JP4650686B2 - Vehicle planning support system - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a vehicle planning support system using a computer. More specifically, the present invention relates to a vehicle planning that builds a performance verification model for evaluating the performance of the above evaluation items of a planning vehicle without displaying the shape of the vehicle model. Related to support system.

  Conventionally, in vehicle planning, the product planning department generally plans vehicles in the form of documents based on marketing and the like. At the vehicle planning stage, they decided on packaging based on ideas alone and proposed unique vehicles. However, at the planning stage, no specific structure was studied, and development began with various performances of the planned vehicle being uncertain.

  In response to the proposal of the planning vehicle from the product planning department, the design department, the design department, the production department, etc., individually examined the proposed planning vehicle. For this reason, after the planning stage, it has become necessary to reverse the development, such as redesigning. In addition, since there are many conflicting design items among the departments, it was necessary to make adjustments between the departments and make compromises to correct the planned vehicle. As a result, the planned vehicle tends to be an average vehicle with few features. In addition, such adjustment took a long time.

  In general, it is difficult to verify the performance of the planned vehicle unless the specific structure of the planned vehicle is determined. For this reason, the design department further studied through CAE and experiments and boiled up the design drawing, then made a prototype car based on the design drawing and verified it by experiment.

  Note that the applicant according to the present application has proposed a program for verifying the feasibility of a planned vehicle in the planning stage in Patent Document 1.

  However, it is necessary to make further improvements in order to plan vehicles that meet the needs of diversifying customers, shorten the design stage, reduce prototypes and experiments, and shorten the development period of new vehicles. is there.

JP 2004-042747 A

  Accordingly, an object of the present invention is to provide a vehicle planning support system that further shortens the development period of a new vehicle.

In order to achieve the above object, a vehicle planning support system of the present invention is a vehicle planning support system that supports vehicle planning by building a vehicle model, and stores a vehicle data for building a vehicle model. And a computing device that constructs a planned vehicle model of the vehicle to be planned using the vehicle data stored in the database, and the vehicle data stored in the database includes a plurality of existing vehicles. Performance evaluation values obtained by quantifying vehicle performance evaluations for each predetermined evaluation item are included, and the arithmetic device includes a target value setting unit for setting a target value for each of the evaluation items, and an existing vehicle Based on the vehicle data of the first reference vehicle selected from the above, a layout verification model for evaluating the planned vehicle by displaying the shape of the vehicle model on the screen is constructed The layout verification model construction unit and the vehicle data of the second reference vehicle selected from the existing vehicles are separated from the layout verification model without displaying the shape of the vehicle model. A performance verification model construction unit that builds a performance verification model for evaluating the performance of the evaluation item, a performance calculation unit that calculates a performance evaluation value for each evaluation item for the performance verification model, and for each evaluation item A performance level calculation unit that compares the target value with the performance evaluation value of the performance evaluation verification model to obtain a target achievement level, and the specifications of the performance verification model affect the performance evaluation items. The priority order to be fixed is set based on the size, and the layout verification model construction unit sets the upper limit when converting the performance verification model into the layout verification model. To obtain a consistent shape of a layout verification model is characterized by being configured so that the priority is adjusted from a low specifications.

According to the vehicle planning support system of the present invention configured as described above, not only the form of the planned vehicle but also the performance that the planned vehicle will have can be verified at the planning stage. In addition, since the performance verification model for evaluating the performance of the above evaluation items of the planned vehicle is constructed without displaying the shape of the vehicle model, the performance verification model does not require visual display of the vehicle. For this reason, the performance verification model can be used to verify performance mainly by changing numerical specifications and system changes, so that work efficiency can be improved, and the development period for new vehicles can be increased. It can be shortened.
Furthermore, in order to finally combine the performance verification model and the layout verification model, when converting the performance verification model to the layout verification model, in order to obtain the consistency of the shape of the layout verification model, there is a priority order to be fixed. It is configured to adjust from low specifications. For this reason, when combining the performance verification model and the layout verification model, while maintaining the performance of the planned vehicle as much as possible, it is possible to correct the inconsistency of the arrangement and shape continuity between each system and region, and to ensure the consistency of the vehicle shape. Obtainable.

In the present invention, it is preferable that the performance evaluation vehicle model construction unit constructs the performance verification model based on vehicle data of a second reference vehicle different from the first reference vehicle.
Accordingly, it is possible to select an optimal reference vehicle for the layout verification model from a morphological viewpoint and for the performance verification model from a performance viewpoint.

  In the present invention, it is preferable that the vehicle model construction unit for performance evaluation serves as a vehicle constituent part model from vehicle data of a vehicle constituent part of each of a plurality of vehicles selected from the existing vehicle as the second reference vehicle. Further, a vehicle model for performance evaluation is constructed by combining these vehicle component models.

  In this way, if the reference vehicle model of the performance verification model is composed of a plurality of reference vehicle parts, good arrangement of the existing vehicle can be achieved. In other words, the reference vehicle can be set individually for each part (area) of the vehicle, and the specifications and performance that are desired to be given to each area as the planned vehicle can be set so that the performance of the planned vehicle is more accurately determined. The estimation performance error can be reduced.

  As a result, it becomes easier to apply an image of a car of, for example, a strange shape in the operator's head. And if it is the unusual shape, it will be easy to obtain what the performance will be. Rather than modifying one car, by applying a vehicle that fits the image to each part, the amount of change with respect to the reference vehicle can be reduced, and both perform performance calculations based on the data of the reference vehicle. Performance evaluation value can be obtained.

In the present invention, preferably, the vehicle data stored in the database includes a contribution ratio of the vehicle component part to the entire vehicle for each performance evaluation item, and the performance calculation unit Using the contribution rate vehicle data, the evaluation score for each of the evaluation items of the performance evaluation vehicle model is calculated.
Thereby, the performance evaluation value of the reference vehicle model can be calculated from the evaluation points of the vehicle evaluation items of the combined reference vehicles.

Preferably, in the present invention, the performance evaluation vehicle model calculation unit obtains the weight and the center of gravity of each vehicle component model, and further determines the performance evaluation vehicle model from the weight and center of gravity of each vehicle component model. Find the weight and center of gravity.
Thereby, even when a plurality of reference vehicles are combined, the weight and the center of gravity of the vehicle model for performance evaluation can be obtained.

Embodiments according to the present invention will be described below with reference to the accompanying drawings.
First, with reference to FIG. 1, the structure for implement | achieving the vehicle plan assistance system of this embodiment is demonstrated.
As shown in FIG. 1, the vehicle planning support system of the present embodiment intends to plan using a database 1 storing vehicle data for constructing a vehicle model and vehicle data stored in the database 1. And a computer 2 as an arithmetic device for constructing a vehicle planning vehicle model.

The computer 2 is connected to terminals 4 in the planning department, the management department, the design department, the design department, the experiment department, and the analysis department via the network 3. The computer 2 is also connected to the evaluation screen 5 via the network 3. Thereby, a large number of persons including the operator can simultaneously examine the planned vehicle on the evaluation screen 5.
In addition, the target value setting unit, the performance calculation unit, and the achievement level calculation unit of the planning support system of the present invention correspond to processing functions by the computer 2, respectively, and these processing functions are realized by executing a program in the computer 2. Is done.

  The data stored in the database 1 is collected by the laboratory, the design department, the design department, etc. according to a unified standard and stored. It is a premise of this planning support system that such unified standard data is stored.

  As shown in FIG. 2, the database 1 includes existing vehicle data 11, unit / part data 12, planned vehicle data 13, calculation data 14, evaluation auxiliary data 15, and auxiliary data 16. Hereinafter, each data will be described.

First, the existing vehicle data 11 will be described.
The database 1 stores data (existing vehicle data) obtained based on a certain standard for almost all vehicles existing in the past. Existing vehicle data includes body data, performance data, and unit / part data.
The vehicle body data includes specification values, accompanying information, and performance data. As shown in FIG. 3, the specification values are numerical values representing, for example, the total length, wheelbase, horsepower, and the like of an existing vehicle. The accompanying information is obtained by converting price and customer evaluation index point of each vehicle, for example, satisfaction of engine performance into a certain standard index point.

