Ford Oshkosh JV, USPS

[twintornados]

47 minutes ago, Joe771476 said:

Since this is Transit related, I figured I'd insert this here.... 

 

One guess would be in addition to ambulance chassis, this will work with the NGDV for the US Postal Service and it would avoid the "Chicken Tax" since it is an "incomplete vehicle".

From the article....

Quote

The new, lightweight design is compliant with the national specification advocated by the Lord Carter Report, offering all the equipment and capability of a front-line ambulance within a 3.5-tonne gross vehicle weight. The lightweight design also has been developed to provide a future-proof solution for ambulance operators looking to transition to zero-emission fleets.

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by twintornados

[silvrsvt]

On 6/29/2021 at 12:10 AM, SoonerLS said:

Once the courts get involved, lots of things could go sideways. Microsoft and DoD are dealing with this on the JEDI contract that Microsoft won; Amazon has had it tied up with litigation long enough that there's speculation that DoD may just cancel the whole thing. 

 

This is par for the course when it comes to DOD items. I've been on the shitty end of the stick with these pissing contests. 

 

Now I just tell the contractors what they need to do since I work for the DOD LOL

 

 

[rmc523]

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/09/15/workhorse-drops-usps-challenge-electric-postal-vehicles/

 

 

Workhorse has dropped its challenge to the USPS contract.

[rperez817]

USPS announced this week that it again raised the minimum BEV percentage for deliveries of Oshkosh Defense Next Gen Delivery Vehicles, in this case to 50%. Originally the target was 10%, in March 2022 it was raised to 20%. Postal Service Modernization Enables Expanded Electric Vehicle Opportunity - Newsroom - About.usps.com

 

Here's another detail mentioned in the press release.

Quote

the Postal Service is also proposing to purchase, over a 2-year period, 34,500 COTS vehicles. Additional purchases of NGDVs under the current contract or other COTS vehicles will be analyzed in future supplements to the EIS prior to such purchases. The Postal Service anticipates evaluating and procuring vehicles over shorter time periods to be more responsive to its evolving operational strategy, technology improvements, and changing market conditions, including the expected increased availability of BEV options in the future.

 

Maybe this will present an opportunity for Ford to sell E-Transit to USPS? 

Edited July 22, 2022 by rperez817

[92merc]

I wondered the same thing.  Oshkosh hasn't said if they are going on their own platform.  With the increased number of units being needed, makes me wonder if Oshkosh can go with a cutaway E Transit platform.  Would make the most sense to me.

[7Mary3]

'COTS" stands for Commercial Off The Shelf, meaning a standard comsumer type vehicle.  Notice they stated NGDV or COTS.  USPS might be figuring the NGDV is too expensive (and it is).  The BEV Transit could be a contender, but I am thinking USPS would be looking for something a bit smaller.  Maybe the BrightDrop 410?  BEV Connect?

Edited July 22, 2022 by 7Mary3

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, 92merc said:

I wondered the same thing.  Oshkosh hasn't said if they are going on their own platform.  With the increased number of units being needed, makes me wonder if Oshkosh can go with a cutaway E Transit platform.  Would make the most sense to me.

I know they did a ton of market research to get to the range they got to for E-Transit, but I don't believe that's enough for what a typical postal truck needs with all of that stop and go driving. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by fuzzymoomoo

[fordmantpw]

23 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I know they did a ton of market research to get to the range they got to for E-Transit, but I don't believe that's enough for what a typical postal truck needs with all of that stop and go driving. 

 

Stop and go is actually better for range due to the regenerative braking.

[j2sys]

22 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

 

Stop and go is actually better for range due to the regenerative braking.

 

The laws of physics disagree.

 

Regenerative braking recoups some of the energy lost to braking.  Not all.  And then you have to get back up to speed, which is less efficient than maintaining speed.

 

It's still more efficient in a HEV or BEV to maintain speed.  You just don't have the same level of losses as an ICEV.

[fordmantpw]

2 hours ago, j2sys said:

 

The laws of physics disagree.

 

Regenerative braking recoups some of the energy lost to braking.  Not all.  And then you have to get back up to speed, which is less efficient than maintaining speed.

 

It's still more efficient in a HEV or BEV to maintain speed.  You just don't have the same level of losses as an ICEV.

 

Well, I meant compared to an ICE engine, but you are wrong.

 

Electric cars are rated higher in the city than the highway.  That means, their range is higher in the city than it is on the highway.

