I really don't get why they aren't hybrids at a minimum. If that company can't come through on that then find one that can.
I may have missed this part in the last thread about this truck- why are they so high? Given that current mail trucks are roughly the same height of a nominal SUV, they seem to be the right size for what they do 90% of the time. So having taller vehicles for the other 10% seems a lot more efficient for the system as you would not be wasting capability for nominal use.
The director of the post office, when this deal was struck, has a financial interest in the company.
Crony capitalism at it's finest.
alfadriver said:I may have missed this part in the last thread about this truck- why are they so high? Given that current mail trucks are roughly the same height of a nominal SUV, they seem to be the right size for what they do 90% of the time. So having taller vehicles for the other 10% seems a lot more efficient for the system as you would not be wasting capability for nominal use.
I'm guessing more capacity for the same footprint? I don't know, just a guess.
All I have to say is that these new vans look like something out of a Disney Pixar movie.
After reading the article, I really wonder the cost of the individual trucks, and comparing that to OEM's hybrids. To see if they can be "hardened" to be robust enough for Postal Service work. A RHD Escape sized vehicle would be a pretty strong replacement. And there are more than a handful of hybrids in that SUV size.
Extra bonus- pretty much all current hybrids are SULEV30 emissions, which would be a massive improvement over the '87 trucks that are out there.
I have a question about that 8.6 mpg. Did they come up with that number the same way they do every other car, or by testing it the way it would be used in real life? Because I cant imagine any gas vehicle doing much better when you come to a stop, drive forward 100 yards, repeat the way a mail car does.
If that number comes from actual mailman use its probably not that bad. If it's from standard car testing that's horrible. I imagine big rigs get similar numbers.
I doubt the huge frontal area makes that much of a difference on a vehicle rarely goes above 20 mph.
z31maniac said:alfadriver said:I may have missed this part in the last thread about this truck- why are they so high? Given that current mail trucks are roughly the same height of a nominal SUV, they seem to be the right size for what they do 90% of the time. So having taller vehicles for the other 10% seems a lot more efficient for the system as you would not be wasting capability for nominal use.
I'm guessing more capacity for the same footprint? I don't know, just a guess.
I don't doubt that, but why? Why do the current trucks need that much more on every single route? That's more my question- it's seems that they are planning for 100% capability when it's only needed some of the time- which is very wasteful. Given the volume of vehicles, there shoud be a separation of capabilities.
gearheadmb said:I have a question about that 8.6 mpg. Did they come up with that number the same way they do every other car, or by testing it the way it would be used in real life? Be cause I cant imagine any gas vehicle doing much better when you come to a stop, drive forward 100 yards, repeat the way a mail car does.
If that number comes from actual mailman use its probably not that bad. If it's from standard car testing that's horrible. I imagine big rigs get similar numbers.
I doubt the huge frontal area makes that much of a difference on a vehicle rarely goes above 20 mph.
But given their drive cycle, a hybrid set up is almost perfect. Especially a series hybrid, where the engine is just a range extender.
In reply to alfadriver :
My experience in e commerce shipping is saying that the current LLV's aren't big enough for the packages needed at peak season.
Don't know why you don't buy a ton of transits or sprinters like Dhl does. But I didn't write the bid spec.
alfadriver said:I may have missed this part in the last thread about this truck- why are they so high? Given that current mail trucks are roughly the same height of a nominal SUV, they seem to be the right size for what they do 90% of the time. So having taller vehicles for the other 10% seems a lot more efficient for the system as you would not be wasting capability for nominal use.
The current mail trucks were designed when people generally just mailed envelopes. Now, people mail all kinds of boxes and larger things.
The new trucks were required to be over 6ft height in the rear. This allows for more packages in a truck at the same time (reducing trips), while allowing the USPS personnel to stand up in the back of the trucks to make loading/unloading these larger packages easier.
alfadriver said:gearheadmb said:I have a question about that 8.6 mpg. Did they come up with that number the same way they do every other car, or by testing it the way it would be used in real life? Be cause I cant imagine any gas vehicle doing much better when you come to a stop, drive forward 100 yards, repeat the way a mail car does.
If that number comes from actual mailman use its probably not that bad. If it's from standard car testing that's horrible. I imagine big rigs get similar numbers.
I doubt the huge frontal area makes that much of a difference on a vehicle rarely goes above 20 mph.
But given their drive cycle, a hybrid set up is almost perfect. Especially a series hybrid, where the engine is just a range extender.
But also a good chunk more expensive on initial purchase. I know that the reason why they said they aren't buying more of the EV versions is due to cost. Just going off of what they are saying on that one, not sure of the truth or any backroom dealings or politicking.
Just to clarify, the EPA has not tried to block the sale. Right now they are encouraging the post office to change course. The WH is doing the same as this is directly against one of their environmental initiatives.
NickD said:But also a good chunk more expensive on initial purchase. I know that the reason why they said they aren't buying more of the EV versions is due to cost. Just going off of what they are saying on that one, not sure of the truth or any backroom dealings or politicking.
Ford makes a Hybrid Truck with the same weight capacity as this, rated at 42mpg city, for $20k... wayyyyyy cheaper than this box. I don't know how you would define "a good chunk", but I can't imagine it being more than a $1-2k difference?
