erl comfort score objectively measures driver experience
Post on 28-May-2015
322 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
ERL Comfort Score Objectively Measures
Driver ExperienceERL LLC
April 12, 2023
2
All car drivers,worldwide, deserve
higher comfort levels.
3
Acura RL, Acura MDX, Audi A8, Audi A6, Audi A4 (2), BMW 325Ci, BMW 530xi, BMW 740iL, BMW X3, BMW X5, Buick LaCrosse, Buick Park Avenue, Buick Rainier, Buick Regal, Cadillac CTS, Cadillac Deville, Cadillac DTS, Chevy Cavalier, Chevy Cobalt, Chevy Corvette, Chevy Equinox, Chevy Monte Carlo, Chevy HHR, Chevy Tahoe, Chevy Trailblazer, Chrysler 300, Chrysler LHS, Chrysler Town & Country, Dodge Dakota, Fiat 500, Ford Edge, Ford Escape, Ford F150, Ford Mustang, Freightliner M2, GMC Savana, Honda Civic, Honda Fit, Honda Odyssey, Hummer H2, Hummer H3, Jeep Wrangler, Kia Sportage, Land Rover Range Rover, Lexus ES300, Lexus LS430, Lexus RX300, Lexus RX330, Lincoln LS, Mercedes Benz C-class, Mercedes Benz E-class (2), Mercedes Benz S-class, Mercedes Benz SLK, Nissan Quest, Nissan Maxima, Olds Alero, Pontiac G6, Pontiac Montana, Pontiac Torrent, Saab 9-3, Saab 9-5, Saturn LS, Saturn L300, Saturn Vue, Toyota Avalon, Toyota Camry, Toyota Highlander, Toyota Land Cruiser, Toyota Prius, Toyota Sequoia, Toyota Sienna (3), Toyota Solara, Toyota 4-Runner, Volkswagen Beetle, Volkswagen GTI, Volkswagen Jetta, Volkswagen Passat, Volvo S80, Volvo V70, Volvo XC90.
ERL LLC investigated84 models from 2000-2009
4
3 Cars from Germany, United States and Japan illustrate comfort
issues.
5
In the 3 examples, comfort scores less than 3.5 on
a 5 point scale represent noticeable discomfort for the driver or passenger.
6
Cushion too long
Cushion provides thigh
pressure
Cushion is too wide at Ischium
Cushion is wide at thigh
Head Restraint is too close
too shorttoo long
no supporttoo much pressure
too fartoo close
too narrowtoo wide
SMALL
too narrowtoo wide
2007 German Mid-Size Luxury Sedan ERL Score:
3.4Cushion 2.9Seatback 3.4
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138,
7
Cushion length is just right
Cushion provides thigh pressure
Cushion is wide at ischium
Head restraint is close
too shorttoo long
too widetoo narrow
no supporttoo much pressure
too fartoo close
2007 German Mid-Size Luxury Sedan ERL Score:
4.2Cushion 4.0Seatback 3.9MEDIUM
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138,
8
Cushion length is just right
Head restraint is too close
Seat requires additional rearward travel
too shorttoo long
+ rearward+ forward
LARGE
too fartoo close
2007 German Mid-Size Luxury Sedan ERL Score:
3.9Cushion 4.5Seatback 3.6
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138,
9
SmallCannot comfortably reach accelerator
Cushion length is too long
Head restraint is too close
Seatback stiffness is too soft
Bite line contact is close
cannot reach can reach
too long too short
too close too far
too softtoo firm
no contactextreme penetration
2008 Mid-Size SUV from United States ERL Score:
3.0Cushion 3.3Seatback 2.8
25mm (Heel off floor)ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138,
10
Medium
Cushion length is just right
Seatback insert stiffness is too soft
Overall bolster shape provides good support
too shorttoo long
2008 Mid-Size SUV from United States
too softtoo firm
no contactextreme penetration
ERL Score: 4.7Cushion 4.7Seatback 4.5
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138,
11
Cushion length is just right
Overall bolster shape provides good support
Seatback insert stiffness is too soft
Bite line contact is close
too shorttoo long
no contactextreme penetration
too softtoo firm
too closetoo far
Large
2008 Mid-Size SUV from United States ERL Score:
4.4Cushion 5.0Seatback 3.6
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138,
Cushion length is too long
Head restraint is too close
Seatback contact at chest is too far
Biteline is close
12
too fartoo close
2008 Mid-size hatchback from Japan
too long too short
too close too far
too close too far
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138,
SMALLERL Score: 4.1Cushion 3.8Seatback 3.4
Cushion length is just right
Bolster shape at shoulder provides some penetration
13
too shorttoo long
no contactextreme penetration
2008 Mid-size hatchback from Japan ERL Score:
4.7Cushion 4.8Seatback 4.4MEDIUM
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138,
Cushion length is too short
Shoulder bolster provides too much penetration
Biteline is close
Package requires additional rearward travel
14
too shorttoo long
too fartoo close
no contacttoo much penetration
+rearward
+forward
2008 Mid-size hatchback from Japan
LARGE
ERL Score: 3.2Cushion 2.1Seatback 3.3
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138,
Cushion provides too much thigh pressure
15
too much pressure
no support
SMALL
MEDIUM MALE
DRIVER
2008 Mid-size hatchback from Japan ERL Score:
3.8Cushion 2.1Seatback 4.2
2nd Row
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138,
Cushion provides little thigh support
Bolster shape at thigh provides no contact
16
too much pressure
no support
2008 Mid-size hatchback from Japan
MEDIUM
no contact
extreme penetration
ERL Score: 3.3Cushion 2.6Seatback 3.7
2nd Row
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138,
Cushion provides no thigh support
Bolster shape at thigh provides no contact
17
LARGE
no supporttoo much pressure
no contactextreme penetration
2008 Mid-size hatchback from Japan ERL Score:
2.5Cushion 2.4Seatback 4.1
2nd Row
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138,
18
ERL mathematically optimizes engineering design specifications
of seat and controls package for all drivers to comfortably operate the
car.
