UPS Unveils "World's Most Efficient Delivery Vehicle"

Oh, yes, because that's a hell of a lot more efficient than a bicycle.

Very productive comment Ben - I noticed on your blog, you refer to taking the bus. Allow me to quote:

"Oh, yes, because that's a hell of a lot more efficient than a bicycle."

I wonder how many MPG are added or CO2 emissions reduced by those flames?! LOL

Right and UPS could operate off a bicycle.

Okay, so the answer here is that UPS' business model is unsustainable. Next!

Hopefully this will create momentum and make the technology cheap enough for other companies to use.

Here's a more serious answer: Yes, if we find out we can't ship goods that far without causing a hurricane, we start making things more locally. However that happens, it clearly will eventually have to.

We can put mail on trains. The French do it, and it's immensely efficient. We used to do it, before oil became essentially free, and we'll go back to it. It's hard to grasp - but we're going to have to take a step back and look at how much more energy efficient we had to be before oil - we'll borrow some of those ideas in the future. Huge distribution facilities in the suburbs with delivery trucks? Definitely not sustainable. Sorry.

I'm sure a bit of work on the aerodynamics could help too!

What I'm more concerned about is the crazy stylings of these vehicles.

Do UPS guys feel the need... the need for speed?

Oh, I didn't read the rest of Ben's comments... but um... aren't the UPS guys the ones who bring boxes to your door?

Maybe I've misunderstood, but I thought trains are an alternative to the trucking industry... which brings packages to some warehouse, which the UPS trucks then pick up. (Granted, I understand that the trains/big trucks are probably also a choice by UPS, but is that what this article is talking about?)

I don't think they have a train that delivers mail to your house... even in France.

Ben, I agree that, ultimately, using these sorts vans for delivery is not ideal. In teh book Carfree Cities they have a interesting discussion of an alternative package delivery system, and use Venice as an example:

http://tinyurl.com/m7qsa

Props to UPS and the EPA. Increasing freight and commercial light truck vehicle efficiency just a few MPG, let alone 60-70%, makes a huge difference.

UPS's business model could be sustainable with a little bit of imagination and time. That kind of extremist point of view is why companies end up fighting with environmentalists rather than working to improve things. Economic reality is here and it is here to stay.

Crazy Ben said: Yes, if we find out we can't ship goods that far without causing a hurricane, we start making things more locally.

So, Ben, hurricanes didn't occur before the automobile was invented? Start taking your meds again, bud.

Last I checked France was a bit smaller than the US. Things that work over there won't necessarily work over here where things are more spread out. And with out the freight distribution system how in the hell would you get all your precious organic food? I bet most of it is not made locally. Same with all of your other green products. So really what your saying is don't buy green but by local. Correct?

Ben, These are local delivery trucks used by UPS everywhere they service. The efficiency of this truck nor a bicycle has nothing to do with whether or not we ship locally or internationally, with trains planes or semi's. This truck improves UPS's LOCAL distribution gas mileage a lot and sustains a lever of service orders of magnitude higher then that which a bicycle could provide. This truck also probably has a better gas mileage then the Mercedes Sprinter which is the standard delivery truck for most of the world. Now if you want world wide economic collapse because it costs 5000 dollars to ship something then yes absolutely everyone should be shipping via bicycle. I'm sure all those freight packages would fit right on the back of a trek. But if you want progress then maybe you should shut up and let UPS use this forward moving technology to hopefully sustain the worlds economy and move towards sustainability.

