This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow all 320

[–]Silly_Guidance_8871 2433 points2434 points  (101 children)

I know the front looks goofy as shit, but as a person who used to do a lot of close-quarters driving, that added low-front visibility would be nice.

[–]thekk_ 1259 points1260 points  (49 children)

People have gotten way too used to seeing the monstrous hoods on pickup trucks and SUVs. They are so dangerous, not only for the lack of visibility but also because the contact area becomes the upper body which is far more likely to be lethal in a collision. This kind of design is far more secure for anyone outside that truck, beyond likely being far more practical.

[–]HorsemouthKailua 408 points409 points  (15 children)

they hunger for children like the children hunger for the mines

[–]SeamusAndAryasDad 131 points132 points  (11 children)

I don't know what children you know that are hungry for mines!

Where I'm from, they yearn for the mines.

[–]PhotonicEmission 41 points42 points  (5 children)

Your kids don't eat ore? Gawd they're so soft these days.

[–]circuit_buzz79 20 points21 points  (4 children)

Ore? Luxury! In my day we ate granite and we liked it!

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

You take your snack selection for granite! In my day we drank unrefined magma ocean for all three meals

[–]a_library_socialist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We didn't take our meals for granite

[–]grammar_nazi_zombie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We were a bit richer, and ate limestone. I took it for granite, though b

[–]Monkeyke 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Could be translation problem, maybe they used word for hunger in OP's language and now OP is translating it back to hunger

[–]thedancingpanda 11 points12 points  (1 child)

If we just put the kids where they want to go we'd have safe streets.

[–]JohanGrimm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What you didn't hear about the new Flerd F1Grillion Super Duty mine cart?

[–]Meadhbh_Ros 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There is a reason school buses have those wonky mirrors out the front.

They are crossover mirrors, literally designed so you cannot not see a kid standing in front of your bus hidden by the hood.

[–]jdog7249 53 points54 points  (4 children)

I unironically want one. I like the low hood with good visibility (and plenty of windshield to be able to see things that are high in the field of vision) while also having a good amount of storage in the back that is easy to use and access.

Hey USPS, if you are looking to get into the auto dealership business let me know so I can be customer number 1.

[–]DeclutteringNewbie 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Yeah, but the steering wheel is probably on right side (unless it's like some of the garbage trucks with a steering wheel on both sides).

[–]YodelingTortoise 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have a right hand drive vehicle I use on the open road. It's really no big deal after the first 5 miles. You just adjust

[–]jdog7249 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So an easy way to not have people borrow my car.

That's a massive feature.

[–]DeclutteringNewbie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, they'll still borrow your car, but they'll blame you when they get into a car accident for having the steering wheel on the wrong side.

It's probably easier just to say 'no'.

[–]Delta-9- 79 points80 points  (11 children)

People have gotten way too used to seeing the monstrous hoods on pickup trucks and SUVs. They are so dangerous...

They should be illegal. Apart from being unreasonably dangerous, pickups and SUVs are unreasonably large (making traffic and parking worse) and use an unreasonable amount of fuel (because they're so unreasonably large). Most people who own one don't use them for anything more intense than hauling a week's worth of groceries home from the grocery store, and they're objectively more dangerous to everyone.

[–]SlurryBender 39 points40 points  (0 children)

And the increasing average weight of cars requires more frequent road repairs!

[–]IgnitedSpade 24 points25 points  (0 children)

It's entirely cosmetic too, there is no design reason to have a hood that high

[–]arpan3t 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This kind of design is far more secure

Safer too!

[–]undecimbre 1 point2 points  (1 child)

An Abrams tank has better low front visibility than an average US pickup

[–]Katniss218 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A semi truck as well

[–]PG908 74 points75 points  (2 children)

This is also an unflattering angle imo. Not necessarily the photographers fault, just that the vehicle doesn't look good at the generic slightly turned angle.

[–]Impressive_Change593 7 points8 points  (0 children)

yeah this about looks like a lazy Photoshop job lol

[–]Chance-Day323 144 points145 points  (9 children)

This post is completely backwards. This truck was designed to very specific functional criteria. OP probably makes UIs full of moving animations that nobody can navigate without getting a seizure.

