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.
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?
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/media-c...
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).
There are red flags, though. From another article:
> While the specific numbers vary based on a vehicle’s exact dimensions—information the USPS considers trade secrets—Sperling estimates a light duty truck approximately the size of a USPS delivery truck would need to achieve something in the neighborhood of 30 mpg to pass federal regulations
Seems like someone forgot or gamed FOIA.
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.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-postal-service-gas-trucks-el...
EDIT: per this comment charging infrastructure was going to be a huge cost. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41544204
the cool thing here seems to be that practicality is actually going to win out, and the postal trucks will end up being EVs on routes where that makes sense, and internal combustion on routes where EVs don't make sense.
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
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?
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41409422
https://petapixel.com/2024/08/30/scientists-discovered-a-way...
The truth is, we have no real data to tell us how electric vehicles will fair over the expected time length with this expected work load.
When you factor in the building of instructor for charging stations, and their maintenance.
The initially preceded benefits may not be there.
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?
Ford makes the F-150 in ice, hybrid, phev, and full ev, I think.
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.
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.
I'd be really surprised to see these new vehicles in truly rural areas any time soon.
https://about.usps.com/publications/pub181/pub181_v03_revisi....
"The Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, and Mazda6 midsized sedans, for example, all have a combined load capacity of 850 lbs. for passengers and cargo."
Most sedans made today, the average max carry weight of a sedan is 900lb. And even at 900lb you fuel economy and performance is far less than "just fine."
Also cargo weight distribution is far different than people, with the lion share of packages being placed in the rear have of the vehicle and not evenly distributed amongst the front and rear axle.
1000lb of cargo is a lot to ask from any sedan and expect it to do it 8 hours a day, 6 days a week for 20+ years, isn't something I think you would find possible.
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.
For an application like this one, it's possible to use capacitors instead of batteries for a near-infinite lifespan too. A supercapacitor won't store enough charge for driving any sane distance, but for one stop and acceleration (regen breaking), it's perfectly adequate.
Where I live, the stops are too long for a flywheel to make any sense. The postal worker will usually deliver to a mailbox serving several houses, and will often have packages. Perhaps in the suburbs, where there are individual mailboxes for each house, it could work well.
Still, if we take 8000 lbs, times (10mph)^2, and divide by 2, we get about 35kJ. First supercap which came up in a Google search does 1kJ for <$10. So it's like $350, and will have far less maintenance and better efficiency than a flywheel.
If we do 20mph -- although goodness knows mail trucks here don't go nearly that fast for start-and-stop between mailboxes -- it's $1400. Even 40mpg would be around $5k.
So it's very cheap (and, electronically, very easy), at least for this use case. For highway speeds, it'd be a different story.
Oh, really? Can you share your expertise that trumps that of the people who work with them every day?
My 'cargo' was heavier than that of the postman, but that was in the days before ecommerce, and the post service (UK) handled packages differently, sending them out in different vehicles to what the letters went out in, if over a certain size.
I also had to go to the door, not a mailbox at the side of the road. I was quicker than the postman with his cumbersome van. I was also quieter and more eco-friendly.
I am not suggesting that the post service in America have teenage lads on bicycles delivering letters and parcels, however, there is a lot to be said for having smaller vehicles.
Assuming I had one of these vehicles for free and all the fuel for it for free, would I have wanted one or been able to do my job quicker?
Probably not, even if scaled down to half the size for UK roads. Maybe my opinion would differ mid winter and if I was middle aged. However, I would not have my stashes in bus stops, all 30 ft of newspapers would be in the van. There would be no incentive to optimise.
Weight is your enemy in the delivery game and these vehicles are huge, yet typically American sized. If carrying a parcel to a door then that is going to be less than ten kilos in most cases, but if we assume 10kg, does that really need a vehicle with stuff weighing 300x upwards?
What they really needed was a range extending EV. These are not Prius style hybrids but they have a generator that runs at optimal RPM to charge the main battery. The original BMW EV, the i3 had this and it was a tech that wasn't really needed since those cars were overpriced and only ever did city journeys where the range extender was not needed.
The range extender can be chucked out as charging infrastructure improves and the battery can be updated to a new one that has more oomph for the same weight/size.
The previous delivery vehicle[1] has no air conditioning. Which is a really big deal with how hot it gets in a lot of the US.
And if your vehicle is smaller and most other vehicles are larger and there's an accident then you're more likely to die. [2]
You may well be right that in an optimal scenario that smaller is better for delivery but the US has a wide variety of non-optimal scenarios.
I don't think the NGDV is perfect but I'm happy that USPS employees will be safer and happier.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV
[2] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/latest-driver-death-rates-h...
Not to say it isn't worth exploring, but I do know it is a common issue when discussed.
It is worth reading the full article, it covers the environmental aspects and tradeoffs very well.
Edit: looks like it was an early prototype from Oshkosh with very little in common with the final product:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a19445176/this-ford-transi...
and
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2021/02/23/oshko... mentions not using the Transit design.
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.
My new state [Tennessee] just ended government construction inspections.
Pay - to - play, folks.
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."
I stopped being an electrical sub-contractor after a local mansion builder told me to "stop worrying about the other trades[†], I have insurance for a reason."
†: floor-heat guy wanted to run his 35A through my 16A circuit, "don't make this harder than it needs to be."
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!
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.
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.
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.
That would be boats. Cars or trucks or even semis don't even rank.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again, whatever level of nonessential you claim it might be and however you measure that, is irrelevant to what is destroying the environment.
Did you not take anything from the previous comment I made? The fact that your idea of "non-essential" means that poor people starve to death while rich people fly around in private jets to parties and vacations. Do you acknowledge that was wrong, or at least proved that the economic measurement of "essential" that you invented is totally arbitrary? I don't see how you can just keep going on without acknowledging this and addressing it.
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.
"Essential" doesn't mean anything to the physics of climate change, it just means something like "what people choose to do".