Ben, These are local delivery trucks used by UPS everywhere they service. The efficiency of this truck nor a bicycle has nothing to do with whether or not we ship locally or internationally, with trains planes or semi's. This truck improves UPS's LOCAL distribution gas mileage a lot and sustains a lever of service orders of magnitude higher then that which a bicycle could provide. This truck also probably has a better gas mileage then the Mercedes Sprinter which is the standard delivery truck for most of the world. Now if you want world wide economic collapse because it costs 5000 dollars to ship something then yes absolutely everyone should be shipping via bicycle. I'm sure all those freight packages would fit right on the back of a trek. But if you want progress then maybe you should shut up and let UPS use this forward moving technology to hopefully sustain the worlds economy and move towards sustainability.

sorry about the double post problems with typekey. Justin while I'm planning on reading the book I haven't yet. But judging by your comment about them using Venice as an example I'm assuming that they use boats? That's kind of cheating.. infact its cheating a lot. Boats are Venice's cars if every city had streats of water I guess we could do away with delivery trucks?

"I'm sure a bit of work on the aerodynamics could help too!"

Possibly, though AFAIK these trucks are used at fairly low speeds and are constantly stopping to drop packages. The biggest efficiency gain was obviously in getting hydraulic regenrative braking.

Bigger trucks that go on the highway can probably use some other efficiency gains like those that the Rocky Mountain Institute is working on for Wal Mart:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/post_54.php

True, it's generally low speed work, but after seeing the Mercedes boxfish-inspired car (not a dissimilar shape!) with a cd of 0.19, they're working with a bit of a handicap.

Since this system is designed to store energy captured from braking, much like that of today's hybrid cars, I'm wondering what kind of an efficiency increase we would see if the hydraulic tanks were to be pre-charged back at the UPS hub. The plug-in Prius has shown that this can be a huge win for a vehicle that sees light use and returns home every night. Most of the UPS trucks return to their garage at night and are down for the night. They don't exactly meet the light use that a commuter car would see, however.

Yeah another lost post. Even though I have typekey it says I need to wait until a moderator looks at it, so am I being moderated?

Anyway I mention with out our fancy freight delivery system not many could be able to buy organic fruit or green products.

Ben are you advocating local products over green products? That's what you would have to do with no delivery system. Oh and France is several times smaller than the US, it is not a fair comparison between the two.

I can see four main benefits from this hydraulic system:

1) Gives extra power when accelerating from a stop. That's when the ICE is at its less efficient (it takes a lot less power to maintain speed than to accelerate).

2) Since you need less power from the ICE when accelerating, you can downsize it.

3) Downsizing the engine means reduced weight.

4) Regenerative braking means less wear on brake pads (I'm sure UPS trucks go through them very fast).

Ah, yes. The boxfish is pretty great!

Oh lighten up all of you! The flames rock - anyone who has worked with UPS knows that their delivery crews are focused rapidity of deliveries. I suggest we all do all of our necessary shipping via UPS and let the other carriers know why.

Green and local don't have to be mutually exclusive.

One hybrid delivery truck full of boxes is better than a road choked with SUV's with one person and one box in each of them.

Trains for the long hauls and delivery trucks like this one for the local drops would be a huge step forward.

UPS ships long-distance to major distribution centers - that's where I'm pointing out the use of trains instead of trucks. It's amazing that people still try to use the "country x is more dense than we are" argument - trains are cheaper than long-distance truck shipping, and the difference is MORE apparent over long distances.

I love how on treehugger, my hurricane comment is ridiculed - are you daft? One of the major components of global warming is more extreme weather. It's very likely our impact causes hurricanes to be more numerous and stronger - yes, like Katrina.

One hybrid delivery truck full of boxes is a lot worse than the world can actually sustain, most likely. There's not really a "matter of degree" here - that truck is not economically viable or even particularly environmentally conscious - are we still ignoring the environmental impact of the batteries used in hybrid systems?

Here's an example of something sustainable to do the same job, as we work out way out of the suburbs and back into effective land use:
http://www.worksman.com/industrialbikes.html

First the US railways suck. Cheaper maybe in the long long run. After new rail networks are made. Semi trucks distribute the packages from the airports or railstations to the more local distibution centers.

You hurricane comment was incredibly dumb. There is no conclusive evidence that hurricanes or global warming are soley from anthropological sources. I'm sure we have an effect, but I'm not the doom and gloom type like you seem to be.