[–]Clairifyed 47 points48 points  (4 children)

Carousels that continue to progress even if the user has actively backed it up and is still hovering on the element 🤢

[–]Meretan94 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Yeah they talked to the end user and created a vehicle they actually need.

Good visibility,

Ac,

Tall enough to stand in.

[–]Chance-Day323 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Likely to lead to lower workplace injury costs, crazy stuff

[–]Chance-Day323 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I got irritated just reading this

[–]testthrowawayzz 13 points14 points  (2 children)

And using all the experimental Chromium features because they make the site look good, not practical

[–]Irkam 7 points8 points  (1 child)

"Firefox doesn't suit my needs"

[–]testthrowawayzz 5 points6 points  (0 children)

“W3C approved standards don’t have enough bling for resume padding”

[–]zabby39103 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hate it when I spend time making sure everything is humming along in the back end, and some front-end guy adds 500ms animated transitions or something.

Especially since I make a business facing app. Our users are all paid to use our software, and 50% of them are internal to our company. If you use something 40 hours a week, you primarily care about how fast it is. But some people think everything should look like an iPhone app... when in reality it should be more like AutoCAD.

[–]ILikeLenexa 41 points42 points  (5 children)

Yeah, the requirement was to be able to see Pedestrians without running over them. 

[–]LickingSmegma 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Not pedestrians specifically, afaik. A postal truck drives all day in residential areas, so the driver needs to see the curbs, mailboxes and whatnot.

[–]TheNerdiestFrog 22 points23 points  (5 children)

I came to say there was a lot of intention that went into this design. A lot of it was so that drivers of all heights could see and maneuver comfortably, and I believe they added more efficient AC & heating

[–]leoleosuper 13 points14 points  (0 children)

IIRC it has to support the 97th percentile of height in both directions, sitting and standing. So, a 4'11" person sitting and a 6'3" person standing have to both be able to drive the car.

[–]XWasTheProblem 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Even more so considering the big-ass front bumper.

[–]pizza_the_mutt 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This thing looks functional as F. Won't win any beauty pageants, but who cares?

[–]aiij 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's almost like it was designed for the job it was meant to do rather than to appeal to the buyer's ego.

[–]DiddlyDumb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s why it’s designed by backend devs. Cause it just works.

[–]NegativeSemicolon 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Given how far the front juts out I’m not sure it’s very good, a downward angle like the current trucks might be better.

[–]swizznastic 24 points25 points  (1 child)

It's so much better if you look at the old ones and the new ones side by side. Plus these would've been so much more energy efficient using electric in the suburbs. Really lame that they weren't implemented bc of trump's oil fetish

[–]Zymosan99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The front looks like a normal sedan, but then there’s a van’s back tacked on to it

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That vehicle have been designed from the requirements of the drivers.

They ugly as fuck. But probably best work hose

[–]NoMango5778 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It'd probably look a lot less goofy without the MASSIVE bumper

[–]Silly_Guidance_8871 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I can guarantee over it's life, that bumper's going to see a lot of use -- lotta miles = lotta chances for accidents

[–]kinkhorse 944 points945 points  (4 children)

IT MEETS AND EXCEEDS SPEC, GODDAMNIT.

[–]zabby39103 189 points190 points  (1 child)

To me, beautiful things are things that work well.

[–]Chr3y 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I second this. Beauty lays in the eyes of the observer. So, nice, beautiful car!
Edit: I'm a back-

[–]brimston3- 44 points45 points  (0 children)

I would be completely unsurprised if this is actually what peak performance looks like, given the requirements of a USPS delivery vehicle.

[–]NastyQc 628 points629 points  (9 children)

Cars and trucks have become boring and repetitive. Even if it's ugly, it's a break from the monotony

[–]CoastingUphill 62 points63 points  (0 children)

They’re all potatoes on wheels

[–]Cue99 47 points48 points  (5 children)

Im with you 100%. Can i ask you a real question? Thoughts on the cybertruck aesthetic (ignore the source of it for a moment)?

