's a really hard task to make an efficient gas vehicle that
| stops and starts constantly. They're just really bad at it.
|
| Sure you can make it a full hybrid but then you're like 80%
| of the way there to a battery vehicle anyway.
|
| Also note that while the new one isn't that much better it is
| providing air-conditioning. And the whole truck looks bigger
| so I suspect it weighs more. So the engine is doing more work
| than in the LLV.
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| >Sure you can make it a full hybrid but then you're like
| 80% of the way there to a battery vehicle anyway.
|
| This sounds like a good thing? Currently the most expensive
| component of electric vehicles are their batteries, so
| hybrids seem optimal. Hybrids excel at the exact use cases
| mail trucks have, so it seems a bit baffling they didn't go
| with that form of electrification.
|
| Toyota has proven maintenance and reliability aren't an
| issue with hybrid tech.
| MBCook wrote:
| Full hybrid has the downsides of electric (electric stuff
| to be serviced and weight/costs associated) and the
| downsides of gas (emissions, complexity of maintenance +
| engine, weight/cost of engine).
|
| These are government fleet vehicles being used for lots
| of miles every day. They're going to use these for 20+
| years. If the up front cost is a little higher but it has
| a big payoff, it's totally worth it.
|
| The calculus is different from an individual's car. I
| still don't think it's worth it there now that electric
| has gotten so much cheaper, but that's a personal
| decision.
|
| > Hybrids excel at the exact use cases mail trucks have
|
| Compared to gas, yes. But the thing is electric cards
| excel _even more_.
|
| > Toyota has proven maintenance and reliability aren't an
| issue with hybrid tech.
|
| They proved it works reliably. But it's still far more
| complicated than an EV drivetrain with WAY WAY more high
| tolerance parts that wear. It's never going to be cheaper
| in maintenance.
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| 1: The cost of the gas engine is offset by the reduction
| in cost and weight of a smaller hybrid battery.
|
| 2: Hybrid buses are already a thing, and they're subject
| to even more usage and wear, and work very reliably.
|
| 3: Cheaper maintenance as an absolute number isn't the
| goal, but a reduction in total cost of ownership.
| Remember there's a bunch of gas that's not being used or
| paid for. The lower the starting MPG, the higher the
| benefits electrification brings.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| _Sure you can make it a full hybrid but then you're like
| 80% of the way there to a battery vehicle anyway._
|
| But then you don't need to build dozens of charging ports
| at post offices that may or may not have the electrical
| infrastructure to charge a fleet of mail trucks every night
| MBCook wrote:
| It's a fleet vehicle. The government can afford it and it
| will pay off in spades over the lifetime of the vehicles.
|
| Upfront cost doesn't matter nearly as much as lifetime
| cost. And the difference is not going to be small.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Wasted opportunity for what?
|
| > In December 2022, USPS announced that 75% of its initial
| order of 60,000 NGDVs would be BEVs. By 2026, all new NGDVs
| ordered will be delivered as BEVs.
|
| So the should be very few of these ICE variants around
| presumably primarily in areas where the charging capacity is
| impractical to install. I don't know how 8.6 mpg fares
| against similar trucks to know whether better ICE
| alternatives were possible and hybrid would likely add
| significant weight, cost and maintenance for likely little
| comparative value.
| ortusdux wrote:
| Here is the original environmental impact study from USPS -
| https://uspsngdveis.com/documents/USPS%20NGDV%20Draft%20EIS....
|
| "14.7 miles per gallon (mpg) (without air conditioning) 8.6 mpg
| (with air conditioning)"
|
| The same document estimates off the shelf commercial right hand
| drive vehicles averaging 6.3 mpg if used fleet-wide.
| jdashg wrote:
| Same MPG but now with AC is a huge win!
| ortusdux wrote:
| I'd like to see the ratio of hours with AC on vs off fleet-
| wide after the first year.
|
| From a 2019 IEA report: "Estimates from the literature
| reveal that around 6% of the annual global energy consumed
| by cars is used for MAC(mobile air conditioning), varying
| by country between about 3% and 20% depending on climate,
| driving patterns and traffic congestion. It can peak at
| over 40% in warm climates and congested traffic. This
| equates to around 1.2 Mboe/d consumed by MAC units in cars
| alone, with other road vehicles adding another 0.6 Mboe/d.
| For electric vehicles, MAC can reduce driving range by up
| to 50% on hot and humid days."
|
| https://www.iea.org/reports/cooling-on-the-move
| sofixa wrote:
| > "14.7 miles per gallon (mpg) (without air conditioning) 8.6
| mpg (with air conditioning)"
|
| Both of those are absolutely embarrassing, did they use a
| 1950s Soviet tank engine? According to a quick Google search,
| a Ford Transit (bigger sized but not optimised for post
| delivery van) gets 33-46 mpg depending on the engine.
|
| Yeah, a post vehicle will start/stop much more, but that's
| where start/stop tech, and maybe even hybrid come in.
| jmclnx wrote:
| > Environmentalists were outraged when DeJoy announced that 90%
| of the next-gen vehicles in the first order would be gas-
| powered.
|
| As they should be. Most of my family are mail carriers and as a
| kid I rode with them a few times for the day. Electric Vehicles
| would have been perfect for this work, but DeJoy probably was
| lobbied (in Europe that is called bribed) and bowed to the
| fossil fuel industry.
|
| This is from someone who believes EVs are only really viable
| for local errand running (right now).
| MBCook wrote:
| Even ignoring lobbying, it's his party's (and the president
| at the time's) very outspoken position that EVs are some
| green nut's pipe dream being shoved down their throats.
|
| It likely would have been extremely bad for him personally
| politically to do what ended up happening on his own, as
| opposed to after pressure from congress and lawsuits.
| dtagames wrote:
| It's unforgivable that the entire fleet was not mandated to be
| electric from the start, especially given the post office's
| nationwide network of parking and service areas where they could
| charge.
|
| Instead, these will burn gas and emit pollutants in neighborhoods
| while running in stop-and-go mode, the least efficient and most
| polluting way to drive.
