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


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


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


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)


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



MEDIUM Driver


18

LARGE Driver




19

SMALL Driver

2008 United StatesMid-Size SUV


25mm (Heel off floor)


20

MEDIUM Driver




21

LARGE Driver




22

2008 JapaneseMid-Size Hatchback


SMALL Driver


23



MEDIUM Driver


24


LARGE Driver



25

SMALL Passenger

MEDIUM MALE

DRIVER


ERL Score: 3.8Cushion 2.1Seatback 4.2


26

2008 Japanese Mid-Size Hatchback

MEDIUM Passenger



27

LARGE Passenger




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


33

Supplier builds many seatsfor comfort tests until

production

Architecture

Safety

Styling

Ergonomics

Seats

Supplier Production

Seat Prototype for Design Position


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



SMALL Driver

46





MEDIUM Driver

47





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.

49

Thanks for your time!

Comments & Inquiries [email protected]

virtual tool maximizes seating comfort

Documents

erl comfort score

comparison of drivers

survey of drivers

erlevaluated comfort

comfort issues

evaluateshow drivers

virtual erl drivers

average score