Wait your saying batteries are bad? So you don't even want EV's? Let me guess just bicycles huh? I don't think that is any example of doing the same job. It's not even close.

Ben, let's summarize what you said.

First you made a comment about bicycles:
"Oh, yes, because that's a hell of a lot more efficient than a bicycle."

What does a local UPS truck with a hybrid powertrain have to do with bicycles?

Next you made a comment about UPSs business model:
"Okay, so the answer here is that UPS' business model is unsustainable. Next!"

What does the efficient vehicle profiled in this post have to do with their business model?

Then you moved on to hurricanes and "making things locally":
"Here's a more serious answer: Yes, if we find out we can't ship goods that far without causing a hurricane, we start making things more locally. However that happens, it clearly will eventually have to."

What do hurricanes and making things locally have to do with this local delivery vehicle with a hybrid powertrain?

Then you started talking about trains:
"We can put mail on trains. The French do it, and it's immensely efficient. We used to do it, before oil became essentially free, and we'll go back to it. It's hard to grasp - but we're going to have to take a step back and look at how much more energy efficient we had to be before oil - we'll borrow some of those ideas in the future. Huge distribution facilities in the suburbs with delivery trucks? Definitely not sustainable. Sorry."

So a lot of people asked how trains are supposed to substitute for local delivery vehicles.

I think people can finally see what you're getting at, but it really is way off kilter with respect to the very basic subject of this post, which is that UPS is making their local delivery vehicles much more efficient.

If you start talking about bicycles, unsustainable business models, hurricanes, and delivering packages to the door via trains, it's pretty likely that people will wonder what's going on with you when the topic is a simple UPS truck that brings packages to your door.

Here's an example of something sustainable to do the same job, as we work out way out of the suburbs and back into effective land use:
http://www.worksman.com/industrialbikes.html

That's nice in theory, but now you're basically going back towards humans as physical machines to do labor, substituting for automation. A lot of people would consider that a regressive thing, and because of that, I certainly wouldn't bank on it as "sustainable".

Then of course you have the issue of 20-30% grade roads in places like Seattle and San Francisco. Or places which are freezing cold and iced over half the year. Or places that are well into the triple digits for several months a year - some with high humidity.

So Ben, how efficient is that computer you are using to make these comments. I am sure it is not made completely from environmentally freindly parts. In fact i can assure you that 90 to 98% of your computer is made from parts that could be considred harmful to his planet. So by your logic humans should not use computers because they are not economically, environmentally sustainable. How should we commmunicate? Telepathy, because we obviusly cannot use mail. What do you have to say to that?

This is really ridiculous.

UPS' last-mile model depends on their ability to ship large amounts of goods long-distance between major urban centers. We already have infrastructure to do that - and if you think "US railways suck" for freight, that's your problem - greater than half of all goods shipped in the US travel part of their lives on rails.

My point is this: Right now, the distance models used for UPS last-mile delivery are unsustainable. We already know perfectly well that there are no sustainable vehicles with 300-400 mile daily operating ranges off of a fixed route. Oil use is simply not sustainable in the long run, and if that's not clear, I have a math class for you.

This vehicle is "wow factor" - taking a business model that will not continue to work, and coming up with a way to make it appear to work is a good way to get investor interest and spur discussions like the one that seems to be going on here, where the real issues are obfuscated.

I live in Seattle. We have bike messengers, as does San Francisco. It is a simple logical fallacy to put your fingers in your ears about currently affordable and profitable alternatives that don't need technology that's "just around the corner" simply because they work some places and not others.

The only actual math I've seen about hybrid vehicles shows them to be less efficient over multiple vehicle lifetimes than non-hybrid vehicles. They get higher gas mileage for the end user, but the fuel and other petroleum products necessary not only to make, but to dispose of the battery systems, costs us more oil than the vehicle's use would have in the first place.