  In addition, the existing vehicle data includes, for example, data of the previous model (old model vehicle) of the vehicle to be planned. From the existing vehicle data, as will be described later, a reference vehicle or a benchmark vehicle (competitive vehicle) is selected. The old model of the vehicle to be planned can also be selected as the benchmark vehicle.

The performance data includes performance by vehicle evaluation item and unit / part performance used in existing vehicles.
The performance by vehicle evaluation item is a performance evaluation value obtained by quantifying the vehicle performance evaluation for each predetermined evaluation item for a plurality of existing vehicles, that is, an evaluation of an item defined for vehicle performance (vehicle evaluation item). Contains points.

  Here, the evaluation items are those in which the performance of the vehicle is predetermined for each item, and in the example shown in FIG. 4, dozens of items such as handling performance and fuel consumption performance are listed. The performance evaluation value of the evaluation item is objective data (evaluation points) obtained based on a common test method and standard for each existing vehicle. For example, data obtained by an acceleration test or a slalom test in which a predetermined standard is determined is converted into an evaluation score of a certain standard. This evaluation score is stored in the existing vehicle data in the database for all existing vehicles. Thereby, relative comparison between vehicles becomes possible.

  The unit / component performance includes unit performance data and component performance data. Here, the unit means an assembly product such as an arm (component) or a joint (component) in the suspension. The unit performance data includes, for example, performance such as horsepower, gear ratio, lever ratio, etc., and air conditioning performance of the engine, mission, suspension, etc. mounted on each vehicle. In addition, the component performance data includes data indicating the performance of the tire, the suspension arm, its joint, etc., such as the rolling resistance value and the rigidity value.

  Further, the unit / part data includes data such as cost, weight, and rigidity as a single unit for all systems and parts mounted on the existing vehicle. Also, the unit / part data has a hierarchical structure as shown in FIG. 5, for example.

Next, the unit / part data (general) 12 in the database 1 will be described.
The unit / part data (general) 12 is not mounted on existing vehicles, but includes, for example, new products developed by technology, four-wheel drive systems including those of other companies, and data on automatic transmissions.

Next, the planned vehicle data 13 in the database 1 will be described.
The planned vehicle data 13 stores data related to the planned vehicle currently planned. After planning, it is stored in the existing vehicle data.

Next, the calculation data 14 in the database 1 will be described.
The calculation data 14 includes a performance verification data function, a cost verification data function, a stiffness verification data function, and a weight / weight distribution verification data function.

  The performance verification data function stores a performance influence function and a performance influence error function that define the amount of influence on the “evaluation point” of the vehicle evaluation item with respect to the adjustment amount such as specifications and system performance. This function does not calculate an absolute performance evaluation value, but defines an increase or decrease amount of the evaluation point with respect to the adjustment amount. It is a function based on data acquired in past developments and experiments, data acquired based on a certain standard, and the like. It is desirable to update these data every day so that more accuracy can be obtained.

  The data function for cost verification is, for example, a function that calculates how much cost is reduced when the body is downsized based on the amount of steel used for the body, or when the engine is changed Includes a function for calculating the cost required for attachment to the vehicle body. It should be noted that the cost fluctuation due to the change of the system and the components itself should be easily calculated from the data in the existing vehicle data. The rigidity verification data function includes, for example, a function for calculating vehicle body rigidity when assembled and rigidity when a suspension is attached to a cross member. The weight / weight distribution verification data function mainly includes, for example, a function for calculating weight distribution as a vehicle when a system or a part is assembled in the vehicle.

Next, the evaluation auxiliary data 15 in the database 1 will be described.
The evaluation auxiliary data includes era evolution data, planning past case data, and customer request data.
The period evolution data stores data indicating the correlation between vehicle evaluation items and the period (year), data indicating the correlation between specifications and system performance and the period (year), and the like. These data are used to calculate a target value in consideration of the sales time.

  The past case data of planning includes evaluation points (for example, ability values at the start of planning, during planning, and at the end of planning) and planning requirements (for example, categories, classes, Development time, cost, equipment conditions, etc.) are stored. The planned vehicle data is automatically saved in the past case data at a predetermined stage during the planning or at the end of the planning.

  The customer requirement data includes data on the importance of the customer requirement index for a certain class in a certain category (for example, engine performance is regarded as important), and data indicating the correlation between the vehicle evaluation item and the customer requirement index. In addition, data indicating the correlation between specifications and system performance and customer requirements is stored. These data are used to verify whether the customer's request is satisfied.

Next, the auxiliary data 16 in the database 1 will be described.
The auxiliary data includes legal data and production requirement data. In the regulation data, for example, data such as regulation regarding collision performance is stored. The production requirement data stores data capable of verifying whether it can be applied to a factory line or whether the number of processes can be applied to a factory.

  Further, the computer 2 uses the vehicle data stored in the database 1 to construct a planned vehicle model of the vehicle to be planned. In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 6, a layout verification model and a performance verification model are constructed as planned vehicle models.

Hereinafter, the layout verification model will be described first.
This layout verification model visually displays the vehicle as a combination of each model as shown in FIG. 6 and mainly changes the vehicle type, vehicle type, basic specifications / passenger specifications, and changes in shape and structure. Therefore, it is a model that can verify the positional consistency such as mountability of the planned vehicle plan and ski / clearance. In this embodiment, as will be described later, a layout verification model is constructed based on vehicle data of one vehicle (hereinafter also referred to as “D vehicle”) selected as a reference vehicle from existing vehicles (note that The reference vehicle may be a vehicle formed by combining a plurality of vehicles.)

  The layout verification model includes a reference model 80, an appearance model 90, an interior model 100, and a structural model, as shown in FIG. These models will be described with reference to FIGS.

  FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of the main dimension model (a), the occupant model (b), and the underbody model (c) of the reference model according to the present embodiment. FIG. 8A is a diagram illustrating an example of an exterior model of an appearance model, and FIGS. 8B to 8E are examples of a door model (b to d) and a glass model (e) of an appearance part model. FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an example of the upper interior model (a) and the lower interior model (b) of the interior model, and FIG. 9 (c) is an instrument panel model and console of the interior part model. It is a figure which shows an example of a model and a sheet | seat model. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a structural model.

First, the reference model will be described with reference to FIG.
As shown in FIG. 7, the reference model 80 includes a main dimension model 82, an occupant model 84, and an underbody model 86. As shown in FIG. 7A, the main dimension model 82 is a model related to the outer frame 82a of the vehicle, the ground (corresponding to the ground) 82b, the wheel 82c, and the like. The dimension of the outer frame of the vehicle, the length of the wheel base Specified by specifications such as wheel dimensions.

  As shown in FIG. 7B, the occupant model 84 is a model related to the occupant mannequin 84a, the steering 84b, the pedal 84c, the visibility condition 84d, and the like. Further, as will be described later, a spatial area display (see FIGS. 30 to 36) indicating the range of movement of the occupant's head, the reach of the hand, and the like is also included in this model.

  The occupant mannequin 84a is for examining the occupant arrangement and posture, and has a certain shape and size according to domestic and foreign standards. The occupant mannequin 84a is defined by various dimensions and angle specifications for specifying the occupant arrangement and posture. The specifications include, for example, the position of the hip point, the position of the top and heel with respect to the hip point, the distance between the front row and the second row of occupants, and the like. The “dimension” includes “relative distance” between each part.

  The steering 84b and the pedal 84c are for studying their arrangement with respect to the occupant, and their shapes and dimensions are constant. The steering 84b and the pedal 84c are defined by, for example, specifications of the relative distance and angle with respect to their hip points or heels. The visibility condition 84d is defined by specifications such as an angle extending in the vertical direction from the eye point to the front of the vehicle.

As shown in FIG. 7C, the underbody model 86 is a model related to the lower structure of the vehicle body such as the dash panel 86a, the floor panel 86b, and the side sill 86c. The underbody model 86 is defined by specifications such as dimensions and angles of several panels constituting the dash panel 86a and the floor panel 86b, dimensions of the side sill 86c, and the like.
Based on the reference model 80 in which these models 82, 84, 86 are combined and the respective models constituting the reference model 80, packaging such as occupant placement and basic specifications of the vehicle can be examined.