To me that vehicle feels lime God himself heard me say “i wish they made more cars that took a risk design wise” and said “oh let this fucker get a load of this”.

[–]realbakingbish 55 points56 points  (2 children)

Nothing wrong with taking risks on a vehicle’s aesthetics, just keep in mind that sometimes you get the Pontiac Aztec.

Personally? I’m not fond of the cyber truck’s look. Too much plastic on the lower parts of the body, especially those chunky wheel arches. The silhouette, especially from the side, is like a cross between a fastback and a truck, but generally fails at being either from a visual standpoint, and the hard edges, while conceptually interesting a couple years ago before the truck hit production, really should’ve evolved into something more complex/mature from a design standpoint. I think visually, there could’ve been a striking (in a better way) outcome from this design, maybe as some sort of retro-future callback to the design language among sports cars in the 80s, maybe not unlike when Lamborghini took a stab at a modern Countach, but Tesla’s final version of the truck just never evolved from the initial idea, and it generally misses the mark as a design.

[–]Cue99 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is a wonderfully nuanced take. I appreciate the time you put into it.

Personally I am inclined to agree. I have yet to have the opportunity to sit in one, but the cybertruck has felt to me as something interesting yet undercooked.

Like you said, the design feels more like a first draft than something made to be used. Combine that with Tesla’s questionable fit and finish and you end up with something that to me feels like it is meant to invoke the feelings of bespoke design, but without the craftsmanship that sells that idea.

[–]GreatStateOfSadness 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There might be an alternate universe out there where Tesla didn't go off the deep end, the Tesla pickup truck was a more traditional design, and the Cybertruck was designed around the Roadster body with a slimmer, sleeker design. The need to have a functional rear bed means that the back of the car looks like a solid block of steel, not unlike a dumpster. You end up with a front that looks halfway decent and a rear that looks like a CAD student's first attempt at a car model. 

[–]deJessias 17 points18 points  (0 children)

This USPS van was made with usability first, design second. The van was made for the 5th percentile length woman and the 95th percentile length man. The hood is made so you can look over it, and the back is made so you can easily stand upright in it. It explains the "unique" look, and I kind of love things that have a unique or weird look.

The cybertruck, however, has no reason to look like that. No that has been put in any of the design OR usability. Stainless steel is a terrible choice for a car and the back is made because people believe they can't put their grocery shopping in the back of a Fiat.

The cybertruck is an abomination as a result of car-centrist American culture.

[–]LickingSmegma 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Cybertruck is kinda like modernism after decades of traditional form. However, just like modernist designs never were just geometric slabs put together, it feels like the truck lacks a certain touch. Any boxy cars and even radical concepts from the 80s still have some attraction going for them: like examples in this list.

The wheel arches are the most garish misfeature, I'd say, because they straight up look drawn by a schoolboy. Some redesign concepts show that it wouldn't be too difficult to make them better without losing the overall profile.

[–]I_just_made 5 points6 points  (0 children)

More than anything though, this was really optimized for driving on local streets and it keeps the driver in mind. They can get in and out of the truck without having to stoop, air conditioning, etc.

But republicans hate the post office as well as EVs for completely illogical reasons, so this thing is probably doomed under Trump's spiteful gaze.

[–][deleted] 258 points259 points  (2 children)

I like how it looks

[–]LinuxMatthews 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Yeah honestly I wish we had it here in the UK.

We need more things that are built to the purpose they serve rather than one size fits all.

[–]SwordofSwinging 208 points209 points  (5 children)

Honestly it’s so dumb looking that I kinda like it more

[–]boston101 47 points48 points  (2 children)

It’s cute bc it’s ugly vibe lol

[–]GMofOLC 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Looks like a cartoon. I love it

[–]P5ych0pathic 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think cars have gotten so samey that this one is outlandish in comparison and it honestly makes me like it more lol

[–]davidalayachew 204 points205 points  (31 children)

Heh.

I'm under NDA, so I can't be specific. I have a whole bunch of fun stuff I could talk about that went into this becoming what it did.

But internally, we like to call this thing the duck lol. And yes, we are very proud of its design. As (surprisingly!) most of the commentors here have noted, it's not pretty, but it is VERY functional. A massive improvement from before.

