I've read so much knocking their appearance, which is so confusing to me. It's ultimately function over form in this case; who cares if you don't like how it looks? I can only dream that the visibility and safety of having features like such a low hood and large bumpers would be incorporated into other vehicles (i.e., every SUV ever).
Probably in the minority, but I actually like the look of them. I find so many modern car designs indistinguishable from each other. Cars such a narrow range of design that's considered "good aesthetics" that everything looks so uniform.
The equivalent US trucks mostly used by FedEx and UPS are much squarer than the European designed Transit or Sprinter vans that are now replacing them.
The Fiat Ducati / Ram Promaster is another Transit / Sprinter class van but the linked image with the “traditional design” in the post I responded to was of an older, smaller Dodge Ram Van.
Good article, though I do like some matte paints and some of the dulled color looks. The problem for me is not that these aren't good paint choices by themselves, but how uniformly dull every car is. Most cars come in 3-4 shades of grey or a dull red, if there is color more often than not it's that wet putty look. I legit felt sad a couple of times looking at a big parking lot and the total lack of color. If people had a variety of color cars, then a few of those wet putty dulled out versions would be part of that variety.
There's almost certainly strong market and logistical reasons for this trend, and I bet some HN reader knows why to an unreasonable detail (I'd be interested to hear it!), but it still bums me out.
1) A lot of car buyers worry about resale value. For the same reason a house with a purple and pink paint scheme won't sell at top price, a car with strong colors won't either. You might like seeing cars in a variety of colors like bright orange, bright green, etc., but those colors will absolutely turn away a significant fraction of the potential buyers, thus lowering resale value. If you could just press a button inside the car to change its color, it wouldn't be this way, but as it is, repainting a car is prohibitively expensive.
2) Just look at the way people dress these days. Boring colors are in, bright and bold colors are out and generally associated with the 1960s. We're in a very bad time now as far as color palettes and styles go.
If successful and widely deployed they'll become iconic and part of the gestalt. And if the pattern holds I'll be dead before the replacement is put in place.
> Cars such a narrow range of design that's considered "good aesthetics" that everything looks so uniform.
The issue is fuel efficiency. Modern cars are all built to be as aerodynamic and fuel efficient as possible, and the constraints are virtually the same, so the designs are very similar as well.
However, these mail trucks don't travel 85 miles an hour, most of them will be on average less than 25 mp/h or less, where aerodynamics plainly just does not matter (it's v-squared), so they can prioritize safety and driver comfort over anything else.
I don't fully buy this - if you optimized for aerodynamics and safety you'd get cars so far outside the aesthetic it would be ridiculed. No-one is making fun of the new USPS trucks for lack of fuel efficiency, they're saying it looks like a platypus. I can see a weaker version of what you're saying, that the intersection between the aesthetics a mass car market would accept and an acceptable fuel efficiency/safety yields a very narrow design space.
Maybe I wasn't clear because I wasn't talking about doing anything, or suggesting that car manufacturers do anything, just I don't think this comment is the full story:
> Modern cars are all built to be as aerodynamic and fuel efficient as possible, and the constraints are virtually the same, so the designs are very similar as well.
I don't know that efficiency is really an explanation.
If you look at a list of very aerodynamic cars, there are a bunch of older ones with very different designs.
https://carbuzz.com/features/most-aerodynamic-cars/
Older cars had fewer safety regulations, so they could play around with more designs. Also a lot of the old photos in that post are of concept cars or race cars, not production vehicles.
The Aptera has a unique design because it is considered a motorcycle in the US, so most Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards don't apply to it.
Those bars that you smack into everytime you get into your car and those bars that give you enormous blind spots to hit pedestrians? Yeah, they're there because of safety regulations.
When you put the requirements to be able to roll over and not cave the roof along with aerodynamics, the design constraints are pretty heavy.
Being able to roll without crushing the cabin doesn’t take that much. It’s airbags that are causing wide blindspot inducing pillars and there’s options that maintain good visibility.
I think it's a misquote of the phrase "Form ever follows function", commonly attributed to architect Louis Sullivan. It's an odd sentence structure, where the leader comes second in the phrasing, that trips people up.
Oh. What does that even mean? Saying something is "form over function" is not derogatory. Lots of great inventions prioritize form over function (iPod comes to mind).
Seriously though, the iTunes integration and cross platform compatibility kind of sucked. It would have been much more useful if you could just mount it like a hard drive without special library management software.
> It would have been much more useful if you could just mount it like a hard drive without special library management software.
When I got my first iPod in 2006, I immediately put Rockbox on it, where the iPod indeed mounted like a hard drive and files (including all my .oggs, remember those?) could be dropped right onto the device. Never used Apple’s own UI even once.
I still miss the iPod. It let you really immerse yourself in the music without all the distractions inherent in a smartphone. I occasionally considered getting a used one and installing larger storage and a new battery, but by now I think that ship has sailed.
> Seriously though, the iTunes integration and cross platform compatibility kind of sucked. It would have been much more useful if you could just mount it like a hard drive without special library management software.
I very much preferred this, actually. file management is really annoying compared to custom-built software with all the tagging etc built-in. Subjective, obviously, but I really miss that every time I'm managing music on linux or windows and get frustrated when labeling invariably changes (even if only subtly) when moved to a device.
Granted, itunes could have also done a much better of unifying the tagging etc with the files to avoid this entire fiasco.
I think that making the iPod mount like a filesystem would have had significant impact on other aspects of the device.
There is no filesystem level abstraction over USB (or Firewire). So plugging in presents as a hard drive / block device, which then means it needs to have a filesystem. For "built-in" cross OS compatibility that means it would be have to be a FAT filesystem. If you change these decisions either a new filesystem or device driver would need to be installed for some machines.
Most devices that present a FAT filesystem when plugged in stop working like they do when unplugged. i.e. the device itself and the connected computer cannot access the data at the same time. For the iPod this would mean it wouldn't be possible to play music while syncing.
I think it might be possible to build a "fake" drive and FAT filesystem when plugged in, but it would take quite a bit of work and have lots of odd corner cases. For example, the user on the computer attempting to re-format the drive, perhaps with a different filesystem.
> Some versions of the iPod can serve as external data storage devices, like other digital music players. Prior to macOS 10.15, Apple's iTunes software (and other alternative software) could be used to transfer music, photos, videos, games, contact information, e-mail settings, Web bookmarks, and calendars to the devices supporting these features from computers using certain versions of Apple macOS and Microsoft Windows operating systems.
But it's okay to call them ugly. People get used to a certain look of things and then you introduce something that look like what an 8 year old would draw (this mail truck, Musk's cybertruck) and you'll get some flack. It's utterly meaningless in the end, and just bar talk. If these are reliable and make the postal workers' lives better I'm all for it, but they are imo ugly as sin.
The low hood is almost definitely to help prevent scraping mailboxes and other objects, but especially mailboxes. My dad was a rural USPS carrier that used his own vehicle, and despite him having been an excellent driver with no accidents on record in his life, he still ended up swapping minor paint with mailboxes a few times.
Can't imagine how often it happens across the country.
Vehicle choice is probably much more of a personal-identity / status thing for the soccer-mom.
To riff off of a Bujold quote about uniforms: "Fleet vehicles are always correct, or, if not exactly correct, clearly not the driver's fault, since they have no choice."
Subarus use a boxer engine that drastically increases the visibility. I have a short torso with long legs and finding a car where I felt comfortable with visibility was a priority for me. I settled on the Subaru Impreza 10 years ago. Still has the best visibility of all the cars I’ve driven. I’d expect EVs to also have better visibility - may be eventually - since they can drop the height of the hood as well.