| MBCook wrote:
| There are probably places where gas may still make more sense,
| like extremely cold climates.
|
| The article says they're going "mostly" electric. I suspect a
| reverse of what DeJoy with 90% electric would be good. But
| since he's still in charge it wouldn't surprise me if the
| number was more like 52%.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Or just buy existing electric van from someone like MB or
| Rivian.
| ars wrote:
| You need to visit rural areas. Not everything is a city.
| m463 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_NGDV
| hungie wrote:
| Love these weird little guys.
| monkaiju wrote:
| Makes being a mail carrier sound significantly better. Between
| having AC and a union im almost envious
| spike021 wrote:
| I'm friends with my neighborhood mail carrier and during the
| summer he's told me the inside of his truck is like being in a
| tin can. It gets super hot. He tries to park it in shady spots
| while he's out making runs but that's not always possible.
| MarkMarine wrote:
| Of my friends that went to 20 years in the military, half of
| them went to the post office after. You work for 40 years,
| retire at 58 with 2 pensions and full medical care. You'll
| never be rich but you probably never worried about losing your
| job a day in your life.
| tomcam wrote:
| I call that rich
| lucb1e wrote:
| > the vehicles have airbags, 360-degree cameras, blind-spot
| monitoring, collision sensors[, AC,] and anti-lock brakes -- all
| of which are missing on the [old ones].
|
| Woa, is driving without airbags even legal nowadays or do they
| drive different ones in Germany? I always thought the USPS trucks
| looked... utilitarian old I guess, so like they shipped them over
| to keep the historical branding, but I don't know if that's
| actually the case
|
| Another interesting bit of the article:
|
| > the costs of installing thousands of charging stations and
| upgrading electrical service, made [electric delivery vehicles]
| unaffordable at a time [...]. That led to a deal in which the
| [US] government provided $3 billion
|
| > [they're buying] 106,000 vehicles through 2028. That included
| 60,000 next-gen vehicles, 45,000 of them electric models, along
| with 21,000 other electric vehicles
| ghaff wrote:
| >Woa, is driving without airbags even legal nowadays
|
| I'm sure new vehicles require them in the US. But there's very
| wide latitude on safety feature requirements for older vehicles
| in the US.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| There's also often exceptions and issues when it comes to one
| agency in the government trying to enforce rules on another.
|
| Notably, the death toll on 9/11 was made worse because the
| state used its authority to override the local building code
| which would have required more staircases and further spacing
| of them.
|
| Or any locality trying to enforce payment of parking tickets
| from higher entities or even their own off duty officers.
| ghaff wrote:
| And there are antique plates etc. States are generally very
| hesitant to forbid people to drive their cars unless
| there's something that poses a serious imminent threat to
| others.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Because not enough people own really old cars for it to
| be worth worrying about. And as you note, and increased
| endangerment is generally to the owner.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| "it was legal when i bought it, so it's legal now!"
| ghaff wrote:
| More like it was legal when someone originally bought it.
| (With some caveats.)
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Better than aviation: "it was legal when we got it approved
| it, so it's legal to manufacture now!" (decades later)
|
| (I like the discussion about this example:
| https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-
| challenges-737-grandfath... )
| Qwertious wrote:
| There's an exception for quadricycles IIRC (very small cars).
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| You can drive a model-T if you want to. They are lacking any
| safety features.
| Iulioh wrote:
| Begin able to only do 40mph is arguably a safety feature
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| The top speed of the Model T was 42 mph (68 km/h), but most
| roads of the time were meant for far slower animal drawn
| carriages.
|
| The primary danger was plate glass windows shredding the
| occupants, or the gearbox bushing failing (Fords early
| transmission designs were interesting.) =3
| datavirtue wrote:
| They turbo-charge nicely.
| jefftk wrote:
| And if the transmission fails so does the foot brake.
| is_true wrote:
| Ford sucks at transmissions even now
| pohuing wrote:
| I have never seen a USPS truck here. And I think all of my
| imports were delivered by DHL or UPS within Germany.
|
| I don't think USPS drives any trucks in Germany
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| you don't. USPS is US federal government, not a company
| hedora wrote:
| Congress keeps trying to privatize it, which would be a
| disaster and is wildly unpopular. Instead, they keep
| sabotaging it.
|
| This is why it has bonkers pension requirements and
| constantly hemorrhages money.
|
| Anyway, it does not operate overseas.
| Hasu wrote:
| > Congress keeps trying to privatize it, which would be a
| disaster and is wildly unpopular. Instead, they keep
| sabotaging it.
|
| > This is why it has bonkers pension requirements and
| constantly hemorrhages money.
|
| This is not true. The Postal Service Reform Act of 2022
| repealed the disastrous 2006 bill that requires the USPS
| to pay for their retirement funds out of revenue.
|
| The Biden administration has really done a remarkable
| (well, competent, but that's remarkable for government
| these days) job with many of America's institutions,
| including the Post Office, and it's unfortunate that
| people don't know these things.
| rat9988 wrote:
| I'm curious. Is there anywhere I could read about what
| has been done? An article, a book, or whatever.
| phonon wrote:
| I guess you can start here... (though it doesn't mention
| the USPS bill.)
|
| https://www.whitehouse.gov/therecord/
| hedora wrote:
| Good to know the pension thing was fixed under Biden.
| This administration also stopped progress on USPS
| privatization (which seemed pretty inevitable under
| Trump).
|
| You can guess how I'll vote, but it's important that
| people pay attention to the actual actions taken by the
| parties, and then also remember to vote.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Prefunding pensions out of operating revenues is onerous
| relative to similar federal agencies, but is it really
| bonkers?
|
| The main problem with pensions is that they often get
| funded with promises instead of dollars. Then whoever
| made the promise walks away and leaves the problem for
| others to fix.