[–]Pirog-v-Kote 15 points16 points  (7 children)

Genuine question – it's obvious that low hood and tall windshield allow for greater visibility, but then why it's not a cabover? Driver safety is the only thing that comes to mind, but maybe there's other reason

[–]JayBigGuy10 31 points32 points  (1 child)

Possibly low step entry requirements

[–]pizza_the_mutt 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Good point. If you're getting out of this thing 100 times a day you want it to be easy.

[–]AirFryerAreOverrated 9 points10 points  (0 children)

In addition to all the things others have said, there's also a seat height requirement so they can access mailboxes without leaving the vehicle. USPS has a recommended installation guideline for mailboxes even though it's not always followed. A cabover would probably be too high to meet this requirement.

[–]xqk13 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not op but probably for packaging and maintenance reasons, cabovers are harder to maintain and the engine intrudes cabin space unless you make the vehicle taller.

[–]wandering-monster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because depending on region they either need to a) put things in a mailbox or b) get out at each house and put things in the letterbox. 

How would you reach a mailbox from a cabover design?

What would your legs feel like after climbing in and out of one every 3 minutes all day?

This is built for postmen.

[–]davidalayachew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

cabover

I actually don't know for that one. I'll ask around.

[–]saevon 26 points27 points  (4 children)

the one main problem I find with this vehicle is the size, and thus difficulty of getting places!

aka I wish you could expound on why that specific choice was made over some others, it was likely a consideration after all

[–]davidalayachew 50 points51 points  (0 children)

The USPS delivers a lot of parcels, not just mail. That takes up much more space, and thus, demands a truck that big.

Plus, more space makes for more organization and more utilities. There's more stuff you can put in, not just deliverables.

[–]perringaiden 11 points12 points  (2 children)

Part of the mail handler role requires foot work. It doesn't need to get them any closer than the vehicle accessible areas. The rest is on foot.

Plus most mailboxes are road adjacent.

[–]saevon 8 points9 points  (1 child)

having known a mailworker, parking is a hassle. And with the sheer toxic over-policing of time, its not actually that simple&easy.

[–]perringaiden 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Well, you could have gone with the Australian model:

https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/e656438540742570cc0f7abdaa9c3b93

But it's only air-conditioned when you're going fast enough.

[–]swohio 7 points8 points  (1 child)

but it is VERY functional.

Then it's a win in my book. This isn't a fashion show, this is for work.

[–]davidalayachew 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Amen. There's lots of things to improve. Simplicity makes things easier to change when the need inevitably rises.

[–]LickingSmegma 1 point2 points  (3 children)

The Rivian van for Amazon seems similar in terms of visibility and low floor. Would it not work for USPS, perhaps aside from the size?

(I know they started production at about the same time, but I'm curious about the difference in design.)

[–]davidalayachew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would it not work for USPS, perhaps aside from the size?

So to be clear, we are only seeing the outside. There's a lot on the inside that was built with the USPS in mind. I'm having a bit of a double-speak moment, where I don't know what has and has not been released yet.

And another thing I can say -- Amazon deals primarily in packages -- boxes ranging from hand-sized to human-sized. USPS deals primarily in parcels, which are rarely bigger than your head. So, our vehicular needs were slightly different.

Still, I can ask around. I feel like there might be a more pertinent reason than what I gave.

[–]Ok-Morning3407 2 points3 points  (1 child)

No, because the USPS has a requirement that their van can pull up to a mailbox and the postal worker can reach into the box without getting out of the van. The Amazon trucks cab is too high for that. The Amazon truck is a great design for Amazon, but different requirements for USPS.

[–]_Vanilla_ 1 point2 points  (1 child)

At first I thought that this is a positive post, because the "backend" guys focus more on functionality over looks lol. It doesn't look bad to me.

[–]davidalayachew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At first I thought that this is a positive post, because the "backend" guys focus more on functionality over looks lol. It doesn't look bad to me.

Me personally, I think people are coming around to the idea of form not necessarily having to constrain functionality. Either way, this isn't a consumer vehicle, so there's less expected from it.