Next, the appearance model will be described with reference to FIG.
As shown in FIG. 8, the vehicle model includes an appearance model 90, and the appearance model 90 includes an exterior model 92. As shown in FIG. 6, the exterior model 92 is a model related to a vehicle outer plate including a bumper, a bonnet, and the like. The exterior model 92 is defined by various dimensions and angles related to the outer shape of the vehicle. The specifications include, for example, a wheel base, a front overhang, a rear overhang, a position of a cowl point, a roof top height, an inclination angle of a pillar portion, and the like.

  With such an appearance model 90, the appearance image of the vehicle and the like can be examined. Further, by combining the appearance model 90 with the reference model 80, the packaging of the living space of the vehicle can be examined in more detail.

Next, the external part model will be described with reference to FIGS.
As shown in FIG. 6, the vehicle model includes an exterior part model 100, and the exterior part model 100 includes a door model 102 and a glass model 104.

  As shown in FIGS. 8B to 8D, the door model 102 is a model relating to the opening flange 102a of the front and rear doors, the outer plate and sash 102b of the front and rear side doors, and the outer plate and sash 102c of the lift gate. As shown in FIGS. 8C to 8E, the glass model 104 is a model related to each glass of the front window, the front quarter window, the side window, the rear quarter window, and the rear window. These models are defined in terms of various dimensions and angles relating to their shape and arrangement.

  With these models 102 and 104, the shape and arrangement of doors and window glass that constitute a part of the appearance can be individually examined. Furthermore, by combining these models 102 and 104 with the appearance model 90, the appearance image of the vehicle and the like can be examined in more detail.

Next, the interior model will be described with reference to FIGS.
As shown in FIG. 6, the vehicle model includes an interior model 110, and the interior model 110 includes an upper interior model 112 and a lower interior model 114.

  As shown in FIG. 9A, the upper interior model 112 is a model related to the pillar trim 112a and the top sealing (roof header, roof rail, and roof trim) 112b. As shown in FIG. 9B, the lower interior model is used. Reference numeral 114 denotes a model relating to the front and rear door and lift gate trim 114a, the cowl side trim 114b, the B pillar lower trim 114c, the rear side trim 114d, and the scuff plate 114e. These models are defined by various dimensions and angle specifications regarding the shape and arrangement of each trim, top ceiling, and the like.

  By combining the interior model 110 with the occupant model 84 and the exterior model 90, it is possible to examine the relative distance between the occupant and the interior, the feeling of pressure in the room by the occupant, the visibility outside the vehicle compartment, and the like.

Next, an interior part model will be described with reference to FIGS. 6 and 9C.
As shown in FIG. 6, the vehicle model includes an interior part model 120, and the interior part model 120 includes an instrument panel model 122, a console model 124, and a seat model 126.

  As shown in FIG. 9C, an instrument panel model 122, a console model 124, and a seat model 126 are models relating to an instrument panel including a dashboard, a console continuous with the instrument panel, and a plurality of seats. These models are for examining the arrangement in the passenger compartment, and have a certain shape.

The instrument panel model 122 and the console model 124 are defined in terms of dimensions and angles relating to their arrangement. The seat model 126 is defined by dimensions (distances) and angle specifications relating to seat arrangement, seat width, headrest vertical position, seat back angle, and the like.
The instrument panel model 122 and the console model 124 may be automatically deformed according to the arrangement so as to match the interior model 110.

  By arranging the interior part model 120 in combination with the interior model 110 and further combining the appearance model 90 and the reference model 80, the arrangement of the instrument panel, console and seat, and the feeling of pressure in the vehicle interior can be examined.

  The structural model relates to performance such as vehicle body rigidity and weight. For example, a frame model as shown in FIG. 10A and a cross-sectional shape and a length of the pillar as shown in FIG. A model with dimensions. In particular, with such a structural model, a change in shape and structure and a change in performance can be linked, so that a more accurate performance verification can be performed.

  The structural model has multiple frame structures such as front pillars, center pillars, rear pillars, side roof rails, front headers and rear headers, and at least one of the cross-sectional area and strength (cross-sectional shape) is set for each frame part. Because it can be changed, the required strength, cross-sectional area, etc. will naturally differ if the vehicle type (category of vehicles such as wagons and sports) is different. And by making it possible to individually change the cross-sectional area and strength of the structural model, optimal packaging verification and strength verification can be performed according to the planned vehicle, and planning accuracy can be made extremely high.

  The structural model has information on the cross-sectional area and strength related to the frame structure such as the body frame and the pillar, so that it is possible to quickly evaluate the feasibility of packaging and to provide information on the cross-sectional area of the pillar and the like. It becomes possible to quickly verify the feeling of pressure on the passengers in the space. Furthermore, by having strength information, verification of the strength of the planned vehicle, collision performance, vibration evaluation, etc. can be performed quickly, and the planning accuracy of the planned vehicle can be made extremely high from the initial planning stage. Further, since the structural model includes information on the material of the steel plate, the plate thickness and the weight of the steel plate, it is possible to verify the vehicle weight, weight distribution, center of gravity position, etc. of the planned vehicle.

  The arrangement of each model described above is defined by a relative distance with respect to a predetermined reference position, and each model has such a relative distance as a specification. Examples of the predetermined reference position include a front-rear direction reference point (for example, a cowl point), a ground, and a vehicle intermediate surface (that is, a surface passing through the middle in the vehicle width direction extending in the vehicle front-rear direction).

Hereinafter, a construction example of a planned vehicle based on the layout verification model will be described.
In the layout verification model, various performance evaluation values of the planned vehicle are calculated on the morphing screen based on the change amount of the specification value of the planned vehicle model and the change of the system.

  First, in the layout verification model, each specification and system of the reference vehicle stored in the existing vehicle data in the database are read into the specification value input screen as shown in FIG. On the specification value input screen, a specification value input table and a side view and a plan view of the vehicle showing corresponding parts of the specification items are displayed. The input table includes a column indicating the name of the vehicle model (such as “reference model”), a parameter item column indicating parameter names (such as “WheelBase” and “engine”) corresponding to each specification and system, As a specification value corresponding to the specification item, a specific value (“2400” or the like) or a specification value column indicating performance and a carryover designation column (display of “ON” or the like) are configured.

  Based on the specifications and system data of the reference vehicle shown on the specification value input screen, each layout verification model is three-dimensional or two-dimensional, as shown in FIG. It is displayed on the screen 5. This layout verification model is capable of morphing, that is, changing the shape of each part and changing the arrangement of each part.

  For example, on the three-dimensional morphing screen shown in FIG. 12, the entire layout verification model is displayed as viewed from an arbitrary viewpoint. In this 3D morphing screen, the shape and arrangement of each part are displayed by dragging the specification points that are the starting point of each dimension and angle displayed with a circle (only part is shown) as shown by A in the figure. You can make changes.

  Next, on the two-dimensional morphing screen, a three-view diagram viewed from the side, plane, or front (or back) of the vehicle model, and a cross-section showing the cross-section of components such as pillars and doors as shown in FIG. Displayed in graphical view. In these two-dimensional morphing screens, the vehicle model displays a predetermined cross section and main shapes as straight lines and curves, and further, specification items, specification values, and values regarding specification values related to the shape displayed in the morphing shape. A dimension line that defines is displayed.

  The displayed specification value (“...”) Can be numerically input by selecting it on the screen. By changing the specification value, the shape and arrangement of each part of the vehicle model are changed. Morphing is also possible by dragging the specification points displayed in circles. Note that the vehicle planner can also change the specification values and the system on the specification value input screen described above.