What? Hypocrisy in government? Do as I say, not as I do?
Nah, it couldn't be.
alfadriver said:I may have missed this part in the last thread about this truck- why are they so high? Given that current mail trucks are roughly the same height of a nominal SUV, they seem to be the right size for what they do 90% of the time. So having taller vehicles for the other 10% seems a lot more efficient for the system as you would not be wasting capability for nominal use.
More space means more deliveries? I think there is an ergonomic issue as well, allows them to move about inside easier.
gearheadmb said:I have a question about that 8.6 mpg. Did they come up with that number the same way they do every other car, or by testing it the way it would be used in real life? Because I cant imagine any gas vehicle doing much better when you come to a stop, drive forward 100 yards, repeat the way a mail car does.
If that number comes from actual mailman use its probably not that bad. If it's from standard car testing that's horrible. I imagine big rigs get similar numbers.
I doubt the huge frontal area makes that much of a difference on a vehicle rarely goes above 20 mph.
I can't find any details about how they arrived at the claimed fuel efficiency. Most of the details that I do see list it as an estimate, or "expected to get". They do say in the article that the number factors in AC use, which current trucks don't have at all, and would only be used some of the time in many places.
It's supposed to have Ford mechanicals, so I'm guessing it's going to be similar powertrain to the Transit and perhaps even just a rebodied/upfitted version that's all Transit under the skin. Those get around 17mpg in general crusing situations.
Mr_Asa said:alfadriver said:I may have missed this part in the last thread about this truck- why are they so high? Given that current mail trucks are roughly the same height of a nominal SUV, they seem to be the right size for what they do 90% of the time. So having taller vehicles for the other 10% seems a lot more efficient for the system as you would not be wasting capability for nominal use.
More space means more deliveries? I think there is an ergonomic issue as well, allows them to move about inside easier.
Definitely! It is not unusual for me to see two mail delivery vehicles per day. One delivers and picks up mail, another drops off packages. That can't be efficient, and the only reason for it would be that one small vehicle can't hold all that shizzle.
Mr_Asa said:alfadriver said:I may have missed this part in the last thread about this truck- why are they so high? Given that current mail trucks are roughly the same height of a nominal SUV, they seem to be the right size for what they do 90% of the time. So having taller vehicles for the other 10% seems a lot more efficient for the system as you would not be wasting capability for nominal use.
More space means more deliveries? I think there is an ergonomic issue as well, allows them to move about inside easier.
Would it really? We talk to our driver reasonably often, and he's already driving 9 hours per day for the normal packages. Add in abnormal packages and pick ups, and I don't see how that's worked into a normal working day.
The deliverers are not machines, they are human beings, too.
In reply to alfadriver :
That's one of those situations that really depends on the area.
Our mail guy delivers in his CRV. Twice a week though there's a regular mail truck either following him or running in the afternoons exclusively for packages to be picked up and dropped off.
Zach does a great job getting everything into his CRV, but he also is only delivering for a town under a thousand residents and maybe a dozen businesses. There are neighborhoods in this area exponentially larger than that and we're fairly rural even at the county level (260k county population).
At the old house our mail lady did two laps a day. Fill up and deliver, then head back to HQ for the other half of her route.
Then there's the whole "being able to walk inside the truck" thing that would just make everything easier instead of being stooped over every day loading, sorting, and delivering.
STM317 said:It's supposed to have Ford mechanicals, so I'm guessing it's going to be similar powertrain to the Transit and perhaps even just a rebodied/upfitted version that's all Transit under the skin. Those get around 17mpg in general crusing situations.
The old postal vehicles were just rebodied S-10 pickups, which made sense at the time, but in this scenario I don't understand the rebody, just use a transit as is, or a ram promaster city. They seem to be just what the doctor ordered and are an off the shelf purchase.
In reply to RevRico :
And why can't a specialized vehicle deal with the twice a week situation? That's 2 out of 6 delivery days- so 66% of the time, the capability would be totally wasted. And what we don't know is if that other vehicle also covers multiple routes on that day.
Let alone the extra work for the individual deliverers.
There are over 200,000 mail delivery vehicles out there. Which is more than enough to get a mass produced discount. Especially when you see full sized walk in vans being used by every other delivery service for large items. Which is where the real walk in capability is really needed.
alfadriver said:The deliverers are not machines, they are human beings, too.
Have you talked to an Amazon driver? They may be humans, but they are treated like machines.
My guess about the oddly generous height is maybe that will allow each vehicle to carry more packages, making routs just a bit bigger? Maybe they eliminate 2% of the machines, er, I mean deliverers?
I could also see it to allow the drivers to walk upright in the vehicle?
In reply to alfadriver :
You also see full sized vans, at least I do, closer to the big cities sporting USPS logos. And minivans.
Just saying, not everywhere has the same use case, and this is one of those times that there isn't a universal bandaid. What works in downtown Detroit is much different than Sacramento suburbs, is different than rural PA.
Why they couldn't go hybrid other than the question of long term high mileage reliability and maintenance is beyond me, as is how something so much smaller than my excursion gets even worse mileage with 20 extra years of engine improvement. (By my estimate, berkeleying Washington post useless rag that it is, only pushes price and co2 emissions, nothing useful like weight or specifications)
You'll need to log in to post.
