Update Speculation thread

Yeah, school buses in the U.S. look straight out of the 90s, which personally, I don't dislike because if they were redesigned, they would be made into some modern, ugly electric contraption.
Also, I hope the MD-Series school bus front is from the 1st gen, which imo would look nicer.

 

Ah, I see what you're talking about now. And yes, I'll concede that between the ground clearance and the relatively short wheelbase, those probably do just fine on rough roads, such as the ones I was talking about. Maybe a touch low-capacity, but that's easy to account for. Trouble is, we don't currently manufacture buses like that in North America. Our idea of a city bus has pretty much exactly the dimensions and clearance of BeamNG's Wentward, and those I can say without much doubt, would not respond well to several consecutive months of gravel and mud. They're too heavy, too long, and too low.

...unless what you're suggesting is that North American manufacturers should be more willing to offer diverse platforms, to which I fully agree. I miss sedans.

I do think this is a conversation worth having (interrogating why you're doing what you're doing is usually healthy), though I can't help but sense a touch of indignation in your tone. Your overall point—that American companies are cheap—is absolutely true and worth criticizing, but there is a slight contradiction in saying "american companies are just too lazy", while also idealizing "[these] are simply citybuses painted yellow." Surely if laziness were the critical component, we'd just all switch to using citybuses/coach buses and be done with the whole thing. Most likely, it's more to do with tradition; the general impression that if what we have works well enough now, that change is more likely to cause harm or confusion (or further chances for corporate America to cheap out) than actually improve anything. And I'm inclined to agree.

With one exception, of course. Most American school buses are Type C buses: the ones with the long hood. We do have flat-faced buses, the Type Ds, but they're comparatively rare. I respect the hell out of tradition and am very guilty of nostalgia, but this is like, the scenario in which clear forward visibility is needed. I think leaf springs and fiberglass body panels work fine, there's no need to change them. Seatbelts, maybe, but most of our citybuses don't have them either. But if there's any area where we agree, it's in that the hood needs to go.

 

I'd say that the hood is not the main issue. The body itself follows the same basic design since the 1950s. That's why I call them lazy. And that's true for the whole Bus industry on the US. Slap a modern front and rear fascia on the Wentward, and it will look like a 2025 US bus. US coaches have the same basic design since the 80s/90s too. The whole industry is stuck on the past.

For example, this is a 1960s hooded bus from Brazil, that were commonly used as school buses:


It Already looks more modern than a modern Type C US School bus if you ignore the hood design. Below I show its successor, from the 1990s.



This is a 1999 Citybus from Brazil:



This is a 2009 New Flyer D40LF:


This is a 2019 Prevost H3-45:



And this is a 2009 Marcopolo Paradiso G7, followed by a 2000 Paradiso G6:




And I'm using older brazilian Buses to give a small chance to US buses, because if I compere buses from the same MYs, or I go to Europe, it will get ugly for the US.

 

Most people outside the US tend not to realize how big the US really is. Some of our states are bigger than some of your countries, and counties are much bigger than their Euro equivalent. Where I went to high school, there were people who drove an hour and a half. Every day. Their bus ride was far longer. Our schoolbusses can typically cram more people in than your average citybus, and like someone said, ride height is a serious concern. City busses ride too low for even the average suburban neighborhood with speed bumps, which are very common features of suburbia everywhere. Personally, I'm not so sure about the hood having to go on busses - mirrors offer 100% visibility, if the driver uses them. There are visibility problems on flatnose busses, too, killing the nose won't help, and it will hurt stability and comfort. Add the crash protection it presents, and I'm not so sure about getting rid of it, personally.

I don't think Euro busses are any better or worse than US busses, personally. We each do what works for us. They may not be aesthetically pleasing, but they are safe - in part due to the unnecessarily heavy weight their construction. They aren't lazy, but their innovations aren't focused on aesthetics. They're mechanical and structural in nature - as well as procedural. Look up every major bus incident, and look at the policy changes that came from them. 99% of our busses are diesel. We have special procedures at grade crossings. Side egresses on rear engined busses. Beauty isn't the first priority. No one buys a school bus on looks (look at the newest IC CE design. Bleugh.)

Also, we don't have public transit. Most places in Europe depend on public transit for school transport (this according to wiki, correct me if I'm wrong.) We don't have that, and even if we did, American public transit isn't the safest place for young children. Most Euro schoolchildren transit involves recycled elements of a better public transit system.

 

I guess I just don't really understand the problem. Old platform=outdated suspension and safety features, but your comparisons aren't specifications or statistics, they're pictures. Visual upgrades are desirable for consumer automobiles, and might offer slight fuel savings through aerodynamics. But form follows function, so while the basic design of these vehicles hasn't changed in 70 years, neither has their purpose.

Brazil is actually pretty big, to Xupaun's credit (~85% the land area of the US). And a good half of it is pretty damn sparse, though more due to protected and impassable rain forest than agricultural, aridity, or remoteness reasons.

I'm reluctant to trust mirrors too much. In my (uninformed) opinion, nose-mounted mirrors make up too small of a driver's field of view to be fully relied upon, though you have a good point about crash safety.

 

Well, for an US vs Europe comparison, that's true. But US is lacking even compared to countries like Brazil. Our territory is larger than the US's Continuous territory. Our economy is NOWHERE NEAR as strong than US', and we get a lot of things better or jus safer than US. For example, US Coaches are required to have seat belts for every passenger since 2016. We have them since 1999. Since 2017 all new buses are REQUIRED to be accessible to wheel chair users, by having a seat on a elevator.



My main problem with US School Buses is that they rely on a ANCIENT design for cost cutting, and they are still ridiculously expensive.