  Next, on each morphing screen, the vehicle shape is deformed based on a predetermined rule. That is, the specifications associate the specifications with each other to maintain the consistency of the shape and arrangement of each part of the vehicle. For example, in the exterior model 92 that represents the outer shape, when the roof length is changed, the angle of the pillar portion is also changed in conjunction with the roof so as to maintain the connection with the roof, and further, the top ceiling ( The length of the ceiling lining is also changed. In addition, the shape of the framework that makes up the structural model is automatically deformed according to the deformation of the appearance model, so that there is no deviation when the structural model and the appearance model are overlaid. The verification of the interference problem with the living space model can be performed with high accuracy.

Next, the performance verification model will be described.
With the layout verification model described above, it is possible to verify all the performance of the planned vehicle. However, at the beginning of planning, an operator often starts planning with an image that does not necessarily match, for example, the engine performance, the size of the passenger compartment, and the superiority of maneuverability. In such a case, it is usually difficult to arrange one display form as a vehicle from the beginning. In addition, for example, there are many performances that can be verified without visually displaying the planned vehicle model, such as the motion performance and ride quality of the planned vehicle. Further, when a unit such as an engine is replaced in a planned vehicle, it may be desired to verify how much the performance is improved before and after the replacement.

  Therefore, in this embodiment, the vehicle planning can be advanced also by a performance verification model that can verify the performance without visually displaying the vehicle. In other words, it is possible to verify the performance of the planned vehicle without making detailed adjustments to the shape of the vehicle body (for example, the shape of other pillars may need to be changed as the vehicle height increases). it can. In this performance verification model, for example, the performance can be verified by changing specifications, or the performance can be verified by calculating the performance influence associated with the unit / part change.

  Thus, by constructing a performance verification model that does not need to visually display the form of the vehicle separately from the layout verification model, performance verification work in vehicle planning becomes very efficient. That is, even if it is difficult to arrange the display form with the layout verification model, the performance verification model can evaluate the performance that can be evaluated without arranging the form.

  Here, FIG. 14 shows a configuration example of the performance verification model of the present embodiment. The performance verification model of the present embodiment is composed of partial models of a plurality of regions, and is composed of a plurality of hierarchies for each region. In the hierarchical structure shown in FIG. 14, for example, the front seat upper area is first configured as the entire structure of the upper front seat (hierarchy level 1), and the entire structure is configured of doors and other parts (hierarchy level 2). The doors are divided into door openings, modules and the like (hierarchy level 3), and finally divided into parts (hierarchy level 4) divided into parts.

  Therefore, in the performance verification model, when changing specifications and systems, each configuration of these layers can be arbitrarily selected and changed. For example, when the door is exchanged, the data related to “door” at the hierarchical level 2 is changed. Actually, a list of specifications and systems is displayed for each hierarchy, and the displayed specifications are changed (for example, the roof height is changed) or the system is changed (for example, the engine is changed). Adjust the engine output by 2%).

  In particular, since levels 3 and 4 which are lower layers have weight and cost data, it is possible to calculate the cost fluctuation and the increase / decrease in the weight when the door is replaced. That is, when the door of the hierarchy level 2 is replaced, the data of the lower hierarchy 3 and 4 are automatically changed. For example, the weight is calculated by adding all the weights of all the parts of the hierarchy level 4. Thereby, the weight distribution of the planned vehicle can also be calculated.

  When the details are examined after the final stage of planning or detailed design, only the structure of the hierarchy level 3 may be changed. For example, when changing the structure of the A pillar, the data related to the “A pillar” at the hierarchical level 3 may be changed. Further, for example, when only the suspension coil is changed, the data of the coil of the hierarchy level 3 (hierarchy level 2 is a shock absorber) may be changed.

Next, with reference to the flowchart of FIG. 15, the outline of the vehicle plan in this embodiment is demonstrated.
First, in step S1, in the vehicle planning using the vehicle planning support system, first, the basic target value of the planned vehicle is set. In the present embodiment, the target value is calculated from the benchmark vehicle using the vehicle data related to the existing vehicle stored in the above-described database and unified in the way of taking various data.

  Vehicle development is usually based on benchmark vehicles, making vehicles better than those of other companies and their own older models, satisfying customers, and consequently selling in the market, that is, merchantability and competitiveness Consider. In that case, the individuality and flavor of the manufacturer can be given to the vehicle by setting the degree of superiority with respect to the benchmark vehicle for each evaluation item such as maneuverability and fuel consumption.

  Next, in step S2, a reference vehicle for the planned vehicle is set (layout verification model / performance verification model). A vehicle model (reference vehicle model) serving as a reference for a vehicle to be planned is selected from existing vehicles.

  In the layout verification model, the vehicle shape and configuration can be constructed as described above. In addition, basic performance verification is possible with the performance verification model. Since the reference vehicles of these models are selected from existing vehicles, performance verification based on objective numerical values can be performed.

  Further, in the performance verification model, as will be described later, good portions of a plurality of benchmark vehicles can be incorporated into the planned vehicle.

Next, in step S3, the final target value is set by correcting the basic target value.
The final target value is set so as to surely satisfy the sales time and customer requirements.

Next, in step S4, a gap value between the actual value of the reference vehicle and the target value is calculated.
Such a gap value is a standard for determining how much development (evolution of the reference vehicle) should be performed.

Next, in step S5, execution of the vehicle plan by the model / calculation of the ability value of the planned vehicle is performed.
With respect to the ability value (performance) of the reference vehicle, the ability value (estimated performance) at the time of the planning is calculated by a predetermined function. The ability value of the planned vehicle is obtained based on the data of the existing vehicle, and further, the ability value of the reference vehicle is obtained by adding / subtracting with a predetermined function obtained from the existing vehicle, so that basic performance verification can be performed.

Next, in step S6, a gap value between the actual value of the reference vehicle and the target value is calculated.
Such a gap value makes it possible to determine the degree of achievement of the target and the necessity of development. Depending on the gap, development may be retreated (regressed) in order to maintain the balance of the vehicle.

Next, in step S7, a gap elimination study is performed.
For the main issues extracted by the operator, the vehicle planning support system is assisted by displaying a predetermined graph on a system and specifications that satisfy the requirements of performance, package, cost, etc. and can eliminate the gap.

Next, in step S8, a detailed examination of the planned vehicle is performed.
Details such as design consistency, impact performance, aerodynamic performance, body rigidity, etc.

Next, in step S9, a presentation is performed.
Obtain management approval for the planned vehicle.

Next, in step S10, the process proceeds to the design stage.
The planning data is converted into CAD data and simulation data, and handed over to the design department and the experimental department.
In this way, the planned vehicle construction is completed.

Hereinafter, the individual schematic steps of the vehicle planning described above will be further described.
First, the basic target value setting step (step S1 in FIG. 15) of the planned vehicle will be described.
In the present embodiment, the step of setting the basic target value of the planned vehicle includes the steps S11 to S14 shown in FIG.

  In setting the basic target value of the planned vehicle, first, in step S11, the category of the planned vehicle is set. For example, when planning a minivan, the operator selects “minivan” and “class III (large)” and sets a category.

  Next, in step S12, the operator sets a benchmark vehicle related to the setting category. Here, for example, when planning a minivan with high athletic performance, the benchmark vehicle may be selected from the category of sports cars.

  Next, in step S13, the operator sets a target achievement range. Specifically, for example, “1” to “3” that are range values (ranks) are input to the target achievement range shown in FIG. Note that data in which the target achievement range is set in advance may be stored in the database, and the data may be read in step S13.

  Next, in step S14, the “evaluation score data of each vehicle evaluation item” of each benchmark vehicle set in step S12 is read, and the read evaluation score and the range value set in S3 Thus, the basic target value is calculated.

  Here, the “basic target value” is a target value based on the benchmark vehicle at the start of planning of the planned vehicle. First, a target value having a correlation that falls within a predetermined range value is set for the benchmark vehicle at the start of the vehicle planning. Since the goal is to enter a range rather than a certain absolute value, it is only necessary to obtain a rough performance, and planning can proceed effectively.