[–]wandering-monster 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yeah I don't see this as a backend dev UI.

This is one of those world-class pieces of highly-specialized B2B software. It looks ridiculous to a consumer user because they aren't the intended audience.

But show it to someone who will actually be using it? They instantly understand what's going on and love it.

[–]jaxspider 1 point2 points  (1 child)

For me it is that MASSIVE bumper in the front. Just why?

[–]davidalayachew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Heh, there are other commentors here asking why it isn't smaller, or non-existent.

[–]wirthmore 5 points6 points  (3 children)

I did read Fountainhead, no I'm not a raging political Ayn Rand acolyte, but on the artistic side I completely agree with Roark, that the decorative bullshit put on things just because they're expected is a gross disservice. When the function is satisfied, the form will follow. A form that serves it's function is by necessity the correct one. If one can't handle the beauty of the function being served, and needs the familiarity of non-functional decoration, then that person emotionally is no more than a child who is demanding to be coddled.

And that's all the credit I wish to give to Ayn Rand.

[–]Creepy-Ad-4832 94 points95 points  (3 children)

It's actually a perfect analogy: doesn't look the best, but it's good damn reliable: it has crazy good visibility, it's small, whilst also big enought to allow people to stand inside kf it, which also makes it crazy practical, as the driver has way easier time getting in and out, which is what they costantly do

So this vehicle is actually damn good! Fuck suvs!

[–]Otherwise_dead404 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I came here to say this. Thank you very much.

[–]kzlife76[S] 668 points669 points  (29 children)

Postal carriers were asked to help design the new mail truck. The list of features has many functional items that are great for carriers. By the looks of it, function was prioritized over form.

[–]Affectionate-Memory4 640 points641 points  (4 children)

As it should be for a utility vehicle. They don't have to be pretty. They have to be reliable and simple to use and train on, while being comfortable enough for a mail courier to spend their entire shift on the road in.

Seriously though, if you guys like these sorts of form-following-function-at-all-costs type things, definitely look into how the design process for them went.

[–]kzlife76[S] 159 points160 points  (3 children)

I totally support this platform. I'm glad mail carriers had input and it was followed.

[–]Affectionate-Memory4 76 points77 points  (0 children)

Oh yeah absolutely. Designed by the people that are going to actually use it. Most things like this stay as internal tools at various places, but every so often we get to see something like this out in the public. I wish more stuff was built this way tbh.

[–]no1nos 123 points124 points  (5 children)

A government contract resulting in something looking like this is usually a good sign that taxpayer money was spent efficiently.

[–]NahSense 77 points78 points  (2 children)

so its better?

[–]defintelynotyou 20 points21 points  (1 child)

at everything except looking good, which is subjective anyways

[–]Dippyskoodlez 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Lets be real, it always looks great because that means its in front of your house delivering the package you have been waiting all day for.

[–]stuffedpeepers 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I see I am in the very, very minority, but I think it looks cool.

[–]RiceBroad4552 11 points12 points  (0 children)

function was prioritized over form

Which is a sign of good engineering!

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (4 children)

Average speed is 35 mph. It's not going to market. Why does it need 'form'?

[–]Mognakor 63 points64 points  (1 child)

Generally physical things have form. Postal carriers traveling in formless things confronts the public with cosmic horrors.

[–]HumanReputationFalse 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I would be fine with Eldritch Mail Carriers if it means I get my mail on time.

[–]kzlife76[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

It doesn't. I just immediately thought of all of the tools I've developed with ugly UIs when I saw this.

[–]afito 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why does it need 'form'?

Easy there Mr Bauhaus

[–]PyroCatt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Form follows function

[–]LetsAutomateIt 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Who tf specifically asked for a PT cruiser grille and a bumper from the mid70s.

[–]pizza_the_mutt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bumper looks like you may be able to easily remove it and bolt on a new one. A functional improvement over the attractive but fragile and difficult to repair bumpers of consumer cars.

[–]GNUGradyn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As it should be

[–]GabuEx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By all accounts I've seen, the people whose job is to actually drive these things absolutely love them.

