Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > General Discussions > General Chat
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-22-2006, 01:16 AM   #1
Neil9327
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
tilting seats in cars

Hi,

I'm a newbie here. I spend most of my time on scienceforums.net which may explain the slight geekieness of my question here:

When I am driving a car, I find it slightly annoying when cornering to be shoved into the side of the seat. Although car seats are fitted with fat bits on the sides to stop you sliding right off, it is still somewhat uncomfortable.

So has any car manufacturer considered doing the following: to fit the drivers seat, steering wheel, footwell, and pedals into a rig that can rotate left or right along a horizontal axis from front to rear. This would mean that the driver would tilt over to the right when turning right, and vice versa to the left, and a smoother ride would result.
A similar arrangement could work for passengers.
Note I am not suggesting that the whole car tilt - only the driver and passengers.
The connection between the steering column and the wheels would have to be such that as the "capsule" (as I might call it) tilts the wheels are not turned assuming the driver holds the wheel still from his reference frame.

It might take a little getting used to when driving, but think about the stress relief, and the benefit for things like back pain etc.

My inspiration, of course, comes from the new tilting trains on the London to Manchester railway (or is talking about the railways a taboo word on a car forum?)

Cheers
Neil9327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 01:56 AM   #2
dodgerforlife
Resident CF Farmer
 
dodgerforlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Farm in Saskatchewan...
Posts: 2,202
1) You truly a geek. Anyone who really enjoys driving loves the g-forces pushing them sideways when driving.

2) You don't seem too scientific. "fat bits on the sides"? They're called bolsters. Learn the lingo, for your sake and ours.

3) Why the **** would they even consider that. Can you imagine the cost to research and develop that, and then sell it to the general public? Beyond that, it would probably be a lot less safe in event of an accident.

4) I would find it highly ****ing annoying to be tilting when I'm driving. Have you ever driven on a shitty road that has buckled and the car rolls back and forth, or swerved to avoid potholes or debris or some shit like that?

5) The vehicle would have to be considerably larger to accomodate all the extra equipment and the room required to tilt.

6) You can't escape physics. You would still feel pushed when you go around the corner.
dodgerforlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 02:26 AM   #3
99integra
CF's Florida boy
 
99integra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Piqua, OH
Posts: 6,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
1) You truly a geek. Anyone who really enjoys driving loves the g-forces pushing them sideways when driving.

4) I would find it highly ****ing annoying to be tilting when I'm driving. Have you ever driven on a shitty road that has buckled and the car rolls back and forth, or swerved to avoid potholes or debris or some shit like that?

6) You can't escape physics. You would still feel pushed when you go around the corner.
+1, I agree completely. It wouldn't be the real driving experience if you aren't pressed tightly againts your seat as you mash in the throttle, feeling the seats bolsters feel tighter as you go 60 down an S curve, the adrenaline is climbing, you throw in the clutch, downshift to 4th, mash in the throttle again, 6k is almost up, 7k, redline, shift to 5th as you are 50 yards from the 70 degree right turn...130 mph...110...90...75...40 mph..tires squeeling as you round the turn..the rear end is flicked 30 degrees to the left as you are going right...the turn ends and you straighten out..mash in the throttle once more..hearing that engine purr with such tenocity...shift into 3rd...the g's are building up as you are pushed farther into your seat...shift to 4th...110 mph...the adrenaline is just flowing through your blood....redline...shift to 5th...150mph.....


SHIT, I just creamed myself..I'll be back
__________________
Current whip: walking

Last edited by 99integra : 05-22-2006 at 02:28 AM.
99integra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 10:04 AM   #4
Neil9327
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
1) You truly a geek. Anyone who really enjoys driving loves the g-forces pushing them sideways when driving.

2) You don't seem too scientific. "fat bits on the sides"? They're called bolsters. Learn the lingo, for your sake and ours.