  Thereby, it is understood that the calculated target value should be achieved for the benchmark vehicle (competitive vehicle) at the start of planning. Further, the basic target value obtained in this way is not an absolute value that changes with time, but a relative value with respect to an evaluation point based on a predetermined standard of a benchmark vehicle existing at the time of vehicle development. The performance can be set appropriately (competitive and superior). The position of competitor cars and other company's old models will be clarified, and productivity and competitiveness will be gained (manufacturer characteristics can be realized and differentiation from other companies can be achieved). Since the vehicle evaluation items are defined, the performance of the planned vehicle can be set effectively.

  Further, the target achievement range of the vehicle evaluation items is determined in advance with respect to each vehicle evaluation item relative positioning (dominance) with respect to the benchmark vehicle. This range (rank) will be described below.

  FIG. 17B shows a distribution of evaluation points for handling performance of a plurality of vehicles selected from existing vehicles. The horizontal axis indicates the evaluation points, and the vertical axis indicates the number of vehicles having each evaluation point. It is shown. When a plurality of vehicles are selected in this way, generally, many vehicles gather near a certain evaluation point.

  In this embodiment, as shown in FIG. 17 (b), an area including the top 30% of cars is set as range 1, an evaluation score is lower than that of range 1, and 45% of the selected vehicles are included. The range (evaluation point width) is defined as range 2, the evaluation point is lower than range 2, and the region including 25% of cars is defined as range 3, which is defined in three stages. It should be noted that it is desirable to define% of each range in the range 2 so as to include the evaluation points (maximum points in the diagram of the figure) that most cars have.

  Here, when the distribution is a normal distribution, the range 2 may be determined centering on the peak (the maximum point of the diagram in the figure), or has a certain evaluation point and the evaluation point. It may be determined centering on the place where the value obtained by integrating the vehicle is large, or it may be determined so as to include several tens of percents around the average value of the evaluation points of the selected vehicle. . That is, first, the range 2 may be set, and the remaining portions may be determined as the range 1 and the range 3.

  In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 17A, the operator sets a target achievement range for each vehicle evaluation item of the planned vehicle. For example, the ride comfort performance is set to range 2, the handling performance is set to range 1, and the like. In other words, as the characteristics of the planned vehicle, the operator sets an average performance with respect to the selected vehicle with respect to the ride comfort performance, and has a superior performance with respect to the selected vehicle with respect to the handling performance. . Note that data in which a target achievement range as shown in FIG. 17A is set in advance may be stored in a database and read.

  The basic target value is calculated for the range set in this way. That is, as shown in FIG. 17 (a), when range 1 is set for handling performance (when it is desired to obtain superior performance over the selected vehicle), as shown in FIG. A score of 6.0 or more, which is an evaluation score corresponding to 1, is a basic target value. That is, if the planned vehicle has a handling performance of 6.0 points or more that clear the target value, the handling performance is superior to the existing vehicle.

  By the way, when the vehicle having a very high evaluation score is included in the range 1, the target value to be calculated is very high. In such a case, it is conceivable that a vehicle having an excessive performance is planned, and as a result, the balance of the performance of the vehicle is lost or extra cost is required. Therefore, in the present embodiment, the basic target value corresponding to range 1 is 7.0 points obtained by adding 1.0 points of a predetermined point width from 6.0 points which is the lower limit value of range 1. Are calculated as basic target values. That is, the basic target value is calculated as having a width such as 6.0-6.5-7.0 points.

  Here, a vehicle selected as a benchmark vehicle for range setting will be described. The operator selects a benchmark vehicle that he / she thinks will specifically compete with the planned vehicle, and sets a range (advantage) for the selected benchmark vehicle, so that the target value including the superiority for the competing benchmark vehicle is included. Can be obtained.

  The proportion of vehicles included in each range and the number of ranges can be changed according to the category or class of the planned vehicle. That is, an appropriate range can be set according to the type of the planned vehicle.

  However, there may be several benchmark vehicles that compete specifically. In this case, there is a case where there is little data, and as a result, the evaluation score corresponding to the target achievement level is not appropriate. In other words, the set basic target values may not be appropriate for cars of the same category in the world (including many cars other than benchmark vehicles). Then, the target value corresponding to range 1 or range 2 becomes too high or too low.

  For example, even if there are four benchmark vehicles, and they were real competitors, the target value was determined by developing only the competitors, and as a result, the low-level ones were completed when viewed from the world level. It can happen.

  Therefore, when selecting a benchmark vehicle for setting the range, it is necessary to make a car that has a certain advantage over at least the competitors and that maintains a certain level for the world.

  Moreover, when there are few benchmark vehicles, distribution may not be obtained. That is, as the number of vehicles to be selected for range setting increases, a portion closer to the diagram as shown in FIG. 17B can be obtained, so that the basic target value corresponding to the range can be easily calculated.

  Therefore, in the present embodiment, the following can be performed by the operator's selection. That is, first, the operator separately selects a benchmark vehicle that competes specifically and a range setting vehicle as vehicles to be selected from existing vehicles. The range setting vehicle may or may not include a benchmark vehicle.

  Then, the respective distributions of the benchmark vehicle and the range setting vehicle are calculated, and two diagrams as shown in FIG. 18 are displayed on the screen. By displaying in this way, the operator can determine how much performance the benchmark vehicle has with respect to vehicles in the entire market (for example, the same category). The operator can correct the basic target value calculated for the benchmark vehicle by looking at such a distribution. For example, the target value calculated from the distribution of the benchmark vehicle as described above is brought close to the distribution of the vehicle in the market in consideration of the difference between the two distributions (for example, 0.6 points) as shown in FIG. For example, when the evaluation point peak is shifted by 0.6 points, for example, 0.3 points may be automatically added.

  Further, a distribution for calculating a target value may be properly used for each range. For example, in range 1, a target value corresponding to range 1 is calculated from the distribution of benchmark vehicles, and in range 2 and range 3, target values corresponding to range 2 and range 3 are calculated from the market distribution. By doing this, it is possible to obtain the characteristics of the planned vehicle by separating the vehicle evaluation items that are absolutely superior to the competing vehicle and the vehicle evaluation items that should be average with respect to the market. .

  As described above, by selecting the range setting vehicle together with the benchmark vehicle, it is possible to obtain a basic target value that takes into consideration both the market and competitors.

  Here, the Venn diagram of FIG. 19 schematically shows the relationship between the benchmark vehicle and the vehicle selected as the range setting vehicle in the present embodiment. Here, the “existing vehicle” refers to a vehicle that has existed in the market up to the present time, ideally almost all. Further, the “benchmark vehicle (competitor vehicle)” refers to a vehicle for calculating a target value corresponding to the range. In addition, the “range setting vehicle” means a vehicle that is added to the benchmark vehicle or is used instead of the benchmark vehicle to calculate a target value according to the range, and the number of benchmark vehicles is small. Used to calculate a reasonable target value.

  The “reference vehicle” refers to a vehicle used as a reference when planning a vehicle. As will be described later, in the present embodiment, in the layout verification model (single model), one vehicle is selected as the reference vehicle, and in the performance verification model (multiple part model), a plurality of parts are selected for each part. Each of these reference vehicles is not limited to its own vehicle, and in particular, in the performance verification model, it may be selected from existing vehicles including benchmark vehicles.

  In this way, by setting the target achievement range, it is possible to focus investment on the required performance, and it is possible to show the individuality and flavor of the vehicle. That is, by setting the degree of superiority with respect to the benchmark vehicle for each vehicle evaluation item such as maneuverability and fuel consumption, it is possible to give the vehicle personality and seasoning to the vehicle. As a result, merchandise and competitiveness can be given to the planned vehicle.

  Furthermore, as the individuality of such a manufacturer, for example, if the distribution and balance of target achievement ranges for each vehicle evaluation item are the same regardless of the category (minivan, compact car, etc.) It is possible to make the occupant feel the same personality even if he rides. If the target achievement range of the handling performance is set to be superior to the benchmark vehicle, any planned vehicle can be a vehicle that is superior in handling compared to other companies and older models.

  Next, the reference vehicle setting (layout verification model / performance verification model) step (step S2 in FIG. 15) will be described. The step of setting the reference vehicle for the planned vehicle includes steps S21 and S22 shown in FIG.