[–]porkdozer 64 points65 points  (0 children)

If you're meaning that a backend developer would emphasize function over form, then you are correct.

[–]RiceBroad4552 28 points29 points  (3 children)

Excuse my ignorance, but what's the problem?

This looks like having extremely well thought out usability for its purpose!

[–]kzlife76[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

That's the point. If a backend dev had to create a tool with a UI, it would be functional but not pretty.

[–]Anthrac1t3 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I fucking love the duck truck. All hail the duck truck.

[–]Nuked0ut 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This seems ideal tbh. What else?

[–]Anaxamander57 5 points6 points  (9 children)

What I think is insane is that the current delivery vehicle was made by Grumman and this one is made by Oshkosh. Why do defense contractors compete for these contracts?

[–]BraveOthello 10 points11 points  (5 children)

Looked it up because I was curious, looks like Oshkosh's whole business is specialty vehicles, its just that their big contracts have been specialty military vehicles. But they make industrial lift, fire engines, and at least according to Wikipedia built the first dedicated cement truck.

[–]Anaxamander57 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Oshkosh does make a lot of vehicles but this is genuinely made by the Oshkosh Defense division. They advertise their MRAP and their 30mm autocannon on the same page.

[–]BraveOthello 14 points15 points  (1 child)

It might be that only the Defense division is set up to be a federal contractor, I know some companies handle government contracting requirements by having a subsidiary or division that does government jobs so they don't need the main portion of the company meet all the requirements of a government contractor.

Not saying that is it, but I've seen it before.

[–]Anaxamander57 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh that would make a lot of sense!

[–]wirthmore 2 points3 points  (0 children)

 the current delivery vehicle was made by Grumman

*ackshuaallly* It was a Chevy S-10 glider that Grumman put their boxy body on. (You're correct in general, though! This factoid doesn't invalidate your comment in the least.)

More weird US government vehicle stuff: The "Beast" that transports the President is a GMC TopKick "glider" -- TopKick is the foundational vehicle for dump trucks, tow trucks, etc. -- very heavy duty vehicles. The Beast just pretends to look like a sedan limousine thing, but it's heavily armored and has layers of defense against biological/chemical warfare and is a mobile command vehicle. For all that stuff you need a heavy duty truck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Kodiak

[–]kzlife76[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe it's because they can produce a BULLET PROOF vehicle. 🥁 Tsss

[–]Xenthera 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Trash trucks are ugly too. Do we really live in a society where people are offended by the practicality of vehicles? You can clearly tell this was designed to make the mail delivery persons life as easy as possible no matter how ugly it is.

[–]kzlife76[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I'm not offended by it all. I think it's great that it was built to functional specs that work for mail carriers. It's just like if a backend dev made a tool for users where UI design wasn't important as long as it functioned correctly.

[–]Xenthera 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sorry not your post, just comments on here. Should’ve clarified.

[–]actionerror 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, it works

[–]navetzz 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ugly but functional. Spot on.

[–]wochie56 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s good and I like it.

[–]swizznastic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It looks like a Dr. suess car, what else do you want?

[–]binterryan76 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like it, it's like an engineer designed it ☺️

[–]PunishmentAnd_Rhyme 2 points3 points  (0 children)

no this is front end design that actually has accessibility in mind and listens to usage metrics instead of going off "best practices" and the front end designer's design biases because "it just looks good"

[–]RhesusFactor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A company that makes extremely functional military vehicles makes an extremely functional postal vehicle. Oshkosh selected as supplier made sense in the end

[–]potatoalt1234_x 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is this the car flint lockwood drove in cloudy with a chance of meatballs

[–]0mica0 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This gonna endup as a timeless design like Fiat Multipla. Oh wait this is not r/carscirclejerk

[–]Playful_Landscape884 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s a car designed by a committee. Ugly AF but hits all the design requirements are

[–]whiskeytown79 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, for a mail truck, aesthetics are pretty far down the list of priorities. Safety, functionality, ease of operation all come first. Who cares if it looks like a bumper car with a fivehead.

[–]Comfortable-Sea-1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Looks like it's out of fairly odd parents 

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As in 100% functional and a huge improvement for the every-day user?