For me, discussing a UPS truck that brings packages to your door is begging the question that really needs to be asked - is it possible to make the larger business model sustainable? I think that the answer is no, and that treating a slightly more energy efficient vehicle to further entrench an unsustainable system as a step in the right direction is foolhardy.

PS - Global warming denialists on Treehugger? That's ridiculous.

BS Skeptic: Yes, I never, ever drive a car. I use a bus, the train, and my bicycle - but I have a torn ligament that's healing. I also make a point to live and work in urban centers that can be connected through other means, and I'm spending my time with the damaged knee helping spur that:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/277304_eastsidelightrail13.html

i would like too see the fool that can deliver anything bigger than a cold pizza on a push bike for transport and farming industies across the world its time to look at biodiesl or else you city slickers had better get used to starving.

We have bike messengers, as does San Francisco.

Wow - we didn't know that. Do they haul pianos up 25% grade hills on their bicycles? How about large television sets?

Oh right - they deliver documents primarily between downtown, proximate locations.

I thought you actually were claiming they were in some way a substitute for UPS trucks.

The only actual math I've seen about hybrid vehicles shows them to be less efficient over multiple vehicle lifetimes than non-hybrid vehicles. They get higher gas mileage for the end user, but the fuel and other petroleum products necessary not only to make, but to dispose of the battery systems, costs us more oil than the vehicle's use would have in the first place.

Really? What "math" is that? Perhaps you could provide us with a link.

Yes, I never, ever drive a car.

I see - and you never, ever ride in a car? And buses and trains don't use fossil fuels or pollute? Wow - all the things we're learning from you.

Oh, Ben - you keep harping on the whole battery thing. Perhaps you should pay attention to this actual article. This UPS vehicle uses a hydraulic, not electrical, hybrid system.

There goes your whole "oh, no! not the batteries!" argument.

http://www.epa.gov/oms/technology/420f04024.pdf

The other thing I'm curious about is trains. What fuel do you think American trains run on? You seem very irate about oil, but seem blissfully unaware that the trains you love riding and want shipping goods run on DIESEL -- just like this local UPS truck does.

this is old technology, i have it on mother earth news disc.

Since the point here is not, I think, for 30+ people to respond in outrage to the first comment, but instead to comment on the article, I'll just say that I think it is great to see that UPS gives a crap at all. That people who can make decisions are thinking about these issues and apparently being proactive in pursuing solutions is encouraging.

If one could pick up packages from centralized locations in one's town, by bicycle, the "last-mile" distribution hurdle could be limited to very large packages and people who don't give a rip. To my knowledge, only after multiple failed delivery attempts can one pick up a package at the UPS distribution center, and for me that would not be bikeable (though more than one UPS Store location would be).

Personally, I think a fleet of maximum-efficiency vehicles delivering items to homes is essential. If UPS delivers six packages within a sqare mile of where I live, that is much more efficient than five people driving and one person riding a bike somewhere to pick up those packages. What really gets to me is the duplicative deliveries--that in a given day an address or a street or block will be visited by trucks from the Postal Service, UPS, FedEx, DHL, and possibly other local courier services, sometimes more than once (once in the morning for overnight express deliveries and once later on for regular deliveries and pickups). This is where the efficiency is lost--in having multiple big trucks scouring the same streets performing the same function. What is the model for consolidating these deliveries without sacrificing the economic benefit of competition?

This is where the efficiency is lost--in having multiple big trucks scouring the same streets performing the same function. What is the model for consolidating these deliveries without sacrificing the economic benefit of competition?

Jay: Giant pneumatic tubes!

Actually, that may not be as facetious as it looks. In 1861, the London Pneumatic Despatch Company did build a pneumatic tube system for parcels, and it's been tried as a subway before. And in the 1960s, Lockheed-Martin, MIT, and the United States Department of Commerce looked at pneumatic trains connecting the Northeast Corridor, supposedly powered by "ambient atmospheric pressure and 'gravitational pendulum assist", which, from the description, sounds awfully energy-efficient, but expensive to build.

