Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

31
ERL Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience ERL LLC 5/26/22

description

Illustrates objective measures of seating comfort for design and evaluation of seats. Shows difference for driver comfort score

Transcript of Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

Page 1: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

ERL Comfort Score Objectively Measures

Driver ExperienceERL LLC

April 12, 2023

Page 2: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

2

All car drivers,worldwide, deserve

higher comfort levels.

Page 3: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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

Page 4: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

4

3 Cars from Germany, United States and Japan illustrate comfort

issues.

Page 5: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

5

In the 3 examples, comfort scores less than 3.5 on

a 5 point scale represent noticeable discomfort for the driver or passenger.

Page 6: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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,

Page 7: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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,

Page 8: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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,

Page 9: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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,

Page 10: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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,

Page 11: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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,

Page 12: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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

Page 13: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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,

Page 14: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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,

Page 15: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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,

Page 16: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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,

Page 17: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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,

Page 18: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

18

ERL mathematically optimizes engineering design specifications

of seat and controls package for all drivers to comfortably operate the

car.

ERL Design

Page 19: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

19

Effects of proposed changes during vehicle

development measured and evaluated by comfort score from

ERL.

ERL Evaluation

Page 20: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

20

ERL Example

Production versus ERL Design Comfort Scores

Page 21: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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 %)

Page 22: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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 %)

Page 23: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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 %)

Page 24: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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

Page 25: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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

Page 26: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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

Page 27: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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

Page 28: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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

Page 29: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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

Page 30: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

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

Page 31: Erl Comfort Score Objectively Measures Driver Experience

31

Thanks for your time!

Comments & Inquiries [email protected]