 

There are a lot of things you aren't taking into account, namely wind resistance.  Wind resistance is the main killer of fuel economy (whether that fuel is battery or good 'ole gasoline) at highway speeds.

[j2sys]

54 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

 

Well, I meant compared to an ICE engine, but you are wrong.

 

Electric cars are rated higher in the city than the highway.  That means, their range is higher in the city than it is on the highway.

 

There are a lot of things you aren't taking into account, namely wind resistance.  Wind resistance is the main killer of fuel economy (whether that fuel is battery or good 'ole gasoline) at highway speeds.

 

None of that addresses or refutes what I said...  ?‍♂️ 

[fordmantpw]

2 hours ago, j2sys said:

 

None of that addresses or refutes what I said...  ?‍♂️ 

 

OK

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, j2sys said:

 

None of that addresses or refutes what I said...  ?‍♂️ 

Agree.

The issue with the postal quote was that BEV was never considered as part of the original tender, a horrible situation where the government department was asleep on advances in technology or at least didn’t preserve the option of either PHEV or BEV supply if available.

 

In some respects a 40 mile ev range on a PHEV van may have been a smart way to eliminate a lot of low speed / engine idle fuel use where those vans normally perform poorly while retaining gasoline ICE for driving at normal road speed.

 

Maybe I’m looking at this wrong….I just don’t think a full BEV is absolutely necessary to transform the postal service fleet.

Edited July 23, 2022 by jpd80

[7Mary3]

I think the USPS delivery fleet is perfect for mass electrification.  Short distance, low speed stop-and-go, back every night to a specific location.  Too bad they didn't see it coming, if it were my call all the NGDV's would be BEV's, and use COTS's for the few instances were a ICE vehicle would be desirable.  Ford's deal to supply drivetrains for the ICE NGDV's is inconsequential, no great loss if they loose half of it.  Or all of it.    

[rperez817]

13 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I think the USPS delivery fleet is perfect for mass electrification.  Short distance, low speed stop-and-go, back every night to a specific location.  Too bad they didn't see it coming, if it were my call all the NGDV's would be BEV's, and use COTS's for the few instances were a ICE vehicle would be desirable.  Ford's deal to supply drivetrains for the ICE NGDV's is inconsequential, no great loss if they loose half of it.  Or all of it.    

 

Good points 7Mary3. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 2 years, USPS commits to 100% BEV for all additional NGDV purchases. BEV is inherently superior to ICE, the USPS' initial reluctance for an all-electric NGDV fleet was due to politics and funding decisions. Oshkosh Defense stated after securing the NGDV contract that they are prepared to produce as many BEV NGDV as USPS is willing to buy.

 

I agree that if Ford loses its entire deal to supply ICE NGDV drivetrains, it's not a big loss. In fact, it would be a benefit to Ford, given Ford's own goals to dramatically ramp up BEV commercial vehicle production over the next few years.  

[twintornados]

On 7/23/2022 at 11:52 AM, rperez817 said:

 

Good points 7Mary3. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 2 years, USPS commits to 100% BEV for all additional NGDV purchases. BEV is inherently superior to ICE, the USPS' initial reluctance for an all-electric NGDV fleet was due to politics and funding decisions. Oshkosh Defense stated after securing the NGDV contract that they are prepared to produce as many BEV NGDV as USPS is willing to buy.

 

I agree that if Ford loses its entire deal to supply ICE NGDV drivetrains, it's not a big loss. In fact, it would be a benefit to Ford, given Ford's own goals to dramatically ramp up BEV commercial vehicle production over the next few years.  

 

You are discounting that Ford could and would supply BEV powertrains and telemetrics to Oshkosh since their powertrain options for NGDV are Transit based.

[bzcat]

Seems likely that USPS would just buy eTransit because Ford could deliver that much faster than Oshkosh can.

 

I also think that it is highly likely that Oshkosh will buy turn key EV drivetrain from Ford for the NGDV. Assuming of course Ford has anything spare to sell. 

[rperez817]

57 minutes ago, twintornados said:

You are discounting that Ford could and would supply BEV powertrains and telemetrics to Oshkosh since their powertrain options for NGDV are Transit based.

 

That's true, thanks for the clarification twintornados. Hopefully Ford can ramp up production capacity of BEV powertrains and telematics components for NGDV and other government contracts or subcontracting arrangements as bzcat mentioned. Done right, this can become a healthy and profitable business for Ford Pro and Model e.