  In setting the reference vehicle for the planned vehicle, first, in step 21, the operator sets the reference vehicle for each of the layout verification model and the performance verification model. That is, the operator selects a vehicle as a base for constructing the planned vehicle by the vehicle model (layout verification model, performance verification model) from the existing vehicles, and sets it on the system. In selecting the reference vehicle, although not shown, a list of existing vehicles is displayed, from which an operator selects.

  In the present embodiment, one vehicle is selected as the reference vehicle for the layout verification model. In the display example shown in FIG. 20, the D car is selected. Further, as shown in FIG. 21, a plurality of vehicles are selected by region as reference vehicles for the performance verification model. In this way, the planned vehicle is not built from scratch, but based on a vehicle having data such as specifications and evaluation points.

  Next, in step 22, all the data possessed by the reference vehicle such as evaluation points, specification values, system performance evaluation values of the vehicle evaluation items related to the set reference vehicle are read from the database 1 to the computer 2. It is. Then, a reference vehicle model is constructed based on the vehicle data of these reference vehicles.

Here, the reference vehicle of the performance verification model will be described.
The reference vehicle model 60 of the performance verification model is a model that virtually represents one vehicle composed of a plurality of regions 61 to 69 such as a front region 61 and a front seat lower region 62 as shown in FIG. In each of these areas, different reference vehicles can be set individually. In the example shown in FIG. 21, the A car is set in the front area 61, the front seat upper area 65, and the rear seat upper area 66, and the B car, the C car, and the D car are set in the other areas, respectively. For example, it is possible to set a D-car with high engine performance in the engine region 67 and verify the performance of the vehicle when an excellent engine is mounted.

  By setting a reference vehicle for each of these areas, it is possible to determine the performance image of the vehicle (for example, front area, comfortability, rear area, engine, etc.). For example, by separately defining the suspension performance area 68 with respect to the front area 61, for example, when the front area 61 is a car A, it is possible to verify the performance of a vehicle in which a suspension of a company or another company is separately mounted. It is. The engine region 67 is the same. The suspension region 68 can be set as a separate region on the front wheel side and the rear wheel side. In addition, because it has the rear seat and rear areas, it is possible to verify the comfortability and loadability separately. Further, the fuel tank area 69 can verify the weight distribution and the performance of the habitable space.

  In this way, by configuring the reference vehicle model of the performance verification model from a plurality of reference vehicle parts, a good arrangement of the existing vehicle can be achieved. That is, an existing vehicle can be separately defined for each region, and a vehicle having the closest specifications and performance to be given to each region as a planned vehicle can be set, so that a prediction performance error can be reduced.

  This makes it easier to apply an image of an unusually shaped car in the operator's head. And if it is the unusual shape, it will be easy to obtain what the performance will be. Rather than modifying one car, by applying a vehicle that fits the image to each part, the amount of change with respect to the reference vehicle can be reduced, and both perform performance calculations based on the data of the reference vehicle. Performance evaluation value can be obtained.

  In this way, if a performance verification model is constructed, it is possible to verify the performance mainly by changing numerical specifications and system changes without requiring visual display of the vehicle. Efficiency can be improved.

  And, for example, vehicle planning can be advanced from a plurality of benchmark vehicles by combining systems and areas (such as around the front) included in the vehicle from a plurality of benchmark vehicles, such as A car around the front and B car around the passenger compartment. For this reason, if there are things that you want to incorporate into the planning vehicle (front area, cabin space, transmission, etc.) and those that use your own systems or parts (engines, suspensions, etc.), which is the planning vehicle that combines them? It can be effectively verified whether such performance (evaluation point for each vehicle evaluation item) is possessed. Such an operation is inefficient to change from one vehicle (D car) like the layout verification model.

  Therefore, it is possible to efficiently grasp the approximate performance of the planned vehicle before the detailed verification considering the shape consistency by the layout verification model. As a result, the unit / part and approximate vehicle configuration can be determined. After such a determination, the layout verification model can be verified in more detail.

・ Each system and area of the performance verification model (front area) has all data such as specification values (data of the reference vehicle stored in the database), so it can be displayed visually. It is. However, since units such as the engine and various regions are combined, there is a contradiction in the vehicle shape. However, in this state, the performance can be verified by visually changing the engine position on the screen.

  By the way, the performance verification model of this embodiment verifies the performance of a virtual vehicle in which a plurality of reference vehicles (A to D vehicles in the figure) are combined. For this reason, it is necessary to calculate the capability value (reference evaluation point) of the reference vehicle model from the evaluation points of the vehicle evaluation items of the combined reference vehicles. That is, unlike a layout verification model, a certain vehicle is not a reference vehicle, so it is difficult to use the evaluation points stored in the database as they are.

  In the present embodiment, the evaluation score of the performance verification model is calculated based on the contribution rate to the vehicle evaluation items in each region. That is, the evaluation points of the reference vehicle set in each region are read out, and the reference evaluation points are determined in consideration of the contribution rate of each part (region) to each vehicle evaluation item shown in FIG. For example, in the handling performance, the contribution ratio of the front area and the suspension area is very large. When car A is used in the front area and car B is used in the suspension area, the contribution rate is multiplied by the evaluation point of handling performance of vehicle A, and the contribution rate is multiplied by the evaluation point of handling performance of vehicle B. By adding together, the evaluation score of the handling performance of the performance verification model combining a plurality of reference vehicles is calculated.

  Here, FIG. 22 shows a calculation table that defines the contribution ratio of each region to each vehicle evaluation item. In the example shown in FIG. 22, the riding comfort performance is defined as 50% in the suspension region, 30% in the engine region, and the remaining 20% contributing 5% to the front seat lower region. For example, if the suspension area is A car, the engine area is B car, the front seat lower area is C car, etc., the evaluation score of the riding comfort performance of A car stored in the database is multiplied by 50%, Similarly, the value obtained by multiplying the evaluation score of the B car by 30% and the value obtained by multiplying the evaluation score of the C car by 20% is added together to calculate the reference evaluation score of the ride performance of the performance verification model.

  Furthermore, in this embodiment, in order to calculate the ability value of each vehicle evaluation item of the performance verification model, the influence index is set to a specific value. Here, the influence index is an index necessary for calculating the addition / subtraction value of the performance evaluation value by the performance influence function, and specifically, specifications and system performance. In the performance verification model, since a plurality of parts (front region etc.) are combined, a rule for determining a specific value as an influence index is provided.

As such rules, the following rules are mainly defined in the present embodiment.
(1) With respect to dimensions relating to dimensions such as the roof height, when there is no alignment at the boundary of each area, an average value of each dimension is calculated so as to achieve alignment between the areas. For example, when the roof heights in the front seat upper region and the rear seat upper region are different, the average value thereof is defined as the roof height. In consideration of habitability, it may be adjusted to the larger value.

  (2) Regarding the center of gravity of the entire vehicle, the weight and the center of gravity of each region are first calculated, and the center of gravity of the entire vehicle is calculated based on these values and the relative distance of each region.

  (3) Use the performance of the engine and suspension areas as they are.

  (4) The vehicle body rigidity (mounting portion rigidity, torsional rigidity, bending rigidity), aerodynamics, and the like are calculated in consideration of the contribution ratio of each region shown in FIG. 23, for example. For example, the rigidity of the entire vehicle body is defined as having a very large contribution ratio (35% of rigidity) in the front seat lower area and the rear seat lower area (35% of each), and the front area and rear area. Contribution ratio (each 10%) and contribution ratio (5% each) of the upper front seat area and the rear upper seat area. For example, since car A is set in the front region, the contribution rate (10%) is multiplied by the value of the body rigidity of the car A (stored in the existing vehicle data in the database). Similarly, the contribution ratio (35%) is multiplied to the vehicle body rigidity (stored in the database) of the B car set in the front seat lower area and the rear seat lower area. Similarly, the remaining areas are calculated in consideration of the contribution rate. Then, the vehicle body rigidity of the performance verification model is calculated by adding all the values calculated for each region.

  In this way, for example, an index for calculating how much the vehicle body rigidity is reduced when a car with high comfortability (a large cabin space and low rigidity) is selected can be obtained.