3) and plus that extra forward bumper looks a bit like a telemark ski binding clip, and those ski folk never really looked especially smooth
4) it came out during DeJoy’s tenure, so it’s easy to imagine this is actually a shaming design
5) there are some very cute and charming EV designs out for Amazon FedEx UPS right now, and this isn’t up to the standard of those more forward looking (and admittedly bulbous but “of our time”) designs.
6) we’ll have to live, culturally, with this identity for a while. Seems a bit “meh”. I can see it now.. Kevin James as a future sitcom postal carrier and he will have a whole extra stage set up so he can have scenes in the enormous front cab of this thing. A la Art Carney as Ed Norton from the Honeymooners. We’ll get to visit the monstrosity during future Universal Studio backlot tours.
The job of delivery services today is delivering small packages, not information. So everybody (USPS, UPS, Amazon) is converging on the same feature set:
- Van big enough to stand up in
- Door between driver compartment and package storage
- Bin/shelf type package storage, not bags or piles
- Good visibility
- Battery electric
- Optimized for 0 to 30 MPH with lots of stops. Aerodynamics don't matter much. Regenerative braking does.
Amazon has some cute features. The driver wears some small RFID device, and when they step out of the truck, the door to package storage closes and locks, and the truck won't move. Amazon's new vans also have very high visibility from the rear, with many LEDs, so it's hard to rear-end them by accident. Good because they double-part frequently.
Say what you will about the Grumman LLV, but every one of them you see on the road today is at least 30 years old, and some could be pushing 40. (The similar-looking Ford-Utilimaster FFV is ~25 this year.) As uncomfortable as it must be to sit in one for hours on end (I never had the privilege myself) you've got to respect their longevity.
Here's hoping these new trucks make it to the 2050s and beyond.
"While the all-aluminum body of the LLV has resisted corrosion exceptionally well over the years, the main powertrain components have been replaced multiple times and now must be sourced through aftermarket manufacturing. This has significantly increased repair costs while reducing performance and reliability.
In fact, the Postal Service had to contract an alternative supplier to reverse engineer and manufacture the chassis frame to keep the LLV operational. As a result, the average annual maintenance cost exceeds $5,000, with 7% of LLVs exceeding $10,000 annually. Additionally, they are less fuel-efficient and unsuitable for future delivery needs given projected changes in market demand, mail mix, and increasing delivery points.
The LLVs also lack modern safety features such as airbags, anti-lock brakes, air conditioning, back-up cameras, blind-spot warning systems, daytime running lights, and seatbelt reminders."
https://uspsngdveis.com/documents/USPS+NGDV+FEIS_Dec+2021.pd...
Sort of a Ship of Theseus vehicle. Yes, some have lasted over 40 years, but that's with potentially multiple drivetrain replacements, at an annual maintenance cost of $5,000 - $10,000. That feels high, given how simple those vehicles are.
I believe the LLV line was only suppose to be in service for 20 years, but the government gonna government and not find a replacement till it's almost too late. So yes it was a lot of scrounging and probably a lot of USPS mechanics needing to be creative, but the LLV lasted twice as long as it was designed for. I expect this same conversation will happen again in another 40 years.
> the government gonna government and not find a replacement till it's almost too late
Actually they were going to convert to EVs back in 2006 when Bush stepped in to prevent that and punish them on behalf of his oil buddies with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The problem isn't government, it's politicians voted in to destroy it in favor of corporate interests.
> According to Tom Davis, the Bush administration threatened to veto the legislation unless they added the provision regarding funding the employee benefits in advance with the objective of using that money to reduce the federal deficit.
Bush was responsible for the provision that kneecapped USPS to prevent them from ever funding their EV ambitions (until Biden funded NGDV in 2022)
From my desk at home I see the lil LLV come down our private road every single day.
They seem very durable. I've forgotten the number of times I've seen one plowing an improvised short cut through the scrub brush between desert ranches.
Probably cuts an hour off the time with little change in comfort compared to using what passes for "roads" in some places.
Here they slide down the hills in the snow and ice and hit things (at low-ish speeds). One got stuck in a snow bank at a cross street near me a few winters ago and another one showed up and they played bumper cars until it was though though I'm sure that activity is not officially sanctioned. I can't imagine how that would have gone with the Metris vans they're using as a stop gap
According to this video[0] the shape is because there's a requirement for 95th percentile males to be able to stand up inside and the front is low for 5th percentile females to be able to see a specific distance in front of the hood. The shape makes perfect sense.
After driving a new Mercedes Vito (I can't describe how insane the controls of this vehicle are, but it has capacitive-touch buttons that you have to swipe to change the stereo volume ON THE STEERING WHEEL), I long for controls that look like this:
Tactile controls should be the default. I was actually interested in the Lincoln Corsair until I saw how much they rely on touch - even for things like the climate control, same as the Teslas. Instantly took it off the list.
That's why I won't even consider a Tesla. Test drove a few vehicles and it's amazing how many do touch screen everything now. Will -not- buy.
The one I ended up buying is all tactile except changing the radio stations. Even that gets really annoying, as you have to take your eyes off the road to change stations. I end up just poking it in random places blind until something happens.
I'm proud to have helped implement the brand new dedicated ERP system that is used to build these trucks. Nice to see the final product is hitting the streets.
I think you owe us some information to satisfy 'intellectual curiosity'! :)
I'll start: Why did they create a brand-new and why a dedicated ERP system? Didn't the manufacturer have an ERP system used for manufacturing other vehicles?
I have great faith in the ability of ahem some individuals to harm themselves out of spite or inability to recognize inbound leopards, but I'm pretty sure that even those would find the new vehicles to be an improvement even if they're EVs - at least if they're actually driving the old and new vehicles.
>Ykeyler Barnes, a letter carrier in Athens, said when she first got her new electric mail truck, she thought it wasn’t working when she pushed the button to start it. So she called a mechanic to check it out.
“He said, ‘It starts — you just can’t hear it because it’s electric,’” Ms. Barnes said. “I thought that was so funny. I came home and told my family and we got a good laugh out of it.”
My favorite part of this, so wholesome. It really is shocking to hear the difference when you've been driving/hearing gas vehicles your whole life.
Direct Vision Standards[0] should implemented as a mandatory requirement everywhere for large vehicles traveling in cities or residential areas where there's "soft road users"[1] (pedestrians, cyclists). Should be able to see straight to the side and know you're not running someone over.
I was squeezing by in front of a modern garbage truck this morning that basically had a glass side door. It was great: I could actually establish eye contact with the driver and sign that I was going to drive in front of him and he could give me small wave to go ahead. The driver of a less modern truck would have had no way at all to see me, much less communicate with me.
Another government boondoggle. The vehicle requirements were at the level of a combat vehicle so only one or two companies with DOD experience could win the contract.
And the result is a $60k+ camel designed by committee.
This is great news! The design is interesting though. Why would they choose such a hard angle for the hood and windshield vs something more gentle? Does anybody know why they made that design choice?
They aren't/weren't all going to be EVs. Originally the USPS was looking at 10% EVs and 90% internal combustion but there were a bunch of challenges to that (including that ratio being based on incorrect environmental impact data). Now it's 75% EVs in the first order of 60,000 and future orders may be that high or higher (currently expected that it will be all EVs starting in 2026).
One benefit of a low hood is that it scoops up pedestrians that might get hit instead of hitting their torsos with the vehicle. It'll probably break your legs, but you are more likely to survive.
This is one of the reasons that SUVs and large trucks are deadly: it's basically hitting you directly in the chest cavity.
> Four variants of the NGDV are expected to be in fleet use: both gasoline-powered and battery-electric, in either front wheel drive or all wheel drive.
So I expect the front hood is for the gas powered engine for those variants. Further down, it talks about only 10% will be EV at the start due to cost. Also, this is in partnership with Ford so the ICE power train is the from the Ford Transit van.