3) Why the **** would they even consider that. Can you imagine the cost to research and develop that, and then sell it to the general public? Beyond that, it would probably be a lot less safe in event of an accident.

4) I would find it highly ****ing annoying to be tilting when I'm driving. Have you ever driven on a shitty road that has buckled and the car rolls back and forth, or swerved to avoid potholes or debris or some shit like that?

5) The vehicle would have to be considerably larger to accomodate all the extra equipment and the room required to tilt.

6) You can't escape physics. You would still feel pushed when you go around the corner.

1) Well I suppose it is a matter of opinion. If they make trains tilt it must be because SOME people at least don't being forced in to the sides of their seats.

2) Bolsters. Thank you. I think it IS scientific to say "fat bits on the side". If you call them bolsters that makes you an engineer.

3) Aye I can imagine that it would cost alot to develop, not to mention the government trials to see whether it increases the accident rate. My opinion is that it would initially, but then reduce it.

4) The tilting would be computer controlled. Not a pendulum. So there would be no "rocking", and the computer would trade off between balance and excessive movement when going down roads with pot holes. I don't understand why you would find it "highly annoying". I can only speak for myself here I guess.

5) Yes larger. So our cars would resemble the cars of our friends in the USA. Sure they would be gas guzzlers

6) Yes you would feel pushed when you corner, but the tilt ensures that the force is always down the length of your spine, which is better for you health.
Neil9327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 11:13 AM   #5
dodgerforlife
Resident CF Farmer
 
dodgerforlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Farm in Saskatchewan...
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil9327
1) Well I suppose it is a matter of opinion. If they make trains tilt it must be because SOME people at least don't being forced in to the sides of their seats.

So if only some people don't like it, why waste the money on R&D?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil9327
2) Bolsters. Thank you. I think it IS scientific to say "fat bits on the side". If you call them bolsters that makes you an engineer.

No, it makes you sound like you actually know what you are talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil9327
3) Aye I can imagine that it would cost alot to develop, not to mention the government trials to see whether it increases the accident rate. My opinion is that it would initially, but then reduce it.

I don't know about this one. The seat would not be as secure as one bolted to the floor, plus with the connections things could fall apart and become projectiles in an accident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil9327
4) The tilting would be computer controlled. Not a pendulum. So there would be no "rocking", and the computer would trade off between balance and excessive movement when going down roads with pot holes. I don't understand why you would find it "highly annoying". I can only speak for myself here I guess.

Introducing computer controllers would make it cost even more. Granted, yes, it would stop the movement, but then also would slow down the reaction of seat when actually turning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil9327
5) Yes larger. So our cars would resemble the cars of our friends in the USA. Sure they would be gas guzzlers

It would be even larger then your american counterparts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil9327
6) Yes you would feel pushed when you corner, but the tilt ensures that the force is always down the length of your spine, which is better for you health.

Not in my instance, it is actually better for my spine to get force from the side. Football injury + downforce on spine = bad, possibly a slipped disc.
dodgerforlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 04:09 PM   #6
theman352001
--- Voice of Reason ---
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 893
I think there is some merrit to this idea. In fact, Mercedes is actually looking at doing something similar except that it tilts the suspension to keep better traction on the road. The similar part however is that it tends to reduce roll in the body of the car.

Mercedes F400 Carving

As for this discussion on having the whole car being larger....I disagree. It could be implemented the same way as power seats are implemented. You would just have a curved rail and a stepping motor that would move the seat along that rail. As it moved from left to right, it would tilt the seat left or right. Your seat would still be connected to the car and be as safe as any other power seat.
__________________


Come to Wisconsin and smell our dairy air.
theman352001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 04:59 PM   #7
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
As for this discussion on having the whole car being larger....I disagree. It could be implemented the same way as power seats are implemented. You would just have a curved rail and a stepping motor that would move the seat along that rail. As it moved from left to right, it would tilt the seat left or right. Your seat would still be connected to the car and be as safe as any other power seat.

