[subego]

Well, this post:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...31#post4425931

Was a direct reply to you, and like I said, I’m not sure how I was/am supposed to interpret the silence. One possible conclusion is my reply did not provide enough value to deserve a response.

I would prefer that’s not the case, but if it is, I would like to know what changes I should be making.

[reader50]

I'd have to know your current diet before suggesting changes. While I'm not a dietician, my usual recommendations involve pizza and/or ice cream. Food should put a smile on your face.

Foods that are green are actually horse feed being upsold. Toss any examples to the hogs. Human food isn't supposed to be green.

[subego]

My schedule has been such I’d have to either order pizza too early in the day, or late enough the better places are closed.

Ice cream knows no schedule, but getting the right flavor can be a chore. I’ve resorted to throwing those unwrapped mini Reese’s into vanilla.

[subego]

Thanks to whomever separated out this thread. It has such a lovely burial plot now.

[andi*pandi]

You are welcome. I came back from the dead just to do it.

(ok, just canada.)

The timing of retirement/replacement of vehicles could absolutely effect elections. It could be standard EOL time to update or it could be manipulated to benefit some and not others.
The post office has been sabotaged before.
Dejoy has shown he has an agenda.

What would simplify things is if election policies were standardized across states, so everyone had the same access to mail in ballots, ballot drop boxes (monitored for tampering), early voting, a voting precinct within a 20 mile radius with no wait, and electors that followed what the voters actually voted on.

Oh dear. This may be off topic and requiring a new thread!

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

It could be standard EOL time to update

The original EOL was 24 years. The youngest LLV in the fleet reached this in 2018. The Post Office extended it to 30 years, so at this point every LLV which wasn’t manufactured in the last two years of its production run is beyond their second EOL.

The time to replace the LLV was passed long ago, hence the need to rapidly update.

Note, the Post Office didn’t start taking bids for the design of a replacement until 2015.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Dejoy has shown he has an agenda.

In regards to voting by mail?

Every example I’ve seen from 2020 was based on false assumptions, and quite frankly an embarrassing amount of ignorance on the part of the press when it comes to understanding how gigantic federal agencies operate.


Edit: I mean… when the press wasn’t engaging in intentional obfuscation.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

What would simplify things is if election policies were standardized across states, so everyone had the same access to mail in ballots, ballot drop boxes (monitored for tampering), early voting, a voting precinct within a 20 mile radius with no wait, and electors that followed what the voters actually voted on.

Oh dear. This may be off topic and requiring a new thread!

I suggest it be titled “The Unlikely Constitutional Amendment Thread”.

[Spheric Harlot]

FWIW:

In 2021, the United States Postal Service picked a new delivery vehicle to replace its fleet of aging Grumman LLVs. However, the USPS drew immediate criticism, as the vast majority of a potential 165,000 Next Generation Delivery Vehicles, which will be built by Oshkosh Defense, would not be electric.

But on Wednesday, the USPS changed its mind and says it will now limit its NGDV purchase to 50,000 NGDVs, at least half of which will be battery-electric vehicles. Additionally, it says it will purchase 34,500 commercial off-the-shelf vehicles, "including as many BEVs as are commercially available and consistent with our delivery profile" according to the Federal Register.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/07...delivery-vans/

[subego]

This last paragraph bugs me.

However, there's bad news, too, as the USPS will keep 50,000 inefficient LLVs in service, "despite the significant operational risk, considerable maintenance costs, and the higher emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants when compared to more modern vehicles."

[subego]

I should add that when they mention the “operational risk” of LLVs, what they mean is due to poor design the shit catches on fire.

[subego]

My postal carrier is a lovely woman, but swears like a sailor.

Who here wants to tell her “I know it’s ‘20 fucking 22’, but despite that you can’t ‘get air conditioning up in this bitch’”?

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

Who here wants to tell her “I know it’s ‘20 fucking 22’, but despite that you can’t ‘get air conditioning up in this bitch’”?

I agree. They need to order more BEVs, not continue the LLVs. It appears an earlier suspicion of yours was right - he's trying to keep the price tag fixed. I have no idea why - Congress has lifted the financial poison pill USPS was operating under.

I also wonder about an order detail. USPS at one time hinted at the new delivery vehicles (gas versions) being able to be upgraded to BEV at a future date. But it turns out they weren't designed for that. USPS could require the gas versions to be compatible for later upgrade to EVs. That would solve half of my concerns, as BEV hardware will drop dramatically in price over the next decade. There's been no further mention of this option.

btw, in the Ars story, they use the acronym COTS but never define it. It's Commercial Off-The-Shelf. They plan to buy commercial EV delivery vans (as available in right-hand drive) for heavier delivery routes. Probably at a substantial savings over custom-built vehicles.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Congress has lifted the financial poison pill USPS was operating under.

My back-of-the-napkin calculations on that is it takes care of their deficit, but they’re still $200 billion in the hole. Also, like I keep saying, what Congress did in 2022 means jack shit for an order placed in 2021.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I also wonder about an order detail. USPS at one time hinted at the new delivery vehicles (gas versions) being able to be upgraded to BEV at a future date. But it turns out they weren't designed for that. USPS could require the gas versions to be compatible for later upgrade to EVs. That would solve half of my concerns, as BEV hardware will drop dramatically in price over the next decade. There's been no further mention of this option.