This was built to be a school bus, following regulatory requirements. That's a bran new bus, built to carry 59 students. Is it perfect? Nope. Some things that US buses have, like the stop signs, the flashing lights and the crossing arm. But still A LOT more advanced and cheaper. It ain't a Truck with a bus body over it, or at least it camouflages that really well.


--- Post updated ---

Well, Citybuses didn't need to evolve either, but keeping thinds fresh gives a better image, even to the final users. It doesn't matter if your 1980 bus is brand new if it looks old. The user sees old looking thing and feels betrayed. I know that form follows function, but for such a strong economy, keeping things old just because they work, makes their users fell less important. Saying to me that's fine for a citybus to keep a 1990s design because it is good enough when you are more than capable to make a new good designs constantly seems lazy.




Both buses Above do the same job, But updating things is always better. Toose designs are 20 years apart, and are the same Model. Why should, Marcopolo for example, keep the old design for 30 years with just facelifts, when every 7 to 10 years they can refresh the whole thing? THe design looks fresh, the construction is more efficient, it is problably safer in case of a crash, and the passengers look at a new looking bus and feel that they are important enough for the operators to update their fleet and for the manufacturer to redesign their products. You look at Europe, the buses form the 80s are VASTLY different from the 2000s, while on the US, the basic designs are kept the same for 30, 40 years.

It's not a surprise that americans don't see public transportation seriously. All they see are old things, that aren't updated because they don't deserve new things. Here in Brazil the though is:

This is Good


Lets make it better


In the US, the thought is: This is good? Let's use it until it looks ancient.

 

(Edited for clarity)
One main factor in the US is the capacity, having a capacity of 70-80ish while still retaining somewhat off road capable is preferred by most districts, so they can transport as many students as possible with the least number of buses, drivers and routes, saving money in the LONG TERM, which is very important since funding for schools tends to be irregular. Generally the price of the bus increases as the capacity increases, despite this the district is often willing to pay more upfront if it means long term savings.

Funding for schools varies widely from state to state and even district to district. This is mostly due to political reasons but I won’t get into that here, this isn’t the place for it. The federal government provides basic operational funding but it’s nowhere near enough for everything, the majority of the costs are left up to state and local governments. Because funding is distributed this way, long term savings are more important than a cheap option at the moment of purchase.

Smaller van based buses of 10-30 pax starting around $100K while type C (conventional hood) costs $105-150K and seat 40-80 pax. Type C is the most common type of school bus in the US. The largest 90 passenger type D (transit style flat front) models cost in the neighborhood of $180K which is a lot, but still far cheaper than the average $550K for a purpose built transit bus.
Price estimates from here:
https://www.devivobus.com/blog/how-much-does-a-school-bus-cost-2025-prices/

https://www.liveabout.com/bus-cost-to-purchase-and-operate-2798845

Even though foreign bus models might be cheaper, US operators can get federal grants or discounts for buying American, foreign models are obviously not eligible for this. That goes for both school bus and transit bus purchases

 

Yeah why not?
If it ain't broke don't fix it as they say.

Maybe those types of buses work for you in your area but these work for us and they work fine.

 

if it works, it works ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

What we know about 0.36 so far:
Wentward DT40L Remaster and/or Gavril MD-Series School Bus
Ibishu Miramar Remaster
Burnside Special Remaster
Gavril MD-Series Armoured truck

 

1. maybe
2. No (refresh)
3. No (refresh)
4. Yes

 

The Burnside feels like it could get remastered with how poor the model is

 

Yeah, this is a big one. The closest public buses that I have are in Manchester, and the closest metro/rail to me is in Fitchburg.

 

European here! The problem with your argument is that technologies like the solid rear axle or the leaf springs or the pushrod OHV 2-valve engines or the naturally aspirated engines even may look ancient but they're used simply because they're well proven over the decades and they're also simple to fix should they go wrong because the technology itself is well known to anyone. As a consumer who pays money, I find it better to use something known and well proven than to use something new and unknown just for the sake of "keeping up with the times". I mean, Chevy still produces the good ol' pushrod V8s with the round carburettor air filter and cover on top and it also has a full-on page within its website for showing all these crate motors it makes and sells!
If only we were lucky enough to see something like this with our vehicles and car makers in Europe and Asia as well, besides the usual BMW, Ferrari and Porsche brands, which also have History/Heritage departments! Of all the more common ones, only Mazda has started doing this recently but it's only for the MX-5! Toyota has thought of this too, but it's just a thought for now!

I'll give you a European/Asian example as an analogy, though: one of the simplest cars you can find here in Europe is the Toyota Aygo/Citroen C1/Peugeot 107-108 (they're all the same car underneath, with the same Daihatsu-Toyota 1KR-FE 1.0 I3 68hp/68lb-ft, DOHC, VVTi, chain-driven, naturally aspirated engine). Their first generation especially (which is the one I have, in the Peugeot 107 guise) is a very friendly car for the shade tree mechanics because it was made like Lego right from the factory, so you can service most of the car just by using basic tools like a 10mm screwdriver! And the engine has been produced for the past 20+ years and this has been proven by the fact that there are so many of the Citybugs (as is their nickname due to their shape and size) driving around! There even are videos on YouTube showing how to find, put out and clean the VVT solenoid and the PCV valve of this engine should you face an oil consumption issue!

 

Do you guys think the burnside refresh would bring more configurations like a wagon?

 

hopefully, and if they do, would they add a woody style wagon?

 

Hope so!

 

I’d say the coupe burnside body pretty much confirms a remaster, it wouldn’t make sense to base it off the old one just to redo it an update or two later

 

It's a refresh, same as the ETK 800 got. It'll rework a few things and give it a new body style or two, but it isn't a full remaster.
Otherwise the interior would look different.
Same as the Miramar, the dash and gauges didn't change at all.

 

That would be so sweet