Actually, it would have to be larger. Why? In order for the seat to move on that cruved rail, it would have to move side to side as part of that arc. Which means it would have to have room on either side of the seat TO move, making the space from the center tunnel to the doors wider in order to have room for the seat to move. Add that space on either side in front, and you have a much wider car.

The Mercedes Carving movement has nothing to do with making the DRIVER feel less Gs, but in getting the suspension to handle MORE Gs.

Now, on anotehr tack, I saw a seat that tilted forward and backward on a curved track so that under braking, it slid forward on the track tilting the whole seat downward, and vice versa. it was for crash protection, and the old video was shoing a car with a seat setup like that being driven into a wall wit the driver not belted in, and no door on the car so you coulld see the seat action. the weighted seat immediately swung into a laid back position, then went back to normal after the impact, and the driver hopped out...
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 08:01 PM   #8
dodgerforlife
Resident CF Farmer
 
dodgerforlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Farm in Saskatchewan...
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
I think there is some merrit to this idea. In fact, Mercedes is actually looking at doing something similar except that it tilts the suspension to keep better traction on the road. The similar part however is that it tends to reduce roll in the body of the car.

Mercedes F400 Carving

As for this discussion on having the whole car being larger....I disagree. It could be implemented the same way as power seats are implemented. You would just have a curved rail and a stepping motor that would move the seat along that rail. As it moved from left to right, it would tilt the seat left or right. Your seat would still be connected to the car and be as safe as any other power seat.

There is nothing similar in comparison to the Mercedes F400. The Benz reduces body roll in conering by leaning tires, and it actually INCREASES force going around the corner.

And have you seriously thought about what your saying? As ChrisV mentioned, to create the tilting effect, especially to the degree where you would reduce any significant side to side motion while cornering, you would have to make the car much wider to accomodate the seat moving, along with every other part.


And as I said before, your still going to feel pushed. So in the end, what did you achieve, beyond spending several thousand extra for a car that is wider and heavier and burns more gas?
dodgerforlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 09:19 PM   #9
theman352001
--- Voice of Reason ---
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 893
Do people actually read what is posted or do they just pick out a few choice words and then start the flaming? WTF? And do people know the meaning of the word "similar"? Here is a hint, it doesn't mean "the same as".

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
There is nothing similar in comparison to the Mercedes F400. The Benz reduces body roll in conering by leaning tires, and it actually INCREASES force going around the corner.
It is similar in that that there is something actively tilting during the turning. Reducing body roll can be seen as an attempt to keep the seats parallel to the road. Not what we are trying to do, but similar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
And have you seriously thought about what your saying? As ChrisV mentioned, to create the tilting effect, especially to the degree where you would reduce any significant side to side motion while cornering, you would have to make the car much wider to accomodate the seat moving, along with every other part.
Yes, I have seriously thought about what I was saying. How much angle do you think you need? How far do you lean over in your seat when you go around a corner? 15 degrees? 20 perhaps?

The goal is not to reduce side to side motion. They haven't invented inertial dampeners yet except for in Star Trek. It is to take the side motion you have and to support it with the bottom of the seat. By tilting the seat, the side motion is then more aligned with the bottom and the effect is that the person is pushed into the bottom of the seat instead of sliding off of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
And as I said before, your still going to feel pushed. So in the end, what did you achieve, beyond spending several thousand extra for a car that is wider and heavier and burns more gas?
All I hear is nay nay nay. What if they never tried making car bodies out of aluminum in an effort to reduce weight? Is your vehicle as light as it could be? You seem to be adamant about that.