To have easy side entry the front wheels need to be in front of the driver. So you need something to cover the front suspension and hold up lights. Try drawing a flat nose version of this vehicle that maintains the same ease of access.
i guess they could have made it flat nosed like a bus?? are they putting the batteries in the nose? it looks like the cargo part is too low for them to be placed under there. also, gotta put that ac somewhere. probably makes it easier to work on under the little hood than having to climb on top of the truck.
It looks like the letter carrier has to reach down to get to that mailbox. Yes, they can reach it, but I wonder about ergonomics. Not all mailboxes are the same height, so you probably have to reach down for some, but if this is a representative mailbox, I worry.
Honestly I think it looks great - the design screams "I care for pedestrian safety" and "I'm a nice person, and I don't need to compensate for anything, because I have great sex life."
Interesting that the front windshield only has about 50-60% usable space. On the top this makes sense, as the black coating acts as a sun shade. On the bottom... there goes all the visibility gained by having the low hood. wtf?
The upfitter AUX switches appear to be Ford, same for the AC controls.
The camera is positioned so that the side window is visible through the front windshield. I think the "black coating" you are seeing is just the interior of the van, and that the entire front windshield is usable.
> On the bottom... there goes all the visibility gained by having the low hood. wtf?
That is a little weird, now that I look at it again. But the way you'd use the rest of that bottom space would be by lowering the driver, basically, and that would mean the driver's not as high up over the hood. So maybe getting the higher angle gains more visibility than having them sit lower just to maximize usable windshield area? (The only way you could have both is if the dashboard was transparent.)
My $5 it's the usual 'too late to change'. Compare with the 2021 version.
Also the if you trace LoS in the cabin pic in the article you would find what the driver wouldn't see more of the hood because he need to be sat quite a lot higher (up to 20cm I think) to gain the view you are thinking of. And this is incompatible with 'do the mailman thing without getting out of chair'.
lol they're paying (with my money) something like 60k for each one of those.
Should have just bought police explorers like the cops are driving and saved 15-20k+ per unit. Plus as a bonus you might have actual parts availability for the foreseeable future, unlike when Oshkosh corp decides burning money in a barrel is more financially viable than building replacement parts for the postal service and the 40-70k of these that they'll actually get ordered before the budget gets slashed or whatever.
I wondered why other delivery companies use commercial vehicles instead of NGDVs or LLVs, and the answer is that commercial vehicles are more capable while being significantly cheaper.
NGDVs cost $60,000 each, and that's for half of them being ICE vehicles and half EVs with a 70 mile range (35 miles if you use the heater). The ICE version gets 14.7 miles per gallon (8.6mpg if you turn on the air conditioning).[1] There is no hybrid version, which is outrageous considering the expected driving profile.
For comparison, a Mercedes eSprinter (which has more cargo capacity and >2x the range of the NGDV) starts at $63,475 MSRP. I'm sure a bulk order of 50,000 would get a significant discount.
This whole project seems to be a handout to a defense contractor, not an efficient use of funds.
My point was that a much more capable vehicle could be purchased for a similar price. Depending on the use case, of course other commercial vehicles would make more sense. The smaller versions of the Ford Transit are a popular option among non-US postal services. And if US Postal Service was willing to buy foreign vehicles, they could have even smaller and cheaper options. (Though they'd have to deal with EPA and NHTSA rules to make them street legal.)
> My point was that a much more capable vehicle could be purchased for a similar price.
This leaps to a conclusion. Probably the documents are public - why did they choose this solution over off-the-shelf options? (No point in speculation; what is their actual analysis?)
> The smaller versions of the Ford Transit are a popular option among non-US postal services. And if US Postal Service was willing to buy foreign vehicles, they could have even smaller and cheaper options.
Ford isn't selling the Transit Connect in North America anymore. And they're made in Europe, so despite the brand, they're a foreign vehicle, too.
The NGDV's gross vehicle weight rating is 8,501lbs so that it is classified by the EPA as a heavy-duty truck. If the rating were a pound less, it would be classified as a light-duty truck and have much stricter emissions standards.
One key difference between USPS and UPS/Fedex is that USPS does not do freight, and they do a lot more lightweight items (i.e. letters), so cargo capacity is much less of a concern. The fact that junk mail is so common actually reduces the need for cargo capacity since their routes tend to be made long not because of physical volume/distance so much as dwell time (that is, if someone is using EDDM[0] to target a neighborhood, you have to stop at every mailbox in that neighborhood, even if it's just to deliver that one piece of junk mail which will immediately get thrown away, and this takes far more time than delivering a bundle of packages to a handful of houses).
I remember reading about the NGDV, and one of the reasons it looks so weird is because USPS wanted a vehicle that was low to the ground (to make it easier to climb in and out of) and easy to see over the hood, even for very short drivers[1]. Given that they are in residential areas (and thus, in proximity of kids playing outside) far more often than UPS/Fedex, I can't say I disagree with that requirement. (Also, if you have a tall truck like UPS and Fedex typically roll, good luck delivering to the average mailbox while staying in your seat.)
USPS has certainly evaluated more traditional designs; in fact, they are actively using ~20k Ram ProMasters (a rebadged Fiat Ducato), which are quite similar to the Mercedes Sprinter, alongside ~9k mini vans[2].
> Given that they are in residential areas (and thus, in proximity of kids playing outside) far more often than UPS/Fedex...
That isn't the case at all in my experience. In any neighborhood I've ever lived in, you see at least one van from each organization come through daily. And if anything, UPS and FedEx come through more than once per day sometimes, whereas USPS doesn't.
Per your earlier point about freight I can imagine that UPS/FedEx have a lower percentage of company traffic in residential areas than USPS does. But I find it difficult to imagine that the total number of trips to residential areas is lower for them. They simply have more non-residential traffic than USPS, not less residential traffic.
I wish there were publicly available data on this stuff, as we can only discuss anecdotes. In any case, in the neighborhoods I've lived in, it's not uncommon for UPS and Fedex to have zero deliveries at least one day of the week.
If Fedex is rolling around twice in one day, it's never the same line (that is, Fedex Express vs Ground/Home; Express incurs a special surcharge for residential deliveries and thus is usually only used by companies that primarily deliver to commercial addresses or who don't care about cost).
UPS is similar; usually, they only roll around in the evening, and when they roll around in the morning it's for one package with a specific delivery window obligation.
During December, of course, this goes by the wayside. Even USPS will roll around twice a day on the weekends leading up to Christmas.
> That isn't the case at all in my experience. In any neighborhood I've ever lived in, you see at least one van from each organization come through daily. And if anything, UPS and FedEx come through more than once per day sometimes, whereas USPS doesn't.
USPS doesn't deliver freight, UPS does. So yeah, you are going to see both in a residential setting but you won't see any USPS trucks making freight deliveries in an industrial area. UPS has to support that use case, USPS doesn't.
The NGDVs aren't Sprinter vans, they're purpose made mail delivery vehicles, with ergonomics and cargo space setup for that, which makes a massive difference for the drivers, especially when it comes to repetitive motion injuries, which is a huge cost for USPS.
Amazon went away from commercial vans to purpose made vehicles built by Rivian for many of the same reasons and they've been widely praised by the drivers.
The Rivian vans are commercially available.[1] Like the NGDV, they have a side door and an 80 inch interior height so that nobody has to stoop while in the cargo bay.
If you follow the link in your link, you'll see that while new Postal Service trucks are $60,000, the Rivian vans START a $83,000†, and it's simply not possible for the driver of one of those vans to reach a mailbox from inside the vehicle, which is how vast majority of what the new Postal Services will be used.
Paying a 40% premium for less capability? That doesn't sound smart.
