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