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| When someone ships something to you from the US via USPS
| you'll get it delivered via your local postal service, in
| this case Deustche Post. And vice-versa.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| You might be thinking of UPS. USPS doesn't operate outside of
| the US.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| Are airbags required for _driving_ in Germany?
|
| If a German owns a 1961 BMW Isetta, is it required that it have
| airbags before it is driven on the roadway?
| rightbyte wrote:
| No it is not.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Woa, is driving without airbags even legal nowadays or do
| they drive different ones in Germany?
|
| German here - as long as your vehicle matches the code
| requirements back when it was built, it is road legal. You're
| perfectly fine to ride a pre-WW2 car with only a single side
| mirror, no rear mirror, no airbags or any other kind of safety
| feature and no emission controls worth the name.
|
| I still would not recommend it to tour such a piece of history
| on public roads though.
| bombcar wrote:
| This is the case in most jurisdictions (and even the ones
| that do NOT permit cars older than X years - as I believe
| Japan does - have exceptions for historical vehicles and
| other purposes).
| mynameishere wrote:
| Does anyone know how USPS/UPS/Fedex trucks can start and stop
| their engines over and over and over without running down the
| batteries? Do they have 400 amp/hour monsters installed and
| recharge them at the depot, or what?
| syntaxing wrote:
| Modern pure ICE cars have "idle-stop" technology. I believe
| it's mandatory nowadays for any new pure ICE car in the US. One
| of the perks of buying hybrid IMO, the engine stopping at every
| stop is kind of annoying.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Yep, a lot of people turn it off due to it lashing the hell
| out of the timing chain significantly bumping up the
| $2000-$3000 maintenance schedule, or indeed making it even
| necessary.
|
| In addition, when the starter goes out it sells for about
| $1000. Part only.
|
| All of this amounts to dramatically reducing the service life
| of the engine. Replacing an engine costs a lot of CO2. Some
| will opt to just junk the beast because a new engine is $10k.
| I could go on and on. Avoid stop+start tech. It's meant to
| make ICE so unreliable that you run to an EV to get rid of
| all that shit mess.
| lesuorac wrote:
| I'm not sure it's mandatory per-say.
|
| The stop-idle can factor into your mpg so it's an easy way to
| boost it (which there are requirements about).
| ghaff wrote:
| I've actually been curious about that. For all the zillion
| things I can configure in my Honda Passport, I can
| apparently not turn that annoying feature off. It's OK. I
| just reflexively hit the button when I start the car now.
| But I assume having it non-configurable factors into some
| fleet MPG calculation.
|
| (It's annoying because it interjects a slight delay when I
| make a left-hand turn.)
| insaneirish wrote:
| > For all the zillion things I can configure in my Honda
| Passport, I can apparently not turn that annoying feature
| off.
|
| Here you go: https://www.idlestopper.com/
|
| Sad that this is what it's come to, but here we are.
|
| I was considering purchasing a Honda recently, and this
| was one of the things I investigated. Like you, I
| consider the hesitation imposed by this mechanism to be
| annoying, and in addition, dangerous.
| ghaff wrote:
| I hate sticking third-party modules into my vehicles but
| I also hate the hesitation on uncontrolled left-hand
| turns in particular. Seems dangerous. I've pretty much
| just made it a reflex to hit the turn-off button when I
| turn on the car. At least it's easy once a reflex.
|
| Too bad. It seems a great vehicle otherwise. Like it a
| lot more than my previous 4Runner.
| insaneirish wrote:
| > but I also hate the hesitation on uncontrolled left-
| hand turns in particular. Seems dangerous.
|
| Bingo. This is exactly where it scares me, particularly
| when I'm already in an intersection.
|
| > I've pretty much just made it a reflex to hit the turn-
| off button when I turn on the car. At least it's easy
| once a reflex.
|
| My daily driver is old enough not to have auto
| stop/start. My problem is my wife's vehicle has it. She
| instinctively turns it off as soon as she's in the
| vehicle. Because I only drive her vehicle sporadically, I
| don't have the muscle memory to do that, so it inevitably
| catches me by surprise.
| ghaff wrote:
| It's pretty idiotic I can permanently turn off a bunch of
| the safety features on the car but not this. As you say,
| it's pretty reflexive to just turn it off when you start
| the car if you're used to it. When I do a road trip with
| a friend when we share driving, I always have to remember
| to reach over and turn it off for her because it annoys
| her as much as it annoys me.
| fabioborellini wrote:
| With manual transmission it doesn't add any delay imo,
| the engine starts (in Volvo/Ford? implementation? ) by
| pressing the clutch so engine is always responsive when
| depressing.
|
| I also appreciate that it reduces cancer in city
| residents. Diesel consumption in city driving seems to be
| some 30% lower and I expect emissions to be around the
| same factor.
| grecy wrote:
| In many places it's actually illegal to sit at a red
| light or intersection with your car in neutral, foot off
| the clutch. You'll fail your driving test if you do that.
| If there is an emergency, getting moving is much slower
| than if you were in gear, foot on clutch.
| ghaff wrote:
| Maybe it's that I don't drive in cities much (with auto
| transmission) so I've never noticed any real difference
| in terms of mileage.
| buildbot wrote:
| It's not, most high performance sedans will leave it out as
| they don't have enough volume to affect the averages
| anyway.
|
| My 2018 RS3 doesn't have it, where as even the 2018 S3
| does, 2024 still doesn't have it: https://www.audizine.com/
| forum/showthread.php/991842-RS3-Sto...
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| The first sentence says they're not going to win a beauty contest
| but I think they're kinda cute! Presumably the low hood helps a
| lot with visibility.
| hypeatei wrote:
| Personally, I think it looks really bad. Especially after
| seeing a different angle on the Wikipedia page[0].