  Regarding the vehicle body rigidity, data of the layout verification model may be used as a temporary value. That is, for example, when a D car is set as the layout verification model and the system such as the suspension is mainly changed for the D car, but the plan is advanced on the premise that the vehicle body rigidity does not change greatly. The vehicle body stiffness may be used as the vehicle body stiffness of the performance verification model.

  Further, for example, as shown in the graph of FIG. 24, the vehicle body rigidity is estimated from the correlation between the “front and rear lengths” of a plurality of existing vehicles (for example, the A car and the X car) and the bending rigidity value. It may be.

  Next, the final target value setting step (step S3 in FIG. 15) by correcting the basic target value will be described. The final target value setting step by correcting the basic target value includes the step of S31 shown in FIG. In this step S31, “basic target value” is corrected for each vehicle evaluation item, and “target value (true target value)” is set on the system. In step S31, the operator can arbitrarily select from the following correction means.

First, the correction example (1) will be described.
Considering the following viewpoints, the operator manually inputs a correction value and sets a final target value on the system. As a correction point of view, a time correction is considered. In other words, the planned vehicles will become actual vehicles in one or two years, and the vehicles that are originally competing in the market are not the existing benchmark vehicles, but the product quality of those benchmark vehicles is further improved. . Therefore, the planned vehicle that has become a real vehicle gains an advantage corresponding to the set target achievement range with respect to those evolved benchmark vehicles. In this case, the “temporal correction data” in the database can be displayed and referred to by the operator.

  Further, as a correction viewpoint, there is a correction for obtaining the characteristic of the vehicle more reliably. That is, only a certain vehicle evaluation item is absolutely superior, or when it is desired to obtain outstanding performance, the basic target value can be set higher.

Next, a correction example (2) will be described.
The system automatically performs correction from the viewpoint of time based on data indicating a predetermined time trend. The “temporal correction data” in the database is used. In the time correction data, data indicating the correlation between the evaluation point of the vehicle evaluation item and the time (year) is stored for each category. FIG. 26 shows, as an example, a graph showing the correlation between the riding comfort performance of the vehicle evaluation item and the time. Such correlation data is stored in the database for all vehicle evaluation items.

  As shown in FIG. 26, the temporal tendency of the evaluation points of the vehicle evaluation items of the existing vehicle is stored as data, and if it is riding comfort performance, for example, it is estimated that it will increase by 0.2 points after one year. When the operator inputs the sales time, the target value is automatically corrected by the data shown in this figure.

  In addition, data indicating the correlation between specifications and system performance and time (year) is stored. FIG. 27 shows, as an example, a graph showing the correlation between the wheelbase that is the specification and the time (year). The database stores such correlation data for all specifications and system performance.

  As shown in FIG. 27, the time trend of the specifications (wheel base) is stored as data, and the trend of the wheel base length market or the benchmark vehicle at the sales time is estimated. For example, when the operator inputs the sales time, the system estimates that the wheelbase extends 100 mm. Since the specifications such as the wheel base are included in the above-mentioned influence index, the degree of increase or decrease in the evaluation score of the vehicle evaluation item accompanying the extension of the wheel base is determined by the system according to the performance influence function described above. The degree is calculated.

  The evaluation points are added and subtracted with respect to all the vehicle evaluation items affected by the wheelbase, and the addition / subtraction amount becomes the correction amount of the basic target value as it is. For example, the amount of correction is calculated based on the amount of extension of the wheelbase and the performance influence function, such that the target value of riding comfort is +0.2 points, and handling is -0.1 points because handling becomes worse.

  As described above, as a result of correcting the vehicle evaluation items and specifications from the viewpoint of time, for example, in the example shown in FIG. 25, the basic target value of the riding comfort performance is 5.2-5.5-5. 7 (see FIG. 16) is corrected to 6.2-6.5-6.7 as the final target value.

  In the present embodiment, in such correction, the system can be set so as to enable correction within a range not exceeding the basic target value. With such a setting, if there is a vehicle with a very high performance and a high cost among vehicles corresponding to the range 1 without completely taking into account the evolution of the era, even those having the highest performance are exceeded. A realistic vehicle can be planned without setting such an excessive target value.

  In the embodiment, when the first target value in a certain range is 6.0-6.5-7.0, the computer sets the upper limit value to be 6.4-6.7-7.0. Correct so that it is suppressed. It can also be set under the condition that the intermediate value does not exceed the range.

  In the present embodiment, the automatically corrected final target value can be further corrected manually by an operator. By manually correcting in this way, for example, in the future when a new technology that greatly affects performance improvement is expected in the market or in-house, the target value can be further corrected in consideration of it. .

Next, a correction example (3) will be described.
In order to reliably satisfy the customer request, correction is performed based on predetermined customer request data. There are cases where the system performs this automatically, and cases where the operator makes an arbitrary input.

First, a case where the system automatically performs correction will be described.
As an example of customer request data, the auxiliary data for evaluation in the database includes, for example, a correlation between a customer evaluation index related to fuel consumption and a practical fuel consumption (corresponding to fuel efficiency performance of a vehicle evaluation item) as shown in the figure. The indicated data is stored.

  On the other hand, the existing vehicle data in the database stores data related to customer evaluation index points related to existing vehicles. Such customer evaluation indexes include, for example, those relating to handling and engine performance as shown in FIG. Therefore, for the benchmark vehicle selected in step S12 of FIG. 16, as shown in FIG. 28B, the distribution of customer evaluation index points (the customer evaluation index points on the horizontal axis) is the customer evaluation index (handling and engine performance). Etc.) respectively.

  Then, in consideration of the target achievement range set in step S13 of FIG. 16, for such distribution, a customer evaluation index point that can obtain an advantage over the benchmark vehicle can be calculated in the same manner as in step S14. it can. For example, when customer evaluation index points of the benchmark vehicle are distributed from 80 points to 140 points, the score corresponding to the range 1 is calculated as 120 to 140 points.

  Here, for example, when the basic target value of fuel efficiency is calculated as 4.6-4.8-5.0 in step S14 of FIG. 16, as shown in FIG. 28 (b), the basic target value is calculated. The customer evaluation index score for is lower than 120 points. In such a case, even if the fuel efficiency performance itself can have an advantage over the benchmark vehicle, there is a possibility that the customer request cannot be satisfied. Therefore, based on the data as shown in FIG. 28B, the basic target value related to the fuel efficiency is increased and corrected so as to satisfy the customer evaluation index points 120 to 140, and the final target value related to the fuel efficiency is 5.0−. Set to 5.3-5.6.

  Further, such correction of the target value is based on the importance level data of each customer evaluation index as shown in FIG. 28A stored in the auxiliary data for evaluation of the database for each category or class. It is also possible to correct only the vehicle evaluation items corresponding to a high customer evaluation index (performance emphasized by the customer) or to increase the correction amount.

  In this way, the final target value satisfies the customer requirements while being adapted to the market. Further, by correcting based on the existing vehicle data as shown in FIG. 28 (b), a target value that satisfies the customer requirements is not set, so that the final balanced or extra cost is required. You can plan a car that does not cost.

  The automatically corrected target value can be further corrected manually by the operator for each vehicle evaluation item. With such a modification, for example, priority is given to the manufacturer's technical level setting (such as deliberately returning the target value to the one before correction), or a target value that greatly exceeds the customer's requirements due to the manufacturer's design concept and product strategy. It is also possible to set.

Next, the case where an operator inputs arbitrarily is demonstrated.
First, when the basic target value is calculated in step S14 of FIG. 16, a customer evaluation index corresponding to the target value is displayed based on the data as shown in FIG. For example, “customer evaluation index (basic target value): 100 to 120 points” is displayed. On the other hand, for the benchmark vehicle selected in step S12 of FIG. 16, the distribution of customer evaluation index points is displayed in FIG. 28B (the horizontal axis is the customer evaluation index points).

  The operator can determine how superior the customer evaluation index point with respect to the basic target value is over the benchmark vehicle by these two displays. Then, when the customer evaluation index point relating to the fuel efficiency is a score corresponding to the range 2, an increase correction amount of the basic target value is input so that the superiority of the range 1 can be obtained over the benchmark vehicle. In this case, for example, the operator refers to the data in FIG. In this way, an advantage over the benchmark vehicle can be obtained both in terms of technology and customer requirements. In this way, when there is a considerable difference between the technical aspect and the customer requirement, it can be filled by correction.

  On the other hand, when it can be judged that the range 2 which is an average level of the market is sufficient with respect to customer requirements, it is possible to select an increase correction amount to be small, a decrease correction, or no correction. . For example, when the basic target value is calculated, it is judged whether the customer wants the fuel efficiency so much, or when the technological trend of the automobile industry is seen, an excellent engine that improves the fuel efficiency is installed. If there is no possibility, the target value may be lowered to the extent that customer demand can be met at an average level.

  Further, the operator can individually correct a plurality of customer evaluation indexes (handling, engine performance, etc.) corresponding to each vehicle evaluation item. In this case, importance level data of each customer evaluation index as shown in FIG. There are a plurality of data as shown in FIG. 28A for each category and class, and they are stored in the auxiliary data for evaluation in the database. That is, what the customer considers important differs depending on the category and class.

The operator refers to the data as shown in FIG. 28A according to the category and class of the vehicle to be planned, for example, increases the increase correction amount of the important one, and increases or decreases the correction amount. And whether or not correction is performed, and the correction amount is input as described above.
Note that a correction amount corresponding to the importance may be determined in advance (stored in a database), and the system may automatically perform correction according to the data.

  Thus, in the correction means (3), the final target value can be determined for the benchmark vehicle in consideration of both technical aspects and market evaluation aspects.

  Next, the step of calculating the gap value between the actual value of the reference vehicle and the target value (step S4 in FIG. 15) will be described. The step of calculating the gap value between the actual value of the reference vehicle and the target value includes the step of S41 shown in FIG. In this step S41, the difference (gap value) between the evaluation point of the reference vehicle read in step 22 in FIG. 20 and the final target value set in step S31 in FIG. 25 is calculated for each vehicle evaluation item. The Then, the calculated gap value is displayed as shown in FIG. 29 for each vehicle evaluation item together with the final target value and the actual value (reference value) of the reference vehicle. The operator can grasp a specific difference for each vehicle evaluation item, and can be used as a measure of how much the performance of each evaluation item should be improved as a planned vehicle.

In step S41, it is desirable to display a bar graph as shown in FIG. In this graph, the graph of the D car is the evaluation point of the D car that is the reference vehicle of the layout verification model, and the current competitor vehicle reference value is the average value of the evaluation points of each benchmark vehicle read in S4, The competitive vehicle standard expected value at the time of sale is an evaluation score obtained by adding a time correction amount calculated from the data shown in FIG. 26 or 27 to the average value. These average values and corrected average values are automatically calculated.
It is also possible to display an evaluation point of a specific rival vehicle that is regarded as most important among benchmark vehicles. These values can be arbitrarily input and displayed by the operator.

Further, the estimated ability value of the planned vehicle is the ability value of the reference vehicle at the time of step S41, and the target value of the planned vehicle is the final target value calculated in step S31. Since this target value is a value having a width according to the target achievement range, this graph displays both the average value and the value having the width. In this way, it is possible to know at which position within the range of the target value having a range the actual value, so that there is an advantage that the correction priority can be determined in relation to other vehicle evaluation items.
In addition, the capability value of the planned vehicle in the performance verification model is calculated from the evaluation points of a plurality of reference vehicles as described above.

  In the graph shown in FIG. 30, the ability value of the performance verification model is displayed as the ability value of the planned vehicle, but the ability value of the planned vehicle in the layout verification model can also be displayed. In addition, it is desirable that the ratio of the D car, the ratio to the competitor car reference value, and the gap value ratio are displayed in% on the graph.

  Here, it is often the case that the manufacturer (in-house) actually starts development based on its own car (D-car). Therefore, by displaying the graph of the D car and the ratio of the D car, the operator can obtain an indication of how much development should be done. In addition, the standard value for competitor cars at the time of sales is based on benchmark vehicle evaluation points that can be said to be the technical level of the industry that currently exists. Therefore, it can be used as a guideline that it is a substantial reference point at the start of development of vehicle planning.

  Next, the execution of vehicle planning by the vehicle model and the calculation step of its ability value (step S5 in FIG. 15) will be described. The execution of the vehicle planning by the vehicle model and the calculation step of the ability value include steps S51 to S56 shown in FIG. 31, and the vehicle planning is advanced by the vehicle model (layout verification model, performance verification model).

  In executing the vehicle planning by the vehicle model and calculating the ability value thereof, first, in step S51, the parts / units to be changed and the performance change are set by the performance verification model. Specifically, it is displayed on the setting / change screen as shown in FIG. 32A that the vehicle D is selected as the reference vehicle. As the specification of the vehicle D, for example, information indicating that the engine 2.3L / mission 4AT is mounted is displayed in a tree format. In addition, the change button, the setting button, and the diversion button are displayed.

  Then, when changing a part or the like, when a change button of, for example, a power plant in an upper hierarchy is pressed, as shown in FIG. The operator can input the setting and the change of the mission, and the changed one is set by the input. Further, in the example shown in the figure, carry-over setting such as a front suspension is set (Diversion of car D).

  Here, when the engine specifications are changed, the parts (air cleaner, etc.) specified in the lower hierarchy of the engine are changed to the parts of the engine after the change based on the database data. Automatically changed. In addition, when the front suspension is set to carry over, for example, at a higher level, the diversion setting is automatically made for suspension components (such as bushes) at the lower level.

  Here, the system and parts for which carryover is set cannot be changed by the layout verification model or the performance verification model so that the operator does not change them accidentally in the subsequent planning. In addition, a warning is issued when a change is attempted, or the morphing screen on which the layout verification model is displayed is displayed in a color different from other portions. Such carry-over setting is also displayed on the specification value input screen in the layout verification model, or can be set on the specification value input screen.

Next, in step 52, specifications are changed in the performance verification model.
In the performance verification model, when the specifications are changed, the changed specification values are set by the operator inputting the changed numerical values on the display as shown in FIG. The vehicle height can be changed, and the engine and tank mounting positions can be changed.

  In this embodiment, by these steps S51 and S52, first, in the performance verification model, the individuality as the planned vehicle and the intention of the operator can be put into the planned vehicle.

  Next, in step S53, an ability value of the planned vehicle based on the performance verification model is calculated. By the operations in steps S51 and S52, the influence index defined based on the predetermined rule described above is changed, and as described above, the evaluation point (ability value) of each vehicle evaluation item is determined by the change amount and the performance influence function. Calculated. By displaying this ability value, the operator can verify how the power performance changes due to, for example, a change in engine or mission.

  Next, in step S54, a layout verification model is constructed. In the present embodiment, the layout verification model is used after the performance verification model. Therefore, in step S54, as described above, conversion from the performance verification model to the layout verification model is performed while maintaining the consistency of the shape and the evaluation points of the respective vehicle evaluation items are not greatly changed. (Note that the layout verification model may be given priority in vehicles that place importance on design).

  Next, in step S55, the shape and layout of the vehicle are corrected or changed on the morphing screen described above using the layout verification model constructed in step S54. For example, it is possible to change specifications that define the engine position, change the vehicle height, and the like.

  Next, in step S56, an ability value of the planned vehicle based on the layout verification model is calculated. As described above, the evaluation score of each vehicle evaluation item is calculated based on the change amount of the specification that is the influence index and the performance influence function.

  By displaying this ability value, the operator can verify how much the evaluation point of handling performance changes by changing the center of gravity or the yaw moment of inertia, for example, by changing the engine position or vehicle height. it can.

By the way, the ability of the performance of the planned vehicle is calculated as an evaluation score for each vehicle evaluation item.
The evaluation point of each vehicle evaluation item depends on specifications and system performance. In this embodiment, specifications and system performance that greatly affect such vehicle evaluation items are defined as “influence indