JSAE Review 24 (2003) 99–104

Quantification of static seating comfort of motorcycle seats

Mituse Koyanoa, Takeshi Kimishimab, Kengo Nakayamac
a
Engineering Research Department 2, Honda R&D Co., Ltd. Asaka R&D Center, 3-15-1 Senzui, Asaka-shi, Saitama 351-8555, Japan
b
Engineering Research Department 2, 3-15-1 Senzui, Asaka-shi, Saitama 351-8555, Japan
c
Technical Coordination Center, 3-15-1 Senzui, Asaka-shi, Saitama 351-8555, Japan
Received 26 April 2001

Abstract

A posterior characteristic index (PCI) was established to quantitatively evaluate the static seating comfort of motorcycle seats.
The index expresses characteristics such as the shape and size of the posterior as well as the weight of a person. The static seating
comfort of motorcycle seats was analyzed using the PCI and seated body pressure distribution data.
As a result, it was found that the contact surface area and level of surface area change in the body pressure distribution from data
obtained while the test subject was seated are effective indices for static seating comfort common to all test subjects.
r 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

1. Introduction between design parameters and the senses, and devel-

oped the Posterior Characteristics Index (PCI). The PCI
Static seating comfort, dynamic riding comfort and was then used for quantitative performance prediction
fatigue caused by riding for long periods of time are of static seating comfort. The prediction flow is shown
important properties for motorcycle seats. Of these, in Fig. 1.
static seating comfort is a particularly important factor This paper describes an overview of the PCI and the
when consumers select a motorcycle. results of quantitative prediction of static seating
Motorcycle seats must be able to conform to the comfort.
rider’s movement (various riding positions) so the driver
can control the motorcycle. This type of seat perfor-
mance is generally in conflict with static seating comfort 2. Static seating comfort factor analysis
performance. Therefore, motorcycle seats are character-
ized by having multiple shapes that provide a balance 2.1. Body pressure distribution of motorcycle seats
between the static seating comfort and the comfort
required for the various riding positions of the motor- The shape of a motorcycle seat is designed talking
cycle model concept. into account not just sitting but also various riding
In conventional seat development, design parameters positions, holding properties and ease of foot-to-ground
(e.g., hardness, shape and materials) have been directly contact while stopping. The body pressure distributions
manipulated based on subjective feeling evaluations. of specified test subjects on scooters and on-road type
However, this made it difficult to predict the effects of and off-road type motorcycles are shown in Fig. 2.
changing design parameters. On the other hand, body These examples demonstrate the diversity of distribu-
pressure distribution is influenced by personal attributes tions obtained due to differences in the seat shape.
of the test subject, like seating area caused by, for
example, differences in posterior size and bone struc- 2.2. Body pressure distribution of the human posterior
ture. Therefore, conventional evaluations were per-
formed with specified subjects. However, actual To learn the characteristics of the human posterior,
development requires a predictive equation, which body pressure distribution was measured with test
enables evaluation without specified subjects. subjects seated on a standard experimental seat
Therefore, the authors focused on body pressure (500
500 mm, 30 mm thick polyurethane foam). The
distribution as a quantitative property intermediate seat was designed to contact the entire posterior area.

0389-4304/03/$30.00 r 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

PII: S 0 3 8 9 - 4 3 0 4 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 5 1 - 5 JSAE20034015
100 M. Koyano et al. / JSAE Review 24 (2003) 99–104

The body pressure distributions of males and females by in Fig. 4. They indicate the same tendency as those of
weight are shown in Fig. 3. These results show that there the subjects seated on the standard experimental seat,
are differences in the characteristics of human poster- though the absolute values are different.
iors, especially in terms of load, contact surface area, Thus, when static seating comfort is evaluated using
and level of contact surface pressure changes. The body body pressure distribution data, it is necessary to
pressure distributions of test subjects of different minimize the effects of test subject posterior character-
weights seated on the same motorcycle seat are shown istics on evaluation results.

2.3. Hypothetical equation for the evaluation of static

seating comfort

First, the authors hypothesized that a seat with a large

contact surface area and low levels of contact surface
pressure changes throughout the body pressure distribu-
tion range has better static seating comfort. Next,
factors influencing static seating comfort, such as
Fig. 1. Prediction flow of static seat comfort. contact surface area, variations in contact surface

Fig. 2. Body pressure distribution according to seat difference

Fig. 3. Body pressure distribution according to weight difference for test subjects seated on the standard experimental seat.

Fig. 4. Body pressure distribution according to rider weight difference.

 M. Koyano et al. / JSAE Review 24 (2003) 99–104 101

Fig. 5. Body pressure distribution for various test subjects seated on the experimental standard seat.
102 M. Koyano et al. / JSAE Review 24 (2003) 99–104

pressure and the PCI of test riders, on different seats

were examined. A multiple regression analysis was
performed [1].
Static seating comfort¼ a0 þ a1
(contact surface
area)+a2
(contact surface pressure variations)
+a3
(PCI) where contact surface area is the total
surface area of the portion of the subject’s posterior in
contact with the seat.
Contact surface pressure variations are the variations
in contact surface pressure of the contacting portion.