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_NGDV
| rustyminnow wrote:
| I'll bet it looks fantastic from the inside with those huge
| windows and tiny hoods.
| addicted wrote:
| Those huge windows and tiny hoods also probably make them
| significantly safer for little kids and pets.
|
| USPS trucks are regularly driving through highly
| residential areas including fairly quiet ones where little
| kids may possibly be running around close to the street or
| even on them.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| So this is basically just what cars should look like.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Why is it so extremely loud inside, though?
| allenu wrote:
| That picture makes it look even cuter to me, like it's a
| Pixar character.
|
| It won't win any beauty contests but I like that they put
| function over form here.
|
| Edit: corrected my phrasing about function over form. Thanks!
| hypeatei wrote:
| > put form over function here
|
| Surely you meant "function over form" here? I'll assume you
| did, and yes I can agree that delivering mail doesn't
| require anything pretty. Apparently the cartoonish height
| came from USPS requiring that anyone as short as 5'2" can
| see over the hood and someone as tall as 6'8" can stand in
| the vehicle. Still doesn't look that great or practical
| (for narrow or rural routes) to me, but I guess we'll see.
| davidw wrote:
| > anyone as short as 5'2" can see over the hood
|
| Sure beats those huge trucks that are slaughtering
| Americans in the thousands.
|
| https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2024-09-07
| kergonath wrote:
| It would probably be worth adjusting our esthetic
| preferences if it means safer roads for everyone.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| I definitely see that! Lightning McQueen vibes.
| wavefunction wrote:
| Michael Jackson "bad" or... These seem people friendly like
| government is supposed to be.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| It looks distinctive, in 15 years it will be how everyone
| imagines mail trucks are supposed to look. That is a universe
| I like, I think.
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| Really the only flaw is trying to mirror a conventional car
| headlight design; if they went with something a bit quirky
| like an LED grid covering the entire front or something it
| would become something totally unique.
| ArtemZ wrote:
| I agree it looks ridiculous. It is sad that such bad design
| will continue uglification of our streets.
| userbinator wrote:
| It looks... bizarre, like someone gave a box truck the
| lowrider treatment. And is that a hint of Chevy I see at the
| top of the grill, although it's based on a Ford?
| mh- wrote:
| Ha! That is very strange. If you colored that area in, it
| would totally look like the Chevy bowtie logo.
| mystified5016 wrote:
| Huh, I think that design would fit right in in Japan, but
| it's pretty odd by American standards.
|
| I wouldn't say it's _bad_ , but it's definitely a bizarre
| choice for a US government design.
| viburnum wrote:
| Yeah, these are awesome. It's SUVs that are ugly.
| agys wrote:
| ...and dangerous!
| adrianmonk wrote:
| To me, they look like they are from the movie "Up".
| vondur wrote:
| If it's got AC the postal carriers will love it.
| OptionOfT wrote:
| > The gross vehicle weight rating of the NGDV with an ICE,
| including payload, is 8,501 lb (3,856 kg),[2]: Table 3-1.2 just
| one pound over the EPA's threshold to be considered a heavy-duty
| truck, allowing it to avoid more stringent pollution emissions
| and efficiency standards for light-duty trucks.
|
| Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-new-usps-trucks-
| would-pr...
|
| Not sure if that's still valid (obviously not for the electric
| versions), but that is actually insane.
| infecto wrote:
| In my opinion these are a huge miss.
|
| Maybe I am overly optimistic but they generally are not
| carrying a lot of weight, fairy local and lots of stop and
| starts. Would have been amazing to at least get some hybrids in
| the mix.
| mayneack wrote:
| A majority of them are full electric.
| mgerdts wrote:
| Which was not the original plan. Luckily enough pressure
| was applied to improve the plan.
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-postal-service-gas-trucks-
| el...
| nielsbot wrote:
| I don't get it. Wouldn't electric vehicles save them
| money in the long run? A lot of money?
|
| EDIT: per this comment charging infrastructure was going
| to be a huge cost.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41544204
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| Press, followed by $3 billion extra budget from tax
| coffers.
| IntelMiner wrote:
| With the ever increasing cost (both financially and
| climate) of gasoline, it seems it would pay off in the
| long-term
|
| A friend's Tesla they once worked out costs about "$1 per
| gallon of gas" equivalent. Meanwhile gas in Seattle is
| about $4-$5 per gallon
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Depends on driving habits and price of electricity and
| gas. In Washington state, electricity is cheaper compared
| to most of the US, and gas is among the most expensive
| compared to most of the US.
|
| For less than ~10k miles per year, the higher up front
| cost of an electric vehicle and the greater depreciation
| due to eventual battery replacement might make a hybrid
| gas vehicle still cheaper per mile.
|
| But for high mileage, high frequency of stop and go
| driving, I imagine all electric is cheapest?
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| the battery depreciation is per mile, so I don't think
| the mileage per year will factor into it heavily.
| mgerdts wrote:
| > might make a hybrid gas vehicle still cheaper per mile
|
| I agree. What is unconscionable is deploying 10s of
| thousands of vehicles that spend every day of operation
| accelerating rather quickly then coming to a full stop
| within a few seconds without using regenerative braking.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Its probably too soon to know if that pressure succeeding
| was lucky or a mistake.
|
| I love the idea of having an all electric fleet if it's
| feasible and better than the alternatives. I also have to
| assume the original plan to only electrify part of the
| fleet has functional reasons behind it.
|
| If those reasons are overcome, or if that decision was
| somehow entirely political, then the pressure is lucky.
| Otherwise...we'll see?
| infecto wrote:
| Not yet though. I would be curious how easy it is to have
| both an ice and ev next gen vehicle. It's a waste imo to
| have both platforms.
| toast0 wrote:
| It shouldn't be too big of a deal to have an ice and an
| ev share a truck style vehicle, because there's going to
| be structural support for batteries and probably room for
| them too; possibly requiring a higher load floor, but
| depends on design, I guess. Sounds like the target EV
| range is 70 mi, so the battery pack won't be super large.
|
| Ford makes the F-150 in ice, hybrid, phev, and full ev, I
| think.
| Thorrez wrote:
| I don't think there's a phev F-150.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Remember USPS provides universal service. How do you
| sustain an electric fleet everywhere in the US in 2024?
|
| If the postal service was run by a normal board and we
| had a less insane political environment, we'd build
| charging infrastructure to make to make it work. Alas, we
| live in this timeline.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > generally are not carrying a lot of weight
|
| 1000lbs is a lot of weight. Mail routes include package
| deliveries as well as mail and package pickups. Some business
| deliveries have large transactions every day.
|
| > fairy local and lots of stop and starts.