[GearheadGrrrl]

I retired out of USPS Motor Vehicle Service, so I've had a ringside seat to this dragged out for decades drama. USPS has always wanted a basic cargo vehicle for carriers to drive, from the Jeep Dispatcher to the LLV and the Explorer chassis FFV (Like an LLV but with a flex fuel Ford V6 engine). Through this half century evolution USPS wanted an aluminum bodied boxy vehicle so it wouldn't rust out and using off the shelf lighting and flat glass for cheap replacements. But with each evolution USPS has asked for a bigger vehicle so the proposed Oshkosh/Ford vehicle is wider and tall enough to stand up in. Over the years USPS has evaluated alternative fuels and electrification, while they tried natural gas and E85 with mixed results they never got far with electrification because it never showed any cost savings.

 

So we are now at the point where electrification is cheap enough to reduce overall costs on most of USPS's carrier routes while tooling up for a rustproof aluminum front end isn't worth the bother- So USPS may as well renegotiate the contract to use the readily available Transit Electric cutaway and let Oshkosh mount the required box body on them. But more likely set in their ways Motor Vehicle Service top management will waste a couple years for their exclusive design to reach production (maybe), or finally give up and accept off the shelf Transit Electric box trucks...

 

 

[7Mary3]

The EV NGDV does exist, who supplies the battery and electrical components?

[rperez817]

4 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

The EV NGDV does exist, who supplies the battery and electrical components?

 

Ford Components Sales, LLC is supposed to be one supplier.

[slemke]

5 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

I retired out of USPS Motor Vehicle Service, so I've had a ringside seat to this dragged out for decades drama. USPS has always wanted a basic cargo vehicle for carriers to drive, from the Jeep Dispatcher to the LLV and the Explorer chassis FFV (Like an LLV but with a flex fuel Ford V6 engine). Through this half century evolution USPS wanted an aluminum bodied boxy vehicle so it wouldn't rust out and using off the shelf lighting and flat glass for cheap replacements. But with each evolution USPS has asked for a bigger vehicle so the proposed Oshkosh/Ford vehicle is wider and tall enough to stand up in. Over the years USPS has evaluated alternative fuels and electrification, while they tried natural gas and E85 with mixed results they never got far with electrification because it never showed any cost savings.

 

So we are now at the point where electrification is cheap enough to reduce overall costs on most of USPS's carrier routes while tooling up for a rustproof aluminum front end isn't worth the bother- So USPS may as well renegotiate the contract to use the readily available Transit Electric cutaway and let Oshkosh mount the required box body on them. But more likely set in their ways Motor Vehicle Service top management will waste a couple years for their exclusive design to reach production (maybe), or finally give up and accept off the shelf Transit Electric box trucks...

 

 

If they want off the shelf, why not just use Rivian or brightdrop?  Seems like lots of waste for an agency having financial problems.

[twintornados]

7 hours ago, slemke said:

If they want off the shelf, why not just use Rivian or brightdrop?  Seems like lots of waste for an agency having financial problems.

 

USPS's financial problems are not self inflicted.

[j2sys]

11 hours ago, slemke said:

If they want off the shelf, why not just use Rivian or brightdrop?  Seems like lots of waste for an agency having financial problems.

 

Because Rivian is struggling to ramp up the Amazon vans alongside its R1T and R1S.  Don't count on them having the capacity for more commercial vans for several years, and how soon does USPS want to start taking deliveries?  They did say they fully intend to use COTS vehicles, EVs no less, where feasible.  If Rivian has a marketable product available down the line, who is to say USPS won't bring some into the fleet?  They could do a combination of E-Transit, BrightDrop, unannounced but hinted at Rivian vans for all we know.

 

3 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

USPS's financial problems are not self inflicted.

 

Some of them are, some of them aren't.

[GearheadGrrrl]

14 hours ago, slemke said:

If they want off the shelf, why not just use Rivian or brightdrop?  Seems like lots of waste for an agency having financial problems.

Neither is in volume production, even after massive investments of venture capital or GM's cash. I'm frankly amazed GM spent the money to tool up the Brightdrop van, was just a few years ago they got out of the step van market because of the low volumes. That's why step vans and their chassis change little over the decades, simply not enough volume to justify extensive retooling. If USPS want off the shelf electric vans, Ford's been building Transits for years and the only thing that can hold back the supply of electric Transits is the supply of batteries.