As for ChrisV's point, many cars have center counsels in them that could be removed to make the necessary room. (hey look, weight savings) Besides, we're talking inches here. The seat doesn't have to tilt 45 degrees. 15 to 20 in both directions would probably suffice. And since both the driver's and passenger's seats would move together, they could be placed closer together. The seats also don't have to move side to side if they pivoted around a center line that went through the center of the seat cushion. (from front to back) Again, we would be talking inches.
__________________


Come to Wisconsin and smell our dairy air.
theman352001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 10:04 PM   #10
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
As for ChrisV's point, many cars have center counsels in them that could be removed to make the necessary room. (hey look, weight savings) Besides, we're talking inches here. The seat doesn't have to tilt 45 degrees. 15 to 20 in both directions would probably suffice. And since both the driver's and passenger's seats would move together, they could be placed closer together. The seats also don't have to move side to side if they pivoted around a center line that went through the center of the seat cushion. (from front to back) Again, we would be talking inches.

If you put the pivot around the center line of the cushion, even a 15 degree tilt would put the TOP of the seat many, many inches from where it's at when vertical, and the upper shoulder bolsters would hit the doors or door glass, as would the driver's head.

People only tilt maybe 20 degrees (though they shouldn't) as that's as far as their upper bodies can go. But they still get side loading. In order to counteract that actual G forces and get rid of the sensation our original poster was describing, a .5 G lateral load would need a 45 degree tilt to eliminate. A 1 G load woudl require a 90 degree tilt to compensate and make all the force along the "vertical" spinal alignment! Anything less and you'd still get side loading.

Jet airliners are generally limited to 30 degree banks to counter a .3G cornering force with passengers in it. How far over would the seat have to go to equal 30 degrees? And how much space would your current seat AND YOU take up at that sort of tilt? Is there room for your legs to swing around that 30 degrees and still remain in contact with the pedals? Which brings up another point that was glossed over ion the original post: what to do with the pedals and control surfaces when the driver is oriented in a different direction: pedals, shifter, etc.? And what happens to the car's balance when the mass of the seat and driver is tilted forcibly inside the car?

It's just better to assume you are going to feel side loading no matter what, and bolster the seat and put up with feeling the side loading. No complex mechanisms to break.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 11:23 PM   #11
Neil9327
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
If you put the pivot around the center line of the cushion, even a 15 degree tilt would put the TOP of the seat many, many inches from where it's at when vertical, and the upper shoulder bolsters would hit the doors or door glass, as would the driver's head.

People only tilt maybe 20 degrees (though they shouldn't) as that's as far as their upper bodies can go. But they still get side loading. In order to counteract that actual G forces and get rid of the sensation our original poster was describing, a .5 G lateral load would need a 45 degree tilt to eliminate. A 1 G load woudl require a 90 degree tilt to compensate and make all the force along the "vertical" spinal alignment! Anything less and you'd still get side loading.

Jet airliners are generally limited to 30 degree banks to counter a .3G cornering force with passengers in it. How far over would the seat have to go to equal 30 degrees? And how much space would your current seat AND YOU take up at that sort of tilt? Is there room for your legs to swing around that 30 degrees and still remain in contact with the pedals? Which brings up another point that was glossed over ion the original post: what to do with the pedals and control surfaces when the driver is oriented in a different direction: pedals, shifter, etc.? And what happens to the car's balance when the mass of the seat and driver is tilted forcibly inside the car?

It's just better to assume you are going to feel side loading no matter what, and bolster the seat and put up with feeling the side loading. No complex mechanisms to break.




I think a 30 degree cornering angle would be entirely acceptable for most road cars. I would say that if you are given to cornering faster than this you are likely to be a "boy racer" like 99integra and perhaps you can be left to "cream yourself" hehe in a traditional car.
And then if you occasionally exceeded the 30 degrees you would only feel the difference between the 30 degree and what you need, which would be small.

I think that my idea is ideally aimed at the executive to luxury car market for perhaps older wealthier higher mileage drivers who like to drive fairly fast but get an uncomfortable feeling as their lardy guts are wrenched to the left for the 10th time as they motor round the nth roundabout in Basingstoke.