|
| Mail routes are not identical and there are plenty of rural
| USPS offices which deliver to the property.
|
| > to at least get some hybrids in the mix.
|
| Part of the point is to not have a mix to avoid all the
| attendant problems that creates.
| infecto wrote:
| But there is going to be a mix? Also 1000 lbs is not a lot
| of weight to account for here. Ignoring rural routes which
| are a different beast, these routes are local on mostly
| slower roads. That kind of weight needs to be accounted for
| but it's negligible.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I live in a very rural area. We don't even have the 1980s
| era of mail trucks here, out delivery drivers have
| passenger SUVs and vans retrofitted for right hand drive.
|
| I'd be really surprised to see these new vehicles in truly
| rural areas any time soon.
| zardo wrote:
| That's because the mail trucks are not considered
| suitable for longer and higher speed routes. I would
| expect them to roll out to rural areas quickly so the
| USPS can get rid of the mishmash fleet.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Rural carriers buy and maintain their own vehicles
| typically.
|
| https://about.usps.com/publications/pub181/pub181_v03_rev
| isi....
| alright2565 wrote:
| 1000lbs is not a lot of weight. It's the weight of 5
| average american men, which I would expect every sedan to
| handle just fine.
| Marsymars wrote:
| Not every Sedan:
| https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/09/the-
| heavy-r...
|
| "The Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, and Mazda6 midsized
| sedans, for example, all have a combined load capacity of
| 850 lbs. for passengers and cargo."
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I don't know the details... but my dad was a rural mail
| carrier for awhile, and the roughness of the driving they do
| is difficult to understand.
|
| Rural carriers operate their own vehicles. The wear and tear
| was nuts... for example we would change brake pads every 2-3
| _weeks_.
|
| I think USPS wants to operate vehicles for many years. I'd
| guess they may have determined that the regen braking or
| batteries for hybrid couldn't sustain the harsh conditions
| within the operating cost envelope.
| rodgerd wrote:
| > In my opinion these are a huge miss.
|
| Oh, really? Can you share your expertise that trumps that of
| the people who work with them every day?
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| Government gaming its own regulations.
| blahyawnblah wrote:
| Military F250/350 all have emission deletes
| _heimdall wrote:
| The military cares about reliability. Emissions systems on
| modern heavy duty civilian trucks are hell on reliability.
|
| There's a reason many people owning diesel trucks in states
| that don't do emissions testing pay a lot of money to
| delete the systems after purchase.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| My homestate [Texas] does not require federal/state agencies
| to follow local building codes.
|
| My new state [Tennessee] just ended government construction
| inspections.
|
| Pay - to - play, folks.
| _heimdall wrote:
| That's worse than pay-to-play.
|
| I lived in a tourist-driven coastal town for a few years,
| builders there regularly paid off our corrupt mayor to
| avoid the rules.
|
| When the government is dodging its own rules its "rules for
| the, not for me."
| sieabahlpark wrote:
| Nope that's how CAFE standards work. You can thank the EPA for
| that!
|
| Instead of building more efficient small cars it becomes
| impossible to make them meet the efficiency requirements
| without making the car cost so much extra through fines. So
| instead you just get more "trucks" and SUVs. No more sedans!
| Those are the vehicles killing the planet!
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| Is the limit really 8500 to get into that unregulated
| category? Small SUVs are very popular and are basically
| sedans on stilts and weigh a lot less than 8500. So I don't
| think you could blame the death of sedans on that rule, if
| that's indeed what the rule is.
| macNchz wrote:
| There are other standards that can put vehicles in
| different emissions categories. I believe the one that most
| crossover SUVs target is being considered "off road", by
| having four wheel drive and meeting a few ground clearance
| specifications:
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/part-523#p-523.5(b)
|
| The goal of promoting these small SUVs instead of sedans is
| actually because they're quite fuel efficient: being in the
| same category as much larger trucks, they pull up the
| average fuel economy and take the pressure off
| manufacturers to make their highly-profitable bigger SUVs
| more efficient.
| hedora wrote:
| GVWR includes passengers and cargo when fully loaded.
|
| 8000 lbs is not totally crazy for a delivery vehicle. It
| probably weighs at least 2000-3000 lbs empty (with
| batteries).
|
| Imagine a small business that tries to mail ten pound
| boxes. If they can fit ten by ten per layer in the van,
| once the pile of boxes is five layers tall, you're
| basically at the van's specs.
| throwup238 wrote:
| You can thank Congress for that, not the EPA. They were the
| ones that required the agency by law to create the separate
| standards for "non-passenger vehicles" and the weight
| classes, as well as the other loopholes that enable the
| shenanigans, like allowing medium passenger vehicles to
| classify as non-passenger.
| hedora wrote:
| Now that chevron deference was eliminated (along with many
| other long-standing precedents), soon you'll get to blame
| political appointees with lifetime positions!
| dumbo-octopus wrote:
| Theoretically this would be a great opportunity for
| someone to take the EPA to court over this and have a
| chance of it actually having an effect, whereas before
| that was unimaginable. Of course it will require deep
| pockets, but a coalition of automakers could perhaps make
| it happen.
| Thorrez wrote:
| Are you saying that the chevron deference elimination
| allows the courts to overrule congress? I don't think
| that's the case. I think the courts still can only
| overrule congress on constitutional issues, the same as
| before the chevron deference was eliminated.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| the courts de-jure can't override Congress, but de-facto,
| the current court is very wind to read things in bizarre
| ways.
| amluto wrote:
| The degree to which this is broken boggles the mind. The
| country has a strong interest in reducing fuel consumption
| and emissions, and the country also has an interest in
| vehicles being lighter. And the rules utterly fail at both.
|
| I don't know what the right fix is, but completely
| abolishing CAFE and replacing it with a carbon tax might be
| a good start.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > Those are the vehicles killing the planet!
|
| That would be boats. Cars or trucks or even semis don't even
| rank.
| dumbo-octopus wrote:
| Ships, rather.
| Panzer04 wrote:
| This isn't even close. Cars globally emit 4x as much CO2 as
| the global fleet.