ERL Design
19
Effects of proposed changes during vehicle
development measured and evaluated by comfort score from
ERL.
ERL Evaluation
20
ERL Example
Production versus ERL Design Comfort Scores
21
Mid-Size Sedan Evaluation and Design with ERL
Evaluation ofProduction Seat
Seat Design for Package
ERL Score: 2.4Cushion 2.7Seatback 3.2Package 3.7
ERL Score: 4.0Cushion 4.0Seatback 3.7Package 4.3
Small (5th %)
22
Mid-Size Sedan Evaluation and Design with ERL
Evaluation of Production Seat
Seat Design for Package
ERL Score: 4.0Cushion 2.7Seatback 4.5Package 5.0
ERL Score: 4.7Cushion 4.4Seatback 4.5Package 5.0
Medium (50th %)
23
Mid-Size Sedan Evaluation and Design with ERL
Evaluation ofProduction Seat
Seat Design for Package
ERL Score: 3.4Cushion 1.6Seatback 4.3Package 5.0
ERL Score: 4.5Cushion 4.5Seatback 4.4Package 4.4
Large (95th %)
Comparison of drivers’ and ERL scores for seating comfort in 7
vehicles
Vehicle Segment
Mid Utility
Mid Sedan
Compact X over
Small Sport Sedan
Entry Utility
Prem. Sedan
FST Utility
ERL Comfort Score¹ 4.3 4.5 4.2 3.9 4.4 4.5 4.3
Driver Comfort Score²
4.0 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.9 4.5 3.9
¹Math score calculated in ERL Software for virtual ERL drivers (5 pt scale).²Drivers’ subjective rating average comfort score (5 pt scale).
24
25
Correlation of ERL math-based comfort scores with drivers in 7
vehicles
3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.63
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
R² = 0.618622470722602
ERLERL
Drivers' Scores in 7 Vehicles
ER
L S
co
res in
7 V
eh
icle
s
Comparison of drivers’ and JD Power scores for seating comfort in 7
vehicles.
Vehicle Segment
Mid Utility
Mid Seda
n
Compact X over
Small Sport Seda
n
Entry Utilit
y
Prem. Seda
n
FST Utilit
y
J D Power APEAL¹
4.5 4.3 --- 4.3 4.1 4.5 4.4
Driver Comfort Score²
4.0 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.9 4.5 3.9
¹Survey of drivers who purchased vehicle and returned survey (5 pt scale)²Drivers’ subjective rating average comfort score (5 pt scale).
26
27
Correlation of JD Power APEALcomfort scores with drivers in 7
vehicles
3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.63
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
R² = 0.298954006350252
JD PowerJD Power
Drivers' Scores in 7 Vehicles
JD P
ow
er
Sco
res in
7
Veh
icle
s
Comparison of drivers’ and Consumer Reports scores for seating comfort in 7
vehicles
Vehicle Segment
Mid Utility
Mid Sedan
Compact X over
Small Sport Sedan
Entry Utility
Prem. Seda
n
FST Utilit
y
Consumer
Reports¹4 4 4 3 3 4 4
Driver Comfort Score²
4.0 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.9 4.5 3.9
¹Subjective Professional Drivers Rating Average Score (5 pt scale).²Drivers’ subjective rating average comfort score (5 pt scale).
28
29
Correlation of Consumer Reports comfort scores with drivers in 7
vehicles
3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.63
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
R² = 0.494460227272727
Consumer ReportsLinear (Consumer Reports)
Drivers' Scores in 7 Vehicles
Co
nsu
mer
Rep
ort
S
co
res in
7 V
eh
icle
s
ERL Comfort Score informs more objectively and with greater
resolutionVehicle
SegmentMid
Utility
Mid Seda
n
Compact X over
Small Sport Seda
n
Entry Utility
Prem. Seda
n
FST Utilit
y
ERL Comfort Score
4.3 4.5 4.2 3.9 4.4 4.5 4.3
Small Female 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.6
Medium Male 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.0 4.6 4.8 4.5
Large Male 3.6 4.4 4.1 3.6 3.9 4.4 4.2
30
31
Thanks for your time!
Comments & Inquiries Appreciated.reynolds@erlllc.com
top related