I’ve never seen anything about upgrading the drivetrain. If this was an option at one time, the decision to ditch it would have been made years ago.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

My back-of-the-napkin calculations on that is it takes care of their deficit, but they’re still $200 billion in the hole. Also, like I keep saying, what Congress did in 2022 means jack shit for an order placed in 2021.

As we're talking about an order modification today (in 2022), the order details in 2021 mean jack shit. If they were set in stone back then, no modification would be possible today.

Originally Posted by subego 

I’ve never seen anything about upgrading the drivetrain. If this was an option at one time, the decision to ditch it would have been made years ago.

Apparently the gas and EV versions are identical from the outside. I recall reading talk about ordering a mix, then later swapping out the drivetrain components on the gas versions to the EV hardware. But when the press investigated further, it turned out no provisions had been made to keep the gas versions compatible with the EV components. I read this back when the story first broke, and this was about all they said. Actual tech details were notably missing.

I expect most of each vehicle will be built on a common assembly line. It would be silly to use entirely separate lines to build trucks that share nearly all the non-drivetrain parts. Someone should have made the overall vehicle compatible with either drivetrain, so swaps were possible. It now appears someone was asleep at the wheel, and didn't bother. I haven't seen anything further about this since the original mentions got shot down.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Someone should have made the overall vehicle compatible with either drivetrain

OneDoesNotSimply.jpg

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

As we're talking about an order modification today (in 2022), the order details in 2021 mean jack shit. If they were set in stone back then, no modification would be possible today.

Did you not argue the 2021 order should have had a higher percentage of BEV?

My question is “with what money?”

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

It now appears someone was asleep at the wheel, and didn't bother.

That someone would be Brennan. The NGDV had a 6-year development, and she was in charge for 5 of them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

OneDoesNotSimply.jpg

To expand a bit, is swapping out drivetrains in any way common? If it’s not, I think it’s unreasonable to expect the Post Office to be pioneers.

Not quite the same, but look to the F-35 for an example of a similar idea with significant problems when it comes to execution.

[reader50]

People do EV conversions today, though the results are mixed. An ICE car has the greatest weight in the engine & transmission, with the fuel tank much lighter. The overall car and suspension are designed for this weight distribution.

On an EV, the motor(s) are comparatively light, there may be no transmission, with the main weight being the battery pack. If you put the battery where the tank was, the vehicle is lighter in front, and heavier in back than originally planned. Poor handling, and some loss of cargo capacity in the back. Plus short range, as you should have way more space than the tank took up for batteries.

Putting some or all the batteries in the front fixes the balance. But do you want the batteries in front during a crash? That seems like a Ford Pinto decision. A pickup truck conversion may put batteries between the frame rails, avoiding most of the conversion problems, and getting decent range.

Anyway, a delivery truck designed for either powertrain avoids the conversion problems. In theory, you just buy the missing EV parts after the fact, when they become cheaper, and swap them out. I'd like to know the tech details why this is considered unfeasible. My guess would be interior layout differences.

Originally Posted by subego 

Did you not argue the 2021 order should have had a higher percentage of BEV?

My question is “with what money?”

It's ultimately the public's money. From postage, taxes, or premiums on products. And we save more in the long run, with a high BEV percentage. If need be, beg a loan off Congress, and pay back from the operating cost savings in future years.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Anyway, a delivery truck designed for either powertrain avoids the conversion problems. In theory, you just buy the missing EV parts after the fact, when they become cheaper, and swap them out. I'd like to know the tech details why this is considered unfeasible. My guess would be interior layout differences.

The F-35 isn’t a conversion, it was designed to be multiplat, and still has problems.

One can assume the feasibility issues are similar with any multiplat vehicle. The jack-of-all-trades is master of none.

[reader50]

The climate and taxes bill that Sen. Manchin agreed to contains a $3 billion grant to the USPS for clean fleet modernization. Presumably to boost the EV percentage. I haven't seen the exact wording (which may not be done yet) so the specifics remain unclear. It also has yet to pass.

[subego]

That’s good.

They seem to be attacking it from multiple vectors. They’re spending a bunch of money on overhauling facilities, and that will include installing charging infrastructure. They’re also planning to make more, smaller orders, so there’s more flexibility in setting the BEV percentage.

The facility overhaul was given as the reason for why they’ve upped the percentage of BEVs in more recent orders, as opposed to blowback from the first order. Of course, they might be lying.

[reader50]

Perhaps they're setting up separate buildings for servicing the EVs. Or adding separator walls between the two service sections.

My thinking: the EVs will be the favorites of the service techs. For the simple reason that they can close the garage doors during the service - no carbon monoxide danger. A big plus in winter, and a huge plus in mid-summer. Close that door, and crank up the A/C while you fix the truck.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Perhaps they're setting up separate buildings for servicing the EVs. Or adding separator walls between the two service sections.

The impression I got is they’re going to build a bunch of new, large facilities which will replace multiple smaller facilities. These will get to be designed from the outset with EV in mind.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

crank up the A/C

Ooooh… my postal carrier who’s stuck in an LLV heard that.

[subego]

“Sorry for any convenience”

[reader50]

Reminds me of all too many macOS error dialogs.

"We were unable to complete your critical task."
[ OK ]

I'm afraid it's not OK. So why is "OK" the only choice offered? Sounds like a Russian election: all citizens are free to vote for Putin.

[subego]

The one I find the most obnoxious is when the OS implies it’s my fault it didn’t get shut down gracefully.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

“Sorry for any convenience”

"Escalator Temporarily Stairs"