|
| You might be referring to sulphur emissions, which are much
| higher for ships because they are basically unregulated,
| while car fuel has virtually zero sulphur.
| yurishimo wrote:
| You've literally made the point. How many boats are
| there? Compared to cars? My guess is we as a species
| don't have anywhere near 1/4 the number of cars as boats
| worldwide. I would be flabbergasted if the number of
| boats (with motors) was even 1/10 the number of cars.
|
| Boats pollute massively and it's a shame considering that
| water is a much more efficient medium of transportation
| thanks to buoyancy.
| pyth0 wrote:
| Yes but this is not some incredible realization. Cars
| transport individuals (up to a family) whereas these
| enormous ships are the backbone of global shipping and
| commerce. Not to say they can't run cleaner but this
| comparison is pointless.
| shikon7 wrote:
| Considering a ship can carry tens of thousands as much
| cargo as a car, the comparison isn't even remotely fair.
| kergonath wrote:
| > Boats pollute massively and it's a shame considering
| that water is a much more efficient medium of
| transportation thanks to buoyancy.
|
| It's a good thing people don't use container ships to
| commute every day, then...
|
| Seriously, comparing the effect of one car to that of one
| ship is not even remotely useful. Cars would be much
| better if they were used by more than one person on
| average. At which point we could even scale them up and
| operate them among fixed, predictable routes at fixes,
| predictable times.
|
| Anyway, no, they really are not making your point.
| Comparing the emissions of the global shipping fleet to
| that of all the cars used to commute every day tells a
| lot about where efficiency can be found. Sure, some
| shipping is frivolous, but then a single person (or even
| two people) commuting in a light truck is beyond stupid
| on every level.
| delecti wrote:
| Interestingly, that _used_ to be true, but in the past
| few years some regulations have gone into effect
| regarding sulfur emissions in cargo ships.
|
| I think that was probably a good thing in the long run,
| but there's some evidence that the sulfur particulate
| matter was "hiding" some of the warming we "should" have
| been seeing based on our CO2 emissions, because global
| warming has spiked a bit as sulfur has decreased.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3
| Terr_ wrote:
| Careful: People often confuse CO2 emissions with NOx
| emissions when discussing ships.
|
| The main concern with big ocean vessels is that they burn
| fuel "dirtier", as opposed to cars which--in most countries
| --are already subject to emissions standards and mandatory
| catalytic-converters etc. because people got tired of smog
| and acid-rain.
|
| On a pure CO2 basis, ships may actually be the lesser-evil
| in terms of payload/distance, lack of alternatives, etc.
| Kerb_ wrote:
| Would you like to explain how the transportation system
| with less emissions per kilogram per mile is causing more
| harm than one of the least efficient forms of terrestrial
| transport?
| coin wrote:
| Not to mention the flex fuel scheme that GM, Ford and
| Chrysler pulls. CAFE fuel mileage calculations permits
| ethanol compatible vehicles to assume that it will be driven
| 50% of the time using E85 ethanol. For the worst gas
| guzzlers, they add the additional ethanol hardware to get the
| "lower" fuel mileage. Hence you only see the flex fuel badge
| on big trucks and SUVs. And ironically, the flex fuel label
| is really a label that it's a gas guzzler.
| starspangled wrote:
| Private passenger vehicles is under 10% of global CO2
| emissions. Electricity and heating is about 4x. Manufacturing
| and construction 2x, farming 2x, freight 1x. Repurposed light
| commercial vehicles would be a tiny fraction of those
| numbers. I suspect they are not what's killing the planet.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Broken out per-pound, I suspect that private passenger
| vehicles represent a disproportionate amount of
| _unnecessary_ global emissions.
|
| Or another way: heating and cooling, farming, etc. are all
| essential (if not necessarily optimal). Commuting in your
| own private car is not; one only has to spend 15 minutes on
| the average American highway to observe that the
| overwhelming majority of car traffic is one person driving
| a car that can fit 5 or more.
| starspangled wrote:
| Sounds dubious considering the amount of CO2 emissions
| caused by uneaten / wasted food is similar to personal
| transportation emissions.
|
| I also don't think the idea that we should strive to
| limit our lives to that which is absolutely necessary to
| only survive or generate economic activity is valid. To
| me, my drive to the beach with my dog is more essential,
| valid, and valuable than your commute to work.
|
| But regardless of whether true or not, environmental
| destruction caused by CO2 emissions does not care if the
| emissions were "necessary" or not, by any definition of
| necessary. So it simply isn't personal light trucks that
| are what's destroying the world.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| There is a simple way to find out what is "destroying the
| world".
|
| Keep increasing fossil fuel taxes until the target amount
| of carbon emissions is achieved. The consumption that
| goes away is what was "destroying the world".
|
| >To me, my drive to the beach with my dog is more
| essential, valid, and valuable than your commute to work.
|
| And this is why efforts to curb emissions and other
| pollution is hopeless.
|
| Emissions and pollution are a function of energy
| consumption. Energy = force times distance. Force = mass
| * acceleration * distance. So you either reduce the mass
| that is moving (including you, your dog, and your 5+
| passenger vehicle) and/or reduce the distance you move,
| or don't worry about pollution.
| starspangled wrote:
| > Keep increasing fossil fuel taxes until the target
| amount of carbon emissions is achieved. The consumption
| that goes away is what was "destroying the world".
|
| You haven't arrived here by any reasoning, you're just
| working back from the outcome you want. I.e., you want to
| define "unnecessary emissions" or "least expensive to cut
| emissions" as what is destroying the world. But if carbon
| pollution is destroying the world, then any carbon
| pollution causes basically the same damage to the world
| as any other. That's the climate and environmental
| science. When you bring economics into it you're bringing
| in arbitrary wants, desires, what people inherited at
| birth, etc., that has nothing to do with the impact to
| the world of additional carbon in the atmosphere.