PCI: characteristics of the test subject’s posterior,

a0 : constant term,
a1 2a3 : partial regression coefficients.

Fig. 6. Graph of principal component scores and relation to each

parameter.
3. Determining PCI

Prior to experimentation, the PCI for each test subject

is established. Fifteen males and fifteen females were
selected as test subjects based on the typical body weight
distribution for Japanese. Fig. 5 shows the body
pressure weight distribution of each subject when seated
on the standard experimental seat. There are consider-
able differences in contact surface area and contact
surface pressure variations in these body pressure
distributions. Based on this result, it was judged that
the overall characteristics of the posterior could be
represented by the contact surface area, the contact
surface pressure variations, and the test subject’s weight.
Principal component analysis was conducted. The
results are shown in Table 1.
From the results of principal component analysis, the Fig. 7. Example of riding posture.
primary principal component of PCI expresses the total
value for body weight, contact surface area and contact
surface pressure variations. The PCI was applied in a
hypothetical equation. The principal component scores 4. Evaluation test and analysis
are shown in Fig. 6.
4.1. Selection of subjects

Table 1 A panel of five test subjects that reasonably represent

Eigen value and eigen vector the variations in the primary principal components, as
Eigen value
shown in Fig. 6, was selected from among the subjects
used to establish the PCI.
No. Eigen value Contribution rate

Principal 1.154 0.505

component 1 4.2. Samples and evaluation test method
Principal 1.129 0.376
component 2
Seven motorcycles and five subjects were used in the
Eigen vector test. The subjects sat upright on each test motorcycle in
Items Principal Principal a normal operating position, as shown in Fig. 7, and
component 1 component 2 immediately thereafter evaluated static seating comfort
Contact area 0.742 0.005 using the nine-point scale shown in Fig. 8. In addition,
Pressure changes 0.123 0.917
body pressure distribution was measured under the same
Rider weight 0.686 0473
conditions as the static seating comfort evaluation.
 M. Koyano et al. / JSAE Review 24 (2003) 99–104 103

Table 2
Evaluation results

Sample motorcycles Average of Standard

evaluation score deviation

Touring model A 8.2 0.55

Fig. 8. Evaluation scale for nine-point score. Touring model B 7.5 0.27
American model A 7.9 0.41
American model B 6.3 0.54
European model 5.4 0.65
Scooter 3.4 0.54
Off road model 1.5 0.41

Fig. 9. Body pressure measurement system.

Fig. 9 shows the system used to measure body pressure

distribution.

4.3. Evaluation test results Fig. 10. Correlation between prediction scores and evaluation scores.

Table 2 shows the results of the subjective feeling

evaluation of static seating comfort. The range of
standard deviation for the evaluation scores was 0.27–
0.65.

4.4. Results of analysis

Multiple regression analysis was conducted for static

seating comfort using the body pressure distribution
data obtained and the PCI for each subject. As a result,
it was confirmed that the contact surface area, contact
surface pressure variations, and the PCI for each subject Fig. 11. Results of body pressure distribution for different seats.
indicated by the hypothetical equation are significant,
with a significance of 1%.
Thus, substituting body pressure distribution data
into the hypothetical equation enabled the evaluation of
static seating comfort. Fig. 10 shows the relationship 5. Validation with other types of motorcyles
between prediction scores and evaluation scores.
Static seating comfort score=1.733+0.008
(contact In order to validate the predictive equations, two on-
surface area)4.882
(contact surface pressure varia- road-touring motorcycles not used in the previous tests
tions)0.594
PCI (R2=0.91, residual standard devia- were evaluated in the same manner as those in the
tion=0.74). previous texts. Body pressure distribution was obtained
In the above equation, the contact surface area and through measurements on these two motorcycles, shown
contact surface pressure variations are valid indices for in Fig. 11. Results of a comparison between the
all subjects. The PCI absorbs the individual posterior predicted score and the score obtained through evalua-
differences. tion shown in Table 3 that the difference between the
104 M. Koyano et al. / JSAE Review 24 (2003) 99–104

Table 3 nent analysis of body pressure distribution and body

Comparison of evaluation scores and prediction scores weight occurring when subjects are seated on a
Sample Evaluation Prediction Residual standard experimental seat.
motorcycles score score error 2. It was found that the contact surface area and contact
surface pressure variations of the body pressure
Touring model C 6.0 6.2 0.2
Touring model D 7.1 7.1 0.1 distribution data obtained while the test subject was
seated are effective indices for representing the static
seating comfort of seats common to all subjects.

predicted score and subjective feeling evaluation scores

are 0.2 and 0.1 in comparison to the 0.74 residual
standard deviation derived from the predictive formula. In the future, the authors will examine methods for
This verifies the reasonableness of the predictive formula predicting body pressure distribution from drawings.
in motorcycle seat static seating comfort evaluations.

6. Conclusion References
1. An index of the characteristics of the human poster- [1] T. Yoshizawa, T. Haga, Multivariate Analysis Case Methods,
ior was established by performing principal compo- Book 1 JUSE Press Limited, p. 63–75 (1992) (written in Japanese).