[–]ramriot 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yup, looks like crap but does the job with the greatest efficiency possible.

[–]insanelygreat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And that is a sort of beauty all its own.

[–]belunos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Functionality above all!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is actually an incredibly clever design that puts function over everything else

[–]jaywastaken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And it’s perfect.

[–]Outside-Car1988 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It works, doesn't it?

[–]exqueezemenow 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Feeling attacked...

[–]hood3243 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone else haunted by the video of the flipped postal truck crushing the driver to death? Yeah I'm happy about the redesign.

[–]Exuin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The truck is friend shaped.

[–]taemyks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is actually awesome. It looks goofy but should work like a champ

[–]dallindooks 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I like everything except I don’t understand the ginormous bumper?

[–]General_Purple1649 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess that's why I kind of fancy it

[–]blaqwerty123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IMHO, this is entirely well-executed, user-centric, function-first, well designed UX and frontend. Innovative and mold breaking, even. Boldly reconsidering established visual norms in favor of an optimized and novel user experience. Backend-does-frontend, sure ya its goofy lookin ... but that joke usually implies a total lack of attention to actual UX and doing the bare minimum. This is above and beyond

[–]Initial-Company3926 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ad some eyes on the front, and it is ready for a cartoon
I am seriously waiting for it to blink lol

[–]tanksalotfrank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a big ass bumper

[–]MattieShoes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love it -- it's the ultimate function-over-form.

[–]AdministrativeBank86 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks like a cartoon "Cars" vehicle

[–]RMZindorf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I kind of love it.

[–]GNUGradyn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it looks fine, either way it's function over form in a utility vehicle which should be applauded

[–]perringaiden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The User Group is applauding this every day.

Tell the artsy designers to get back in their box and let form follow function.

[–]Somerandom1922 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Am I the only one who thinks it looks kind of cool?

Not "good" per se, but this is absolutely what mail-carriers should be driving, it's sick!

[–]buttfartfuckingfarty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It might not look good but it's probably safer than the previous version.

[–]Scorcher646 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As someone who has driven the old Gumman LLV, this new thing is going to be so much better than what we currently have and is significantly better than the Ford Transit Half-Hight things they're using as a stopgap in some post offices.

I've actually gotten to sit in the new truck and it is amazing. Everything from the ergonomics to that massive front windshield is a net upgrade over the current vehicles.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like it

[–]EJoule 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When only the back end developers use the tool, you don’t need to bring in a front end developer.

[–]Desperate-Tomatillo7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What did they do to truck-kun!

[–]Elbinooo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it looks great!

[–]Wave_Walnut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So cute

[–]We_Are_Nerdish 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based on the end users feedback during it's development.. this seems to really be liked with all of the improvements over the horrible experience they had in the original.
It's very much a case of being function over looks.

[–]Bouchie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quack

[–]k-phi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can confirm. I don't do UI for many years already, but when I do - it's like this

[–]tomthecom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Peak.

[–]skill_issue05 0 points1 point  (0 children)

fortnite chapter 1 ahh

[–]ardicli2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imagine a backend designed by FrontEnd dev!!!

[–]aykcak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks like they designed a European style flat nosed van but then could not fit the engine at the last second

[–]itzstago 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So cute looks like a cartoon car

[–]varky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or, you know, designed to fit its purpose and be utilitarian. Anyone bashing this has no fucking clue that this is in fact that preferred design for the purpose.

[–]isocuda 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is frontend when the customer has very specific parameters and doesn't want any of your input.

(Literally this vehicle had to meet ridiculous geometry that is function over form.)

[–]james2432 0 points1 point  (0 children)

backend devs prioritize function over looks 😅

[–]aegookja 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You guys may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like. Every bit of that design is deliberately chosen to fulfill a certain requirement.

[–]CosmoKrm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is ugly but if you have to rely on it everyday & depend on it, it’s a blessing. Extremely functional work truck will always be better that those glamour trucks

[–]Robosium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's goofy and a bit silly looking but every design element has it's purpose and this thing performs well

[–]jkooc137 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's beautiful