 |
Author Christopher Wilson, Diane Gyi, Andrew Morris, Robert Bateman, Hiroyuki Tanaka |
| Abstract Autonomous vehicles will provide an opportunity for a paradigm shift in interior car design in the next decade. For over 100 years the evolutionary development of cars with a focus on driving has created vehicle architectures unfit for the opportunities afforded by autonomy. Highly autonomous cars (L4) will allow occupants to engage in non-driving related tasks (NDRTs), such as working, reading, social media and watching films, which could potentially increase the value of time spent in the vehicle. This research concerns interior space requirements, design, comfort, and wellbeing for highly autonomous vehicles using a novel simulator-based methodology. The holistic approach taken provides an insight into how occupants choose to use space in the vehicle, what activities they might do and how comfortable they might be when engaging in NDRTs. Sixteen participants (8 males, 8 females) aged between 20 and 47 (M = 31.8, SD = 8.14) took part in the study, which involved three 45-minute simulated drives to determine relative comfort and wellbeing across three different conditions. A bespoke simulator buck was designed and built, and a 270-degree simulated environment was used. Occupants were given freedom to position themselves in the vehicle within the physical restrictions of each condition (including seat rotation, recline and seat height adjustment). Condition 1 involved a current vehicle layout with a fixed passenger seat, centre console, steering wheel, and pedals; Condition 2 presented a customisable vehicle layout with a moveable centre console, steering wheel and pedals; and Condition 3 was a co-designed layout where additional features were added based on participant feedback. A questionnaire was used to assess comfort and wellbeing at two points during each trial (after 10 minutes, and after 35 minutes). Data were also captured on posture and the chosen NDRTs. The seat was reported to be comfortable and supportive in all three user trials, but when comparing between sessions, Condition 3 represented a significant improvement over Condition 1 and 2 for backrest and headrest comfort. Overall wellbeing scored highly across all three conditions and no significant difference was found between sessions for this metric. In Condition 2, some actively looked for flat surfaces to carry out their tasks (e.g., using the dashboard, or using the arm rest). This led to several personalised features for the co-designed layout, such as lap tables, fixed tables, and door ledges. There were some interesting effects of the new layouts for example, some participants experienced feelings of claustrophobia due to the addition of such features decreasing their reported wellbeing; others reported feeling less vulnerable as they were able to move themselves further towards the centre of the car. |