Yes for a 30 degree tilt around an axis at or a little above seat level you would need at least 40 centimeters free space at either side. So we are talking about a very large car (a monster truck perhaps?)

In my original post I said that the driver would effectively be in a capsule such that the seat, wheel, pedals, hand brake and other controls would all tilt as one. So like an airline pilot who banks to turn, with the control column and rudder pedals following him/her with the rest of the aircraft into the bank, the car driver does the same. The only difference is that the rest of the car does not rotate into the bank, as it needs to keep its wheels on the road, only the driver (and possibly the passengers as well).
The connection between the steering wheel and the road wheels would have to be carefully thought out. While drive by wire would be one (futuristic) option there are mechanical options to allow the wheel to tilt while at the same time not turning the road wheels. And at the same time sending through to the driver the very same feelings of resistance he/she gets when steering.

I don't know who on this forum has been on the Virgin Pendolino tilting train, but I thought it was cool and that it felt VERY natural. Compared with the old carriages on especially that route which would heave you from left to right as the trains went round the insufficiently tilted tracks.

As to the question of balance, one option could be to add ballast to the base of the seat such that the centre of gravity of the "capsule" remains unchanged on tilt for a driver of average weight.

Obviously it would be a major undertaking, but with a few tens of thousands of pounds/dollars a concept car could perhaps be constructed. Any investors out there?
This is MY patent. But no doubt by posting it on the internet I'll lose all claim to it...:-(


Another application of the technology would be racing cars. It is my understanding that F1 drivers are subjected to very heavy lateral forces on the neck as G-forces pulled are very high (over 3G perhaps)
Neil9327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 11:40 PM   #12
99integra
CF's Florida boy
 
99integra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Piqua, OH
Posts: 6,099
Hey now son, I'm not a boy racer, I'm just a car enthusiest
__________________
Current whip: walking
99integra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 12:04 AM   #13
windsonian
Dodger65's weirdo
 
windsonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Below
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
1) You truly a geek. Anyone who really enjoys driving loves the g-forces pushing them sideways when driving.

2) You don't seem too scientific. "fat bits on the sides"? They're called bolsters. Learn the lingo, for your sake and ours.

3) Why the **** would they even consider that. Can you imagine the cost to research and develop that, and then sell it to the general public? Beyond that, it would probably be a lot less safe in event of an accident.

4) I would find it highly ****ing annoying to be tilting when I'm driving. Have you ever driven on a shitty road that has buckled and the car rolls back and forth, or swerved to avoid potholes or debris or some shit like that?

5) The vehicle would have to be considerably larger to accomodate all the extra equipment and the room required to tilt.

6) You can't escape physics. You would still feel pushed when you go around the corner.

Ignorance, ignorance....

1) see your response #6, first you say this is a bad idea because there's less g-force, but then you say you can't stop the g-force... which is it?
2) whatever.... lingo isn't always scientific
3) How much do you think RnD on airbags cost (for example)? and less safe ... why?
4) so, you don't need to have it ... and the up and down from a buckled road wouldn't have any effect
6) the whole point is that you would be pushed down, not laterally



And Neil, I see you've thought about this considerably ... keep working on it.
I like it in theory, but the first downside I see would be possible loss of reference when you are trying to drive a car that you are moving relative to ... if you get me.
__________________
You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.

Last edited by windsonian : 05-23-2006 at 12:06 AM.
windsonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 12:06 AM   #14
Neil9327
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99integra
Hey now son, I'm not a boy racer, I'm just a car enthusiest

"150Mph" and you're not a boy racer/ man racer? I don't belive you :-)
But I can sure tell you're an enthusiast...
Neil9327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 12:13 AM   #15
99integra
CF's Florida boy
 
99integra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Piqua, OH
Posts: 6,099
No no 150mph is just spirited driving , nothin really boy racer to it, you and me have 2 different definitions of a "boy racer/ricer"
__________________
Current whip: walking
99integra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.