I was just saying that the vehicle is commercially available, not that it was a better option for the US Postal Service. But $83,000 is the retail price. Anyone buying in bulk will get them for significantly cheaper. The $60k for the NGDV is the discounted price for a bulk buy of 50,000, and it's for a mix of ICE and EVs. The ICE vehicles are significantly cheaper to manufacture, so the EV price is probably close to the Rivian's bulk price, and the Rivian has significantly greater capabilities.
According to you, some random tech bro CEO who hasn't delivered hundreds of letters a day for decades and is just looking at cost and going "hey, this isn't the cheapest option, it must be one of those darn government projects meant to subsidize those annoying poor people!"
Having wrenched more extensively than I want to on the Transit, the Sprinter and the Promaster I would hand out the pork to a defense contractor ten times over before I bought Euro vans of ANY make because at least they tend to build things with margin in the places you need it even if it's not peak comfort and user experience. The engineering culture and default assumptions are completely different and it shows.
As usual when you take a dismissive stance ("this is obviously a waste of money!") you are ignoring lots od details. The use case of a mail carrier is not well suited by a massive eSprinter. They have no need for something so large. They want to be seated at the height where most mailboxes are so they can make many deliveries without getting out of the car.
Whenever you find yourself going "why would they make THAT decision?" assume it is yourself that is ignorant and take it as an opportunity to learn, rather than dismiss the choices of people who specialize in the area you are puzzled by.
I used the eSprinter as one example, not the only option. Maybe something like the Ford eTransit or the Rivian EDV is a better fit for postal deliveries. My point is that other delivery companies and postal services use commercial vehicles, most likely because that's the most cost-effective option.
Considering the NGDV's atrocious efficiency, lack of hybrid option, and high unit costs, it seems far more likely that this is a pork project for a defense contractor than that everyone else is doing it wrong.
Is it inefficient? Would it be more worthy to have two chassis designs, one for ICE and one for EV, to make it more efficient for the gas version? Would any hybrid drivetrain provide higher efficiency for similar build costs on the same chassis?
My point would be that they weighed a lot of design considerations and I assume this is the best they could get that meets all of them. Like others said, other commercial delivery vehicles don't have the same use case as this. Who cares about range when the use case for this vehicle is ~20 miles a day?
Everyone else isn't "doing it wrong", they're doing it differently, for different needs.
There's a wider meta point here which is always relevant: nobody comes into work planning to do a bad job.
I'd add the second point is: if you're not in the same field, then start with the assumption that the people who's work you're looking at had good reasons for their choices (and that it wasn't a conspiracy).
> I wondered why other delivery companies use commercial vehicles instead of NGDVs or LLVs, and the answer is that commercial vehicles are more capable while being significantly cheaper.
Commercial vehicles in fleets are leased - they last anywhere from 2-5 years then they're pushed off to the used vehicle market. After 10-15 years they're so done that they'll end up on the scrap yard or shipped off to Africa or Asia. On top of that they're designed to be aerodynamic at highway speeds because they'll spend a lot of their life time on such streets and speeds, whereas these postal trucks will spend most of their time moving like snails.
These USPS tanks in contrast are expected to last 30, 40 years like their predecessors, racking up insane mileage... and while no one cares if some underpaid gig worker runs over some child because the child happened to be in the dead spot of his vehicle, if the same happens to USPS the government itself is the target for a nice juicy lawsuit. So it makes sense for a custom order at that scale and expected life time, and it also makes sense to stray from what the market has to offer because the requirements are different.
Oh, and commercial delivery doesn't have to take care about its workers. They'll get burned out with their backs and joints ruined, but the companies don't have to pay a dime. In contrast, USPS is a government agency and has a massive financial incentive to keep healthcare costs low.
http://archive.today/Mcwu5
I've read so much knocking their appearance, which is so confusing to me. It's ultimately function over form in this case; who cares if you don't like how it looks? I can only dream that the visibility and safety of having features like such a low hood and large bumpers would be incorporated into other vehicles (i.e., every SUV ever).
Probably in the minority, but I actually like the look of them. I find so many modern car designs indistinguishable from each other. Cars such a narrow range of design that's considered "good aesthetics" that everything looks so uniform.
I think when it comes to vans they've kind of let go of traditional designs.
like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Dodge-Ra...
Now they've gotten the european influence to be very square:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/2015_For...
or like the european designed mercedes sprinter, very tall too:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Mercedes...
The European equivalents to the Dodge Ram Van are the smaller Transit Custom or VW Transporter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Transit_Custom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Transporter
The equivalent US trucks mostly used by FedEx and UPS are much squarer than the European designed Transit or Sprinter vans that are now replacing them.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FedEx_Express_truck....
The main German postal service for a time manufactured their own e-vans, which where rather boxy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StreetScooter
Ram Promaster is a rebranded Fiat Ducato. The European equivalent of it is thus a Fiat Ducato.
UPS uses plenty of Promasters.
The Fiat Ducati / Ram Promaster is another Transit / Sprinter class van but the linked image with the “traditional design” in the post I responded to was of an older, smaller Dodge Ram Van.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Ram_Van
I was trying to point out that the Transit/Sprinter/Ducati class vans are replacing the larger and far more boxy FedEx and UPS vans like this:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UPS_package_car.jp...
Like wet putty
https://www.blackbirdspyplane.com/p/why-do-new-cars-look-lik...
Good article, though I do like some matte paints and some of the dulled color looks. The problem for me is not that these aren't good paint choices by themselves, but how uniformly dull every car is. Most cars come in 3-4 shades of grey or a dull red, if there is color more often than not it's that wet putty look. I legit felt sad a couple of times looking at a big parking lot and the total lack of color. If people had a variety of color cars, then a few of those wet putty dulled out versions would be part of that variety.
There's almost certainly strong market and logistical reasons for this trend, and I bet some HN reader knows why to an unreasonable detail (I'd be interested to hear it!), but it still bums me out.
I think there's two parts:
1) A lot of car buyers worry about resale value. For the same reason a house with a purple and pink paint scheme won't sell at top price, a car with strong colors won't either. You might like seeing cars in a variety of colors like bright orange, bright green, etc., but those colors will absolutely turn away a significant fraction of the potential buyers, thus lowering resale value. If you could just press a button inside the car to change its color, it wouldn't be this way, but as it is, repainting a car is prohibitively expensive.
2) Just look at the way people dress these days. Boring colors are in, bright and bold colors are out and generally associated with the 1960s. We're in a very bad time now as far as color palettes and styles go.
Is that writer from Philadelphia? Very quirky and colourful writing style!
Was it the jawn? That article was by Jonah Weiner who grew up in NYC.
Yep!
If successful and widely deployed they'll become iconic and part of the gestalt. And if the pattern holds I'll be dead before the replacement is put in place.
> Cars such a narrow range of design that's considered "good aesthetics" that everything looks so uniform.
The issue is fuel efficiency. Modern cars are all built to be as aerodynamic and fuel efficient as possible, and the constraints are virtually the same, so the designs are very similar as well.
However, these mail trucks don't travel 85 miles an hour, most of them will be on average less than 25 mp/h or less, where aerodynamics plainly just does not matter (it's v-squared), so they can prioritize safety and driver comfort over anything else.
I don't fully buy this - if you optimized for aerodynamics and safety you'd get cars so far outside the aesthetic it would be ridiculed. No-one is making fun of the new USPS trucks for lack of fuel efficiency, they're saying it looks like a platypus. I can see a weaker version of what you're saying, that the intersection between the aesthetics a mass car market would accept and an acceptable fuel efficiency/safety yields a very narrow design space.
Not really sure what you think would change if you did this?
Maybe I wasn't clear because I wasn't talking about doing anything, or suggesting that car manufacturers do anything, just I don't think this comment is the full story:
> Modern cars are all built to be as aerodynamic and fuel efficient as possible, and the constraints are virtually the same, so the designs are very similar as well.