Jesus! Ben really stirred up the hornets nest. Something about a road to hell that is/was paved with good intentions pops to mind from Ben's post.

These posts are interesting, but ultimately people are talking about different topics/agendas. When people say "sustainability" what does that mean? How are you defining sustainability? You'd better make sure that whatever you define to be sustainable that it is quantifiable and measurable.

Next, the rants about sustainable business models are laughable. I have yet to see someone also mention the elements of sustainable business models such as competitors, barriers to entry, supply, demand, alternatives. Look, package delivery has very high barriers to entry (i.e., trucks, planes, warehouses, logistic services/software, etc.), with few alternatives (USPS, Fed Ex, DHL, e-mail, fax, carrier pigeon, etc). The demand for these services are super high - people love to shop and buy stuff. That is a past time people have embraced to distract themselves from their dull lives.

The underlying motivation to UPS's exploration of this technology is not to make some environmentalists happy, it is to make a profit. Fuel costs are high, and only so much of that can be passed onto the consumer. Using technology to increase fuel economy makes sense when the fuel savings outweighs the cost to purchase and implement it. Besides, carriers such as UPS, USPS, et. al., use tremendous amounts of fuel. When these companies use less there are noticable reductions in consumption and emissions. Don't forget, the car we drive are already relatively very fuel & emission efficient. It is the trucks, trains, ships, buses, construction equipment that needs to be focused on.

While there are alternative to fossil fuels, such as riding a bike, I cannot imagine people in climates outside of Seattle/San Francisco are getting ready to sell their cars so they can peddle their way to work.

I worked for UPS for many years and they tend to make quite a few claims that never materialize.
Years ago it was Stratifed Charge Engines and they were supposed to be a big energy saver but it just didn't work.
Before we give them any kudo's let's see where it goes.

I ran across this web site by accident but would like to post some general information.

I work for UPS. For those who have suggested rail as a medium for transit (ie, as in France), we already do this. UPS is the single largest TOFC customer in the United States, and has moved package volume via rail since the late 1960's.

The efficiencies of scale are amazing for rail vs. truck.

UPS is all about efficiency. The driver's route is planned for the most efficient delivery route. Fuel is a cost for us, and it's conservation goes straight to the bottom line.

It's interesting that someone mentioned bicycles as delivery medium. UPS started using bicycles in 1917. It wasn't until the 1930's we stopped. I remember in the 1990s there was a pilot program to deliver packages in Washington D.C. using bicycles. Not sure what happened with it.

Hope this helps.

I have to say at some point I stopped reading every comment and just skipped straight to Ben's because his lack of education on the subject offer me much hilarity. I work for an international shipping company. We use four major forms of shipping: Ocean Freight, Rail Freight (Ben's precious trains), Semi Freight and UPS LTL (Less than Truck Load) Freight. Out of all of them...every one of the four. UPS LTL is the cheapest.

One ocean freight ship averages $3,000.00

One rail freight ship averages $1500.00

One semi-truck freight ship averages $250.00

One UPS LTL Freight Ship averages $77.00

And guess what? I hate to encourage further bubble popping, but.. UPS gets it there faster too. Ocean Freight has to be planned MONTHS in advance, rail freight WEEKS and semi-freight needs a 72 hour advance notice. UPS...they show up everyday, they take my freight and its at its destination usually within 3 days.

Also, watch a few episodes of 'Penn & Teller: Bullshit!' Global Warming, while real, has increased the average global temperature 1.6 degrees over the last HUNDRED years. which means that by the time it is a problem (I would say it was a problem at around 15 degrees in average temperature raise)will be 937.5 YEARS from today and to quote Dennis Miller...I don't give a fuck about that generation, do you really think a thousand years ago there were ancestors of yours going "Man I really would like to burn this log for some heat, but I have to prepare the world for Ben's arrival"...NO...and believe it or not... no one in this generation really cares beyond the 200 or so years they and there's are going to be alive.