|
| Here's a concrete counter-example. If you raise carbon
| price, virtuous billionaires and politicians will
| continue to fly their private jets to climate conferences
| while more people starve from increased food costs. That
| doesn't mean the meagre eating habits of those now
| deceased poor people was what was destroying the world
| rather than the exorbitant consumption by the ruling
| class that could have been a zoom meeting. In fact both
| were equally contributing (ton for ton) because the
| climate doesn't care where the CO2 came from, if it was
| ethical or economical or necessary or fair or anything
| else. Either the carbon is emitted into the atmosphere,
| or it isn't.
|
| > And this is why efforts to curb emissions and other
| pollution is hopeless.
|
| I think it's only hopeless so long as those pushing it
| are massive hypocrites. Nobody likes a hypocrite. Nobody
| likes injustice.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Here's a concrete counter-example. If you raise carbon
| price, virtuous billionaires and politicians will
| continue to fly their private jets to climate conferences
| while more people starve from increased food costs. That
| doesn't mean the meagre eating habits of those now
| deceased poor people was what was destroying the world
| rather than the exorbitant consumption by the ruling
| class that could have been a zoom meeting.
|
| You going to the beach with your dog in a big pickup
| truck, along with a couple hundred million other people,
| is the same level of non essential as people flying in
| private jets (of which there are very, very few).
|
| People in the developed nation's middle/upper middle
| class like to think they not consuming multiple standard
| deviations above the mean, because they don't fly on
| private jets, but they do.
|
| > But if carbon pollution is destroying the world, then
| any carbon pollution causes basically the same damage to
| the world as any other. That's the climate and
| environmental science. When you bring economics into it
| you're bringing in arbitrary wants, desires, what people
| inherited at birth, etc., that has nothing to do with the
| impact to the world of additional carbon in the
| atmosphere.
|
| Yes, obviously any fossil fuel tax that meaningfully
| reduces consumption has to create a floor for quality of
| life, such as a minimum level of nutrition, shelter,
| healthcare, education, etc. The amount of wealth
| redistribution necessary to get there very well might
| make it so many people cannot (regularly) drive to the
| beach in a pickup truck with their dog.
|
| The fact that increasing gas taxes in the US is a
| political nonstarter should indicate how much we (the
| broad voting populace) value our standards or dreams of
| consumption, which are multiple standard deviations above
| the mean.
| triceratops wrote:
| > If you raise carbon price, virtuous billionaires and
| politicians will continue to fly their private jets to
| climate conferences while more people starve from
| increased food costs
|
| You offset the carbon tax with a universal tax credit or
| refund or UBI or whatever you want to call it. Give
| people all of the money back that was generated from the
| carbon tax. Poor people don't fly on private jets or buy
| yachts so they'll come out ahead. Or at least, less
| behind than those who do spend money on those things.
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| The NGDV is based on the 9500lb Ford Transit, so it's more like
| they started with a heavy-duty truck and scaled down.
| mmis1000 wrote:
| It does look like a lengthen truck head though.
| logifail wrote:
| My maths may be way off, but isn't this around 80% heavier than
| the Deutsche Post DHL Group StreetScooter Work delivery vehicle
| from 2017... ? (
| https://www.ft.com/content/c6913394-1ea6-11e7-a454-ab0442897...
| / https://archive.is/AlyRj )
|
| Is the NGDV heavier because it's "better" (=more capable) or is
| its size and weight really to do with avoiding the EPA
| threshold - or even that it's derived from a full-size US
| truck?
| _heimdall wrote:
| 710kg for the Deutsche vehicle is only for the payload, that
| doesn't include the weight of the vehicle.
|
| I found a PDF fact sheet for the vehicle [1], it looks like
| the gross vehicle weight rating (vehicle + payload) is
| 2,800kg. That is still 1,000kg less than the USPS vehicle,
| but I wouldn't be suprised if that comes down to a
| combination of capacity, safety requirements, and maybe top
| speed needs in the US compared to the average European city.
|
| [1] https://group.dhl.com/content/dam/deutschepostdhl/en/medi
| a-c...
| logifail wrote:
| > 710kg for the Deutsche vehicle is only for the payload,
| that doesn't include the weight of the vehicle
|
| for StreetScooter Work Curb/Unladen Weight: 1,275 kg (2,811
| lbs) Max Laden Weight (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating): 2,130
| kg (4,696 lbs)
|
| NGDV with an ICE (according to the OP) Curb/Unladen Weight:
| 2,523 kg (5,560 lbs)
|
| > I found a PDF fact sheet for the vehicle
|
| That datasheet appears to be for the Work L which is a
| different model: "Shown in September 2016 at the IAA
| Commercial Vehicles trade fair, the Work L prototype is a
| longer and slightly higher vehicle with almost double the
| cargo volume"[0]
|
| > I wouldn't be suprised if that comes down to a
| combination of capacity, safety requirements, and maybe top
| speed needs in the US compared to the average European city
|
| I'm not able to judge capacity or safety requirements, but
| the Work's maximum speed is 120 km/h (75mph).
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StreetScooter
| russfink wrote:
| DeJoy was a Trump appointee. As witnessed by other such
| appointees (education, EPA), I was concerned DeJoy would gut the
| postal service. Sounds like that isn't the case.
| rconti wrote:
| There was a TON of controversy early on. There were
| _significant_ cuts, and, IIRC, very poor performance during the
| first Christmas season. I remember a large amount of negativity
| about both his proposed changes and the actual changes he
| implemented. Of course, the extent to which you think it's
| trying to kill the USPS vs simply make it more efficient to
| save it will depend a lot on your politics.
| fullstop wrote:
| We received Christmas cards mid-January which were sent well
| before Christmas.
| coin wrote:
| He tried gas powered, then due to backlash got the government
| to give $3B for electric.
|
| "Environmentalists were outraged when DeJoy announced that 90%
| of the next-gen vehicles in the first order would be gas-
| powered. Lawsuits were filed demanding that the Postal Service
| further electrify its fleet of more than 200,000 vehicles to
| reduce tailpipe emissions."
|
| "He found a way to further boost the number of electric
| vehicles when he met with President Joe Biden's top
| environmental adviser, John Podesta. That led to a deal in
| which the government provided $3 billion to the Postal Service,
| with part of it earmarked for electric charging stations."