I don't know that efficiency is really an explanation. If you look at a list of very aerodynamic cars, there are a bunch of older ones with very different designs. https://carbuzz.com/features/most-aerodynamic-cars/
And the still-not-released Aptera looks very distinctive and is claimed to have a drag coefficient of 0.13. https://electrek.co/2020/12/07/aptera-super-efficient-electr...
Older cars had fewer safety regulations, so they could play around with more designs. Also a lot of the old photos in that post are of concept cars or race cars, not production vehicles.
The Aptera has a unique design because it is considered a motorcycle in the US, so most Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards don't apply to it.
It's aerodynamics and safety combined.
Those bars that you smack into everytime you get into your car and those bars that give you enormous blind spots to hit pedestrians? Yeah, they're there because of safety regulations.
When you put the requirements to be able to roll over and not cave the roof along with aerodynamics, the design constraints are pretty heavy.
Being able to roll without crushing the cabin doesn’t take that much. It’s airbags that are causing wide blindspot inducing pillars and there’s options that maintain good visibility.
Yeah I think the kids would like it. It's a bit reminicent of Postman Pat's van https://content.instructables.com/FRX/AYCQ/JASJWQW4/FRXAYCQJ...
> I've read so much knocking their appearance, which is so confusing to me.
Especially since the old LLVs were pretty ugly in their own way. We've just gotten used to seeing them over the last 38 years.
> It's ultimately form over function in this case
Doesn't "form over function" mean the opposite of your usage?
Form = appearance
Function = usefulness
Yes, I just reversed it by mistake!
I think it's a misquote of the phrase "Form ever follows function", commonly attributed to architect Louis Sullivan. It's an odd sentence structure, where the leader comes second in the phrasing, that trips people up.
I took this to mean that critiquing appearance is itself form over function.
Oh. What does that even mean? Saying something is "form over function" is not derogatory. Lots of great inventions prioritize form over function (iPod comes to mind).
I’m not convinced the iPod was. Everything else was pretty terrible at that time. The iPod did it right (and arguably still does)
iPod was famously both though? The click-wheel was pretty unique and worked great to make an accessible UIx for the masses.
It may have been somewhat limiting in edge cases, but for normal usage I don't recall anyone complaining about it outside of hardcore tech circles.
"No wireless? Less space than a Nomad? Lame"
Seriously though, the iTunes integration and cross platform compatibility kind of sucked. It would have been much more useful if you could just mount it like a hard drive without special library management software.
The click wheel was cool.
> It would have been much more useful if you could just mount it like a hard drive without special library management software.
When I got my first iPod in 2006, I immediately put Rockbox on it, where the iPod indeed mounted like a hard drive and files (including all my .oggs, remember those?) could be dropped right onto the device. Never used Apple’s own UI even once.
I still miss the iPod. It let you really immerse yourself in the music without all the distractions inherent in a smartphone. I occasionally considered getting a used one and installing larger storage and a new battery, but by now I think that ship has sailed.
You can still mod a used iPod, one of my coworkers has a few and they are really neat. Go for it!
> Seriously though, the iTunes integration and cross platform compatibility kind of sucked. It would have been much more useful if you could just mount it like a hard drive without special library management software.
I very much preferred this, actually. file management is really annoying compared to custom-built software with all the tagging etc built-in. Subjective, obviously, but I really miss that every time I'm managing music on linux or windows and get frustrated when labeling invariably changes (even if only subtly) when moved to a device.
Granted, itunes could have also done a much better of unifying the tagging etc with the files to avoid this entire fiasco.
I think that making the iPod mount like a filesystem would have had significant impact on other aspects of the device.
There is no filesystem level abstraction over USB (or Firewire). So plugging in presents as a hard drive / block device, which then means it needs to have a filesystem. For "built-in" cross OS compatibility that means it would be have to be a FAT filesystem. If you change these decisions either a new filesystem or device driver would need to be installed for some machines.
Most devices that present a FAT filesystem when plugged in stop working like they do when unplugged. i.e. the device itself and the connected computer cannot access the data at the same time. For the iPod this would mean it wouldn't be possible to play music while syncing.
I think it might be possible to build a "fake" drive and FAT filesystem when plugged in, but it would take quite a bit of work and have lots of odd corner cases. For example, the user on the computer attempting to re-format the drive, perhaps with a different filesystem.
Ok but the iPod could literally act as external storage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod
> Some versions of the iPod can serve as external data storage devices, like other digital music players. Prior to macOS 10.15, Apple's iTunes software (and other alternative software) could be used to transfer music, photos, videos, games, contact information, e-mail settings, Web bookmarks, and calendars to the devices supporting these features from computers using certain versions of Apple macOS and Microsoft Windows operating systems.
But it's okay to call them ugly. People get used to a certain look of things and then you introduce something that look like what an 8 year old would draw (this mail truck, Musk's cybertruck) and you'll get some flack. It's utterly meaningless in the end, and just bar talk. If these are reliable and make the postal workers' lives better I'm all for it, but they are imo ugly as sin.
The low hood is almost definitely to help prevent scraping mailboxes and other objects, but especially mailboxes. My dad was a rural USPS carrier that used his own vehicle, and despite him having been an excellent driver with no accidents on record in his life, he still ended up swapping minor paint with mailboxes a few times.
Can't imagine how often it happens across the country.
The low hood is almost definitely to help prevent scraping mailboxes and other objects, but especially mailboxes.
The USPS states that it's to keep from hitting pedestrians.
for utilitarian purposes, like the guy was quoted "it gets the job done", but for soccer moms and their SUV looks are important.
Safety should be even more important than both, but it obviously isn't since only the USPS trucks have a pedestrian safe design.
If safety were more important than looks, the stilleto would be banned.
Vehicle choice is probably much more of a personal-identity / status thing for the soccer-mom.
To riff off of a Bujold quote about uniforms: "Fleet vehicles are always correct, or, if not exactly correct, clearly not the driver's fault, since they have no choice."
[flagged]
Subarus use a boxer engine that drastically increases the visibility. I have a short torso with long legs and finding a car where I felt comfortable with visibility was a priority for me. I settled on the Subaru Impreza 10 years ago. Still has the best visibility of all the cars I’ve driven. I’d expect EVs to also have better visibility - may be eventually - since they can drop the height of the hood as well.
They're just as tall as anything these days.
For an institution that was the origin of the term "going postal", it's a wonderfully human-oriented design.
Well, they're mostly not qualified to comment on the function, are they?
A few ideas:
1) it kinda resembles Le Car
2) the junk in the frunk
3) and plus that extra forward bumper looks a bit like a telemark ski binding clip, and those ski folk never really looked especially smooth
4) it came out during DeJoy’s tenure, so it’s easy to imagine this is actually a shaming design
5) there are some very cute and charming EV designs out for Amazon FedEx UPS right now, and this isn’t up to the standard of those more forward looking (and admittedly bulbous but “of our time”) designs.
6) we’ll have to live, culturally, with this identity for a while. Seems a bit “meh”. I can see it now.. Kevin James as a future sitcom postal carrier and he will have a whole extra stage set up so he can have scenes in the enormous front cab of this thing. A la Art Carney as Ed Norton from the Honeymooners. We’ll get to visit the monstrosity during future Universal Studio backlot tours.
[dead]
Would you wear the same cloths but in clown colours?
The job of delivery services today is delivering small packages, not information. So everybody (USPS, UPS, Amazon) is converging on the same feature set:
- Van big enough to stand up in
- Door between driver compartment and package storage
- Bin/shelf type package storage, not bags or piles
- Good visibility
- Battery electric
- Optimized for 0 to 30 MPH with lots of stops. Aerodynamics don't matter much. Regenerative braking does.
