Download - Virtual Tool Maximizes Seating Comfort
Virtual Tool Maximizes Seating Comfort
ERL LLCApril 18, 2023
2
ERL is a virtual tool that evaluates
how drivers fit in the seat to comfortably operate the
vehicle.
3
ERL calculates seating comfort
scores that correlatewith scores from Drivers
better than J D Power and Consumer Reports scores.
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).
4
5
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).
6
7
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 o
f 7
V
eh
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).
8
9
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 o
f 7
Veh
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
10
11
Knowledge ofseating comfort is
in scientific journalsand experienced seat experts,but ERL is the first math model
to put this knowledge in software.
12
After a century of building cars, the data
show that seating comfortworldwide hasn’t been achieved for all drivers of all body sizes.
13
Acura RL, Acura MDX, Audi A8, Audi A6, Audi A4 (2), BMW 325Ci, BMW 530xi, BMW 740iL, BMW X3, BMW X5, Buick La Crosse, 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 evaluated comfort in 84 vehicles from 2000-2009 models
14
From this sample,three production vehicles were selected from Germany, United
States and Japan to show comfort issues for these worldwide vehicles.
15
In these vehicle examples, comfort scores 3.5 or less on
a 5 point scale represent noticeable discomfort for the driver or passenger.
16
SMALL Driver
2007 German Mid-Size Luxury Sedan
ERL Score: 3.5Cushion 2.8Seatback 3.5Package 3.5
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138, EU #1019693 & Patents Pending
17
2007 German Mid-Size Luxury Sedan
ERL Score: 4.2Cushion 4.0Seatback 3.9Package 5.0
MEDIUM Driver
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138, EU #1019693 & Patents Pending
18
LARGE Driver
2007 German Mid-Size Luxury Sedan
ERL Score: 3.9Cushion 4.5Seatback 3.6Package 4.9
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138, EU #1019693 & Patents Pending
19
SMALL Driver
2008 United StatesMid-Size SUV
ERL Score: 3.0Cushion 2.9Seatback 2.9Package 4.3
25mm (Heel off floor)
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138, EU #1019693 & Patents Pending
20
MEDIUM Driver
2008 United StatesMid-Size SUV
ERL Score: 4.7Cushion 4.7Seatback 4.5Package 5.0
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138, EU #1019693 & Patents Pending
21
LARGE Driver
2008 United StatesMid-Size SUV
ERL Score: 4.4Cushion 5.0Seatback 3.6Package 5.0
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138, EU #1019693 & Patents Pending
22
2008 JapaneseMid-Size Hatchback
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138, EU #1019693 & Patents Pending
SMALL Driver
ERL Score: 4.1Cushion 3.8Seatback 3.3Package 5.0
23
2008 JapaneseMid-Size Hatchback
ERL Score: 4.7Cushion 4.8Seatback 4.4Package 5.0
MEDIUM Driver
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138, EU #1019693 & Patents Pending
24
2008 JapaneseMid-Size Hatchback
LARGE Driver
ERL Score: 3.2Cushion 2.1Seatback 3.3Package 4.3
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138, EU #1019693 & Patents Pending
25
SMALL Passenger
MEDIUM MALE
DRIVER
2008 JapaneseMid-Size Hatchback
ERL Score: 3.8Cushion 2.1Seatback 4.2
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138, EU #1019693 & Patents Pending
26
2008 Japanese Mid-Size Hatchback
MEDIUM Passenger
ERL Score: 3.3Cushion 2.6Seatback 3.7
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138, EU #1019693 & Patents Pending
27
LARGE Passenger
2008 JapaneseMid-Size Hatchback
ERL Score: 2.5Cushion 2.4Seatback 4.1
ERL Patents: US #6,840,125, US#7,047,831, US#7,347,114, US #7,797,138, EU #1019693 & Patents Pending
28
To designone seat that
fits all driver bodysizes requires optimization.
The current process builds many seats to optimize for driver comfort.
29
Seating comfortremains a worldwide
problem because seat comfort isoptimized too late in the
process.
30
Current OEM seat development
process begins with position of seat
Architecture
Safety
Styling
Ergonomics
Seats
Supplier Production
Design Position for Seat
31
Currently, all seat design at
the OEM is creative interpretation until the
Supplier builds first prototype for developing seating comfort.
32
Supplier develops first seat prototype for Design
Position
Architecture
Safety
Styling
Ergonomics
Seats
Supplier Production
Seat Prototype for Design Position
Design Position for Seat
33
Supplier builds many seatsfor comfort tests until
production
Architecture
Safety
Styling
Ergonomics
Seats
Supplier Production
Seat Prototype for Design Position
Design Position for Seat
Iterative Seat
Development
for Driver Comfort
34
Current process is too long
Architecture
Safety
Styling
Ergonomics
Seats
Supplier Production
1 12 24
37 Months
35
Use ERL, a virtual math tool, for seat design
throughout vehicle development.
Solution to comfort issues in vehicle
36
ERL designs optimal seat size, shape and
stiffness for drivers of anysize to comfortably operate the
car.
ERL Design
37
Seat development for comfort starts with ERL’s design for vehicle
Architecture
Safety
Styling
Ergonomics
Seats
Supplier Production
ERLSeat
Design for Driver
Comfort & Design
Position
38
ERL objectively evaluates proposed
changes in interior design by calculating effect on comfort
and percent of population affected.
ERL Evaluation
39
Seat development process continueswith ERL evaluating all interior changes
Architecture
Safety
Styling
Ergonomics
Seats
Supplier Production
ERLSeat
Design for Driver
Comfort & Design
Position
ERL
Evaluation of
proposed changes
40
Suppliers build seats for specifications
that define shape, size and stiffness. Seat scanning and
stiffness measurements checkif the seat meets ERL specifications.
ERL Test and Verify
41
Specifications from ERL are verifiable in physical tests of seat
Architecture
Safety
Styling
Ergonomics
Seats
Supplier Production
ERLSeat Builtfrom ERL
specifications
ERLSeat
Design for Driver
Comfort & Design
Position
ERLDrive, Test & Verify with
shape & stiffness evaluatio
n
ERL Evaluation of
proposed changes
42
Using ERL shortens the process
Architecture
Safety
Styling
Ergonomics
Seats
Supplier Production
1 10 18
29 Months
43
ERL is the only math model that optimizes the
shape and size of the unoccupied seat from the
shape and size of the occupied seat that all drivers use to drive
car.
44
Example of Production versus ERL
Design Comfort Scores
45
2006 United StatesMid-Size Sedan
Production Evaluation ERL Design
ERL Score: 2.4Cushion 2.7Seatback 3.2Package 3.7
ERL Score: 4.0Cushion 4.0Seatback 3.7Package 4.3
SMALL Driver
46
2006 United StatesMid-Size Sedan
Production Evaluation ERL Design
ERL Score: 4.0Cushion 2.7Seatback 4.5Package 5.0
ERL Score: 4.7Cushion 4.4Seatback 4.5Package 5.0
MEDIUM Driver
47
2006 United StatesMid-Size Sedan
Production Evaluation ERL Design
ERL Score: 3.4Cushion 1.6Seatback 4.3Package 5.0
ERL Score: 4.5Cushion 4.5Seatback 4.4Package 4.4
LARGE Driver
48
ERL designs virtual seat to maximize seating comfort in the vehicle and explains driver’s subjective discomfort to the engineer. As a result,
Conclusion
More drivers are comfortable; Vehicle is faster to market; Interior is less expensive to
develop.