| bpodgursky wrote:
| My understanding is that the bought a majority-gas fleet with
| the budget he had, and as congress have him additional money
| for EV purchases, he adjusted increasingly towards EVs.
|
| Also, 2021 was a long time ago. It was easy in 2021 to say
| "We're transitioning to EVs by 2030!" but it was not easy to
| actually buy $6B in working EV vans... they were all
| hypothetical. That changed, and so the USPS purchases did
| accordingly.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| > it was not easy to actually buy $6B in working EV vans...
| they were all hypothetical
|
| I'm not really understanding the excuse-making. They
| already own EV alternatives in the form of the existing
| fleet. If they have insufficient funds, replace fewer
| trucks. Don't add more ICE to the roads.
|
| The LLVs currently in use are tiny and have a 150-mile
| range. That's Nissan Leaf numbers. We're not asking for
| Rivians here. Figure it out.
|
| The LLVs have also been in service for _35 years_. Whatever
| replaces them is going to be there for a long time. The
| fact that so many of these are ICE is a disgrace.
|
| ICE should be reserved strictly for routes that demand it.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| > Environmentalists were outraged
|
| Remember, us normal folks were not enraged, it was the
| _environmentalists_. (sarcasm)
| Tobu wrote:
| There was indeed sabotage, in the form of dismantling and not
| replacing hundreds of working mail sorting machines in an
| election year:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/08/19/repor...
| https://truthout.org/articles/usps-sorting-machines-are-stil...
| https://www.ajc.com/news/postal-service-tells-judge-mail-sor...
| https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/usps-removed-711...
|
| I don't know how he hasn't been removed after this.
| rglover wrote:
| It looks like a Pixar character that's about to teach me a
| valuable lesson.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Strange that Amazon can make Rivian trucks work but not USPS.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| Why is it strange? Isn't it common and expected for the
| government to lag behind the private sector?
| Axsuul wrote:
| There's different requirements and use cases.
| mburns wrote:
| Rivians cost ~45% more per-unit than the postal vehicle (86k vs
| $59k), and doesn't come in an ice variant, which the Post
| Office requires.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Seems like ice requirements don't apply to every state
| tomcam wrote:
| They don't, but California essentially dictates them
| because nobody wants to cut themselves out of the richest
| state's car sales
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| Amazon only delivers to the easy areas and uses USPS to deliver
| to all the places where they can't deliver economically
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| I love it when my tax dollars are used for something like this. A
| worthwhile project that seems to have been well executed.
| nicholastsmith wrote:
| Depending if that was sarcasm or not, I may have some bad/good
| news for you:
|
| https://facts.usps.com/0-tax-dallars/
| Axsuul wrote:
| "He found a way to further boost the number of electric
| vehicles when he met with President Joe Biden's top
| environmental adviser, John Podesta. That led to a deal in
| which the government provided $3 billion to the Postal
| Service, with part of it earmarked for electric charging
| stations."
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| That wasn't sarcastic hah. I just assumed it was taxpayer
| funded!
| hyperific wrote:
| They look like something from Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
| 404mm wrote:
| I am surprised by the long hood/nose and then thick bumpers.
|
| By law, there's usually 6-10' space requirement for parking near
| a mailbox on a street. And cars rarely follow those rules,
| parking pretty close to mailboxes.
|
| So I'd expect the front end to be as short as possible so driver
| can more easily maneuver to reach mail boxes.
| luxuryballs wrote:
| They're going to be replacing a lot of windshields...
| ooterness wrote:
| Easier to replace windshields than run-over kids. Good
| visibility is more important.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Why does the article only mention the mpg the older cars get? A
| significant number of the new ones use gas, do they perform
| better? I somewhat suspect not given their size.
| phonon wrote:
| The internal combustion engine (ICE) variant has an estimated
| fuel efficiency of 14.7 mpg-US (16.0 L/100 km), decreasing to
| 8.6 mpg-US (27 L/100 km) when the air conditioning is on. For
| comparison, the earlier LLV (built 1987-94) and FFV (2000-01)
| have an average observed fuel consumption of 8.2 and 6.9 mpg-US
| (29 and 34 L/100 km), respectively.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_NGDV
| grecy wrote:
| Wow, that is a _massive_ hit to fuel consumption from the A
| /C. What gives?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Is it? The thing's huge, air conditioning is never cheap. A
| quick search says average cars consume ~25% more gas with
| AC, making it somewhat high.
|
| I think short trips at low speeds are also terrible for AC,
| dunno how they did the projections.
| bgnn wrote:
| my car consumes 5% more with AC on. it's a 2002 Mazda.
| So, I don't believe 25% number.
| grecy wrote:
| I feel the same way. I've never had a vehicle that
| consumed more than 5% extra with A/C. With my current
| diesel I can't notice a difference at all.
| zerocrates wrote:
| I think the numbers here are more like the expected
| consumption in actual mail delivery usage vs. something
| like the familiar EPA MPG ratings you'd see on cars.
|
| A mail truck is going to be driving pretty slowly and
| stopping a lot, both of which will make an extra constant
| load like AC have a bigger effect.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Perhaps you can't use the auto-start/stop feature of the
| ICE system when the aircon is on? When the vehicle is
| stopped, something needs to be turning the compressor or
| things get hot pretty quick in hot climates. USPS trucks
| probably benefit from the start/stop system more than any
| other efficiency feature this new vehicle has.
| maxglute wrote:
| Form follows function but also goofy Pentagon Wars tier design.
| CalRobert wrote:
| I appreciate that even a young child could stand in front of the
| grill and be visible. Well done.
| analog31 wrote:
| I was going to comment that these trucks could be much less
| dangerous in collisions with pedestrians and cyclists, without
| sacrificing utility. It could encourage better design standards
| for things like pickup trucks, SUVs, and minivans.
| loxodrome wrote:
| How is it the new model looks even more outdated than the old
| one?
| bgnn wrote:
| these sonehow look like.. US.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-15 23:00 UTC)