Amazon has some cute features. The driver wears some small RFID device, and when they step out of the truck, the door to package storage closes and locks, and the truck won't move. Amazon's new vans also have very high visibility from the rear, with many LEDs, so it's hard to rear-end them by accident. Good because they double-part frequently.
Say what you will about the Grumman LLV, but every one of them you see on the road today is at least 30 years old, and some could be pushing 40. (The similar-looking Ford-Utilimaster FFV is ~25 this year.) As uncomfortable as it must be to sit in one for hours on end (I never had the privilege myself) you've got to respect their longevity.
Here's hoping these new trucks make it to the 2050s and beyond.
"While the all-aluminum body of the LLV has resisted corrosion exceptionally well over the years, the main powertrain components have been replaced multiple times and now must be sourced through aftermarket manufacturing. This has significantly increased repair costs while reducing performance and reliability.
In fact, the Postal Service had to contract an alternative supplier to reverse engineer and manufacture the chassis frame to keep the LLV operational. As a result, the average annual maintenance cost exceeds $5,000, with 7% of LLVs exceeding $10,000 annually. Additionally, they are less fuel-efficient and unsuitable for future delivery needs given projected changes in market demand, mail mix, and increasing delivery points.
The LLVs also lack modern safety features such as airbags, anti-lock brakes, air conditioning, back-up cameras, blind-spot warning systems, daytime running lights, and seatbelt reminders." https://uspsngdveis.com/documents/USPS+NGDV+FEIS_Dec+2021.pd...
Sort of a Ship of Theseus vehicle. Yes, some have lasted over 40 years, but that's with potentially multiple drivetrain replacements, at an annual maintenance cost of $5,000 - $10,000. That feels high, given how simple those vehicles are.
I believe the LLV line was only suppose to be in service for 20 years, but the government gonna government and not find a replacement till it's almost too late. So yes it was a lot of scrounging and probably a lot of USPS mechanics needing to be creative, but the LLV lasted twice as long as it was designed for. I expect this same conversation will happen again in another 40 years.
> the government gonna government and not find a replacement till it's almost too late
Actually they were going to convert to EVs back in 2006 when Bush stepped in to prevent that and punish them on behalf of his oil buddies with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The problem isn't government, it's politicians voted in to destroy it in favor of corporate interests.
According to Wikipedia:
> Passed the House on December 8, 2006 (voice vote)
> Passed the Senate on December 9, 2006 (unanimous consent)
Can't pin it all on Bush Jr.
> According to Tom Davis, the Bush administration threatened to veto the legislation unless they added the provision regarding funding the employee benefits in advance with the objective of using that money to reduce the federal deficit.
Bush was responsible for the provision that kneecapped USPS to prevent them from ever funding their EV ambitions (until Biden funded NGDV in 2022)
I wasn't aware Bush was not part of the government in 2006. Thank you for the correction.
> manufacture the chassis frame
Ship of Theseus notwithstanding, at that point, isn't it a new car if you're replacing the chassis?
Some manufacturers have a way of "officially" replacing the chassis, as in getting the chassis as a replacement part and procedure to replace it.
For example see BMW part number 51 71 7 409 410, chassis for F16 https://www.online-teile.com/bmw-ersatzteile/51717409410_Bod...
The law might look this or other way depending on where you are.
From my desk at home I see the lil LLV come down our private road every single day. With retrofitted LED lighting.
From my desk at home I see the lil LLV come down our private road every single day.
They seem very durable. I've forgotten the number of times I've seen one plowing an improvised short cut through the scrub brush between desert ranches.
Probably cuts an hour off the time with little change in comfort compared to using what passes for "roads" in some places.
Here they slide down the hills in the snow and ice and hit things (at low-ish speeds). One got stuck in a snow bank at a cross street near me a few winters ago and another one showed up and they played bumper cars until it was though though I'm sure that activity is not officially sanctioned. I can't imagine how that would have gone with the Metris vans they're using as a stop gap
I'm pretty sure the enemy of vehicle longevity isn't design, but parts supply.
The crown victoria could have kept on supplying police departments for another decade or two if ford didn't discontinue it.
Constantly starting and stopping, too, in a variety of temperatures.
> every one of them you see on the road today is at least 30 years old, and some could be pushing 40.
Survivor bias: The ones you see are the ones that have survived. You don't see the junkyards full of failed trucks.
Ok but how many other 40 year old vehicles do you see?
According to this video[0] the shape is because there's a requirement for 95th percentile males to be able to stand up inside and the front is low for 5th percentile females to be able to see a specific distance in front of the hood. The shape makes perfect sense.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6z4QvtQL8
After driving a new Mercedes Vito (I can't describe how insane the controls of this vehicle are, but it has capacitive-touch buttons that you have to swipe to change the stereo volume ON THE STEERING WHEEL), I long for controls that look like this:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/11/20/multimedia/00xp-m...
Tactile controls should be the default. I was actually interested in the Lincoln Corsair until I saw how much they rely on touch - even for things like the climate control, same as the Teslas. Instantly took it off the list.
That's why I won't even consider a Tesla. Test drove a few vehicles and it's amazing how many do touch screen everything now. Will -not- buy.
The one I ended up buying is all tactile except changing the radio stations. Even that gets really annoying, as you have to take your eyes off the road to change stations. I end up just poking it in random places blind until something happens.
I'm proud to have helped implement the brand new dedicated ERP system that is used to build these trucks. Nice to see the final product is hitting the streets.
I think you owe us some information to satisfy 'intellectual curiosity'! :)
I'll start: Why did they create a brand-new and why a dedicated ERP system? Didn't the manufacturer have an ERP system used for manufacturing other vehicles?
Can you provide some more information as to what the ERP system is built on? (i.e. open source software, "from scratch", etc?)
Latest Oracle JDE E1
How could they not love them in comparison to the 30+ year old vehicles they've been driving?
Frequently "improvements" come at the expense of compromising some key feature for lots of users.
This is particularly true in tall organizations where the people doing procurement are far from the users.
Cultural hostility among a subpopulation to electric vehicles as "woke"? Ordinary sentimentality and the natural human discomfort with change?
I have great faith in the ability of ahem some individuals to harm themselves out of spite or inability to recognize inbound leopards, but I'm pretty sure that even those would find the new vehicles to be an improvement even if they're EVs - at least if they're actually driving the old and new vehicles.
plenty of folks will soil themselves if it means the people they dislike will have to smell it
It was designed with the person who will operate it in mind and it's made in the USA. That means it looks fantastic to me.
>Ykeyler Barnes, a letter carrier in Athens, said when she first got her new electric mail truck, she thought it wasn’t working when she pushed the button to start it. So she called a mechanic to check it out. “He said, ‘It starts — you just can’t hear it because it’s electric,’” Ms. Barnes said. “I thought that was so funny. I came home and told my family and we got a good laugh out of it.”
My favorite part of this, so wholesome. It really is shocking to hear the difference when you've been driving/hearing gas vehicles your whole life.
I for one welcome our new duck-shaped overlords.
Direct Vision Standards[0] should implemented as a mandatory requirement everywhere for large vehicles traveling in cities or residential areas where there's "soft road users"[1] (pedestrians, cyclists). Should be able to see straight to the side and know you're not running someone over.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Vision_Standard [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-motorist
I was squeezing by in front of a modern garbage truck this morning that basically had a glass side door. It was great: I could actually establish eye contact with the driver and sign that I was going to drive in front of him and he could give me small wave to go ahead. The driver of a less modern truck would have had no way at all to see me, much less communicate with me.
Another government boondoggle. The vehicle requirements were at the level of a combat vehicle so only one or two companies with DOD experience could win the contract.
And the result is a $60k+ camel designed by committee.
This is great news! The design is interesting though. Why would they choose such a hard angle for the hood and windshield vs something more gentle? Does anybody know why they made that design choice?
read other comments, so talk people can stand up in the back and short people and see over the hood.
Sounds like they designed it for the target audience. A rare luxury these days for blue collar workers. Often designs focus on max profit
I don't mind the appearance if it serves a function, but what's the function? An electric truck wouldn't need a traditional engine compartment.
They aren't/weren't all going to be EVs. Originally the USPS was looking at 10% EVs and 90% internal combustion but there were a bunch of challenges to that (including that ratio being based on incorrect environmental impact data). Now it's 75% EVs in the first order of 60,000 and future orders may be that high or higher (currently expected that it will be all EVs starting in 2026).
sources: article and wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_NGDV)
One benefit of a low hood is that it scoops up pedestrians that might get hit instead of hitting their torsos with the vehicle. It'll probably break your legs, but you are more likely to survive.
This is one of the reasons that SUVs and large trucks are deadly: it's basically hitting you directly in the chest cavity.
Few things are more masculine than mowing down pedestrians with a pseudo diesel locomotive.
According to Wikipedia[1]:
> Four variants of the NGDV are expected to be in fleet use: both gasoline-powered and battery-electric, in either front wheel drive or all wheel drive.
So I expect the front hood is for the gas powered engine for those variants. Further down, it talks about only 10% will be EV at the start due to cost. Also, this is in partnership with Ford so the ICE power train is the from the Ford Transit van.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_NGDV
A crumple zone?
To have easy side entry the front wheels need to be in front of the driver. So you need something to cover the front suspension and hold up lights. Try drawing a flat nose version of this vehicle that maintains the same ease of access.
i guess they could have made it flat nosed like a bus?? are they putting the batteries in the nose? it looks like the cargo part is too low for them to be placed under there. also, gotta put that ac somewhere. probably makes it easier to work on under the little hood than having to climb on top of the truck.
I _love_ USPS. Glad we're starting to see these roll out.
The seat height in the banner image looks too tall for the mailboxes. I wonder how the seat height in the NGDV compares to the Grumman LLV.
The seat height in the banner image looks too tall for the mailboxes.
The very first image in the article shows a driver putting mail in a mailbox. What more proof do you need?
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/11/20/multimedia/00xp-m...
It looks like the letter carrier has to reach down to get to that mailbox. Yes, they can reach it, but I wonder about ergonomics. Not all mailboxes are the same height, so you probably have to reach down for some, but if this is a representative mailbox, I worry.
Burners (of people who are still) with Cushmans will probably be seen with LLVs now.
Crazy it took 10 years to plan and get them in production. I think it looks cool.
Honestly I think it looks great - the design screams "I care for pedestrian safety" and "I'm a nice person, and I don't need to compensate for anything, because I have great sex life."
> For 19 years, Richard Burton, a letter carrier in Athens, Ga., drove the classic boxy mail truck...
After reading this, I realized I still perceive the the current generation as the new generation. Geez.
Wow, old people get downvotes for being old people now.
Needs just one thing - light blue paintjob with an orange beak and a tiny purple hat. ;)
I was just thinking they need a special green and yellow variant for the southern Willamette Valley...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Duck
Reminds me of the Pilatus PC-6. Another ugly duckling (in some people's eyes) that's a workhorse.
[flagged]
Interesting that the front windshield only has about 50-60% usable space. On the top this makes sense, as the black coating acts as a sun shade. On the bottom... there goes all the visibility gained by having the low hood. wtf?
The upfitter AUX switches appear to be Ford, same for the AC controls.
> The upfitter AUX switches appear to be Ford, same for the AC controls.
Ford supplies the ICE engine, transmission, suspension, steering wheel, and instrument cluster, so that tracks. https://fordauthority.com/2024/10/new-usps-mail-carrier-uses...
The camera is positioned so that the side window is visible through the front windshield. I think the "black coating" you are seeing is just the interior of the van, and that the entire front windshield is usable.
The final photo in the article appears to show pretty good forward visiblity. Seems fine?
> On the bottom... there goes all the visibility gained by having the low hood. wtf?
That is a little weird, now that I look at it again. But the way you'd use the rest of that bottom space would be by lowering the driver, basically, and that would mean the driver's not as high up over the hood. So maybe getting the higher angle gains more visibility than having them sit lower just to maximize usable windshield area? (The only way you could have both is if the dashboard was transparent.)
My $5 it's the usual 'too late to change'. Compare with the 2021 version.
Also the if you trace LoS in the cabin pic in the article you would find what the driver wouldn't see more of the hood because he need to be sat quite a lot higher (up to 20cm I think) to gain the view you are thinking of. And this is incompatible with 'do the mailman thing without getting out of chair'.
https://www.nalc.org/news/the-postal-record/2021/may-2021/do...
I thought it was going to be about duck typing.
lol they're paying (with my money) something like 60k for each one of those.
Should have just bought police explorers like the cops are driving and saved 15-20k+ per unit. Plus as a bonus you might have actual parts availability for the foreseeable future, unlike when Oshkosh corp decides burning money in a barrel is more financially viable than building replacement parts for the postal service and the 40-70k of these that they'll actually get ordered before the budget gets slashed or whatever.
I wondered why other delivery companies use commercial vehicles instead of NGDVs or LLVs, and the answer is that commercial vehicles are more capable while being significantly cheaper.
NGDVs cost $60,000 each, and that's for half of them being ICE vehicles and half EVs with a 70 mile range (35 miles if you use the heater). The ICE version gets 14.7 miles per gallon (8.6mpg if you turn on the air conditioning).[1] There is no hybrid version, which is outrageous considering the expected driving profile.
For comparison, a Mercedes eSprinter (which has more cargo capacity and >2x the range of the NGDV) starts at $63,475 MSRP. I'm sure a bulk order of 50,000 would get a significant discount.
This whole project seems to be a handout to a defense contractor, not an efficient use of funds.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_NGDV#Fuel_economy_and_...
How in the world is a mail carrier going to deliver mail in a huge esprinter, you going to have them open their door and climb out at every mailbox?
My point was that a much more capable vehicle could be purchased for a similar price. Depending on the use case, of course other commercial vehicles would make more sense. The smaller versions of the Ford Transit are a popular option among non-US postal services. And if US Postal Service was willing to buy foreign vehicles, they could have even smaller and cheaper options. (Though they'd have to deal with EPA and NHTSA rules to make them street legal.)
> My point was that a much more capable vehicle could be purchased for a similar price.
This leaps to a conclusion. Probably the documents are public - why did they choose this solution over off-the-shelf options? (No point in speculation; what is their actual analysis?)
> The smaller versions of the Ford Transit are a popular option among non-US postal services. And if US Postal Service was willing to buy foreign vehicles, they could have even smaller and cheaper options.
Ford isn't selling the Transit Connect in North America anymore. And they're made in Europe, so despite the brand, they're a foreign vehicle, too.
> non-US postal services
What postal services are those? Are you sure you aren't confusing the USPS with a parcel service?
if US Postal Service was willing to buy foreign vehicles,
It's not. Offshoring critical infrastructure is always a bad idea.
they'd have to deal with EPA and NHTSA rules
Possibly not. They don't even have license plates, as the Postal Service outranks state governments.
The NGDV's gross vehicle weight rating is 8,501lbs so that it is classified by the EPA as a heavy-duty truck. If the rating were a pound less, it would be classified as a light-duty truck and have much stricter emissions standards.
One key difference between USPS and UPS/Fedex is that USPS does not do freight, and they do a lot more lightweight items (i.e. letters), so cargo capacity is much less of a concern. The fact that junk mail is so common actually reduces the need for cargo capacity since their routes tend to be made long not because of physical volume/distance so much as dwell time (that is, if someone is using EDDM[0] to target a neighborhood, you have to stop at every mailbox in that neighborhood, even if it's just to deliver that one piece of junk mail which will immediately get thrown away, and this takes far more time than delivering a bundle of packages to a handful of houses).
I remember reading about the NGDV, and one of the reasons it looks so weird is because USPS wanted a vehicle that was low to the ground (to make it easier to climb in and out of) and easy to see over the hood, even for very short drivers[1]. Given that they are in residential areas (and thus, in proximity of kids playing outside) far more often than UPS/Fedex, I can't say I disagree with that requirement. (Also, if you have a tall truck like UPS and Fedex typically roll, good luck delivering to the average mailbox while staying in your seat.)
USPS has certainly evaluated more traditional designs; in fact, they are actively using ~20k Ram ProMasters (a rebadged Fiat Ducato), which are quite similar to the Mercedes Sprinter, alongside ~9k mini vans[2].
[0]: https://www.usps.com/business/every-door-direct-mail.htm
[1]: https://x.com/Nir_Kahn/status/1364465483911675905
[2]: https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-01/... (PDF page 6)
> Given that they are in residential areas (and thus, in proximity of kids playing outside) far more often than UPS/Fedex...
That isn't the case at all in my experience. In any neighborhood I've ever lived in, you see at least one van from each organization come through daily. And if anything, UPS and FedEx come through more than once per day sometimes, whereas USPS doesn't.
Per your earlier point about freight I can imagine that UPS/FedEx have a lower percentage of company traffic in residential areas than USPS does. But I find it difficult to imagine that the total number of trips to residential areas is lower for them. They simply have more non-residential traffic than USPS, not less residential traffic.
I wish there were publicly available data on this stuff, as we can only discuss anecdotes. In any case, in the neighborhoods I've lived in, it's not uncommon for UPS and Fedex to have zero deliveries at least one day of the week.
If Fedex is rolling around twice in one day, it's never the same line (that is, Fedex Express vs Ground/Home; Express incurs a special surcharge for residential deliveries and thus is usually only used by companies that primarily deliver to commercial addresses or who don't care about cost).
UPS is similar; usually, they only roll around in the evening, and when they roll around in the morning it's for one package with a specific delivery window obligation.
During December, of course, this goes by the wayside. Even USPS will roll around twice a day on the weekends leading up to Christmas.
> That isn't the case at all in my experience. In any neighborhood I've ever lived in, you see at least one van from each organization come through daily. And if anything, UPS and FedEx come through more than once per day sometimes, whereas USPS doesn't.
USPS doesn't deliver freight, UPS does. So yeah, you are going to see both in a residential setting but you won't see any USPS trucks making freight deliveries in an industrial area. UPS has to support that use case, USPS doesn't.
Did you not read the article?
The NGDVs aren't Sprinter vans, they're purpose made mail delivery vehicles, with ergonomics and cargo space setup for that, which makes a massive difference for the drivers, especially when it comes to repetitive motion injuries, which is a huge cost for USPS.
Amazon went away from commercial vans to purpose made vehicles built by Rivian for many of the same reasons and they've been widely praised by the drivers.
UPS brown trucks (they call them “cars” internally) are also custom made. They don’t even resell them when they are at EOL they crush them.
The Rivian vans are commercially available.[1] Like the NGDV, they have a side door and an 80 inch interior height so that nobody has to stoop while in the cargo bay.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivian_EDV
The Rivian vans are commercially available.
If you follow the link in your link, you'll see that while new Postal Service trucks are $60,000, the Rivian vans START a $83,000†, and it's simply not possible for the driver of one of those vans to reach a mailbox from inside the vehicle, which is how vast majority of what the new Postal Services will be used.
Paying a 40% premium for less capability? That doesn't sound smart.
† https://rivian.com/fleet
I was just saying that the vehicle is commercially available, not that it was a better option for the US Postal Service. But $83,000 is the retail price. Anyone buying in bulk will get them for significantly cheaper. The $60k for the NGDV is the discounted price for a bulk buy of 50,000, and it's for a mix of ICE and EVs. The ICE vehicles are significantly cheaper to manufacture, so the EV price is probably close to the Rivian's bulk price, and the Rivian has significantly greater capabilities.
> Rivian has significantly greater capabilities.
According to you, some random tech bro CEO who hasn't delivered hundreds of letters a day for decades and is just looking at cost and going "hey, this isn't the cheapest option, it must be one of those darn government projects meant to subsidize those annoying poor people!"
In reality, the USPS studied several other options in use by post offices around the world, from commercial vans to tricycles: https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-01/...
They've since published further reports on things like how to tighten up the manufacturing contract, opportunities to use EV's, etc etc: https://www.uspsoig.gov/focus-areas/focus-on/next-generation...
But hey, I'm sure you know better!
Having wrenched more extensively than I want to on the Transit, the Sprinter and the Promaster I would hand out the pork to a defense contractor ten times over before I bought Euro vans of ANY make because at least they tend to build things with margin in the places you need it even if it's not peak comfort and user experience. The engineering culture and default assumptions are completely different and it shows.
As usual when you take a dismissive stance ("this is obviously a waste of money!") you are ignoring lots od details. The use case of a mail carrier is not well suited by a massive eSprinter. They have no need for something so large. They want to be seated at the height where most mailboxes are so they can make many deliveries without getting out of the car.
Whenever you find yourself going "why would they make THAT decision?" assume it is yourself that is ignorant and take it as an opportunity to learn, rather than dismiss the choices of people who specialize in the area you are puzzled by.
I used the eSprinter as one example, not the only option. Maybe something like the Ford eTransit or the Rivian EDV is a better fit for postal deliveries. My point is that other delivery companies and postal services use commercial vehicles, most likely because that's the most cost-effective option.
Considering the NGDV's atrocious efficiency, lack of hybrid option, and high unit costs, it seems far more likely that this is a pork project for a defense contractor than that everyone else is doing it wrong.
Is it inefficient? Would it be more worthy to have two chassis designs, one for ICE and one for EV, to make it more efficient for the gas version? Would any hybrid drivetrain provide higher efficiency for similar build costs on the same chassis?
My point would be that they weighed a lot of design considerations and I assume this is the best they could get that meets all of them. Like others said, other commercial delivery vehicles don't have the same use case as this. Who cares about range when the use case for this vehicle is ~20 miles a day?
Everyone else isn't "doing it wrong", they're doing it differently, for different needs.
There's a wider meta point here which is always relevant: nobody comes into work planning to do a bad job.
I'd add the second point is: if you're not in the same field, then start with the assumption that the people who's work you're looking at had good reasons for their choices (and that it wasn't a conspiracy).
> I wondered why other delivery companies use commercial vehicles instead of NGDVs or LLVs, and the answer is that commercial vehicles are more capable while being significantly cheaper.
Commercial vehicles in fleets are leased - they last anywhere from 2-5 years then they're pushed off to the used vehicle market. After 10-15 years they're so done that they'll end up on the scrap yard or shipped off to Africa or Asia. On top of that they're designed to be aerodynamic at highway speeds because they'll spend a lot of their life time on such streets and speeds, whereas these postal trucks will spend most of their time moving like snails.
These USPS tanks in contrast are expected to last 30, 40 years like their predecessors, racking up insane mileage... and while no one cares if some underpaid gig worker runs over some child because the child happened to be in the dead spot of his vehicle, if the same happens to USPS the government itself is the target for a nice juicy lawsuit. So it makes sense for a custom order at that scale and expected life time, and it also makes sense to stray from what the market has to offer because the requirements are different.
Oh, and commercial delivery doesn't have to take care about its workers. They'll get burned out with their backs and joints ruined, but the companies don't have to pay a dime. In contrast, USPS is a government agency and has a massive financial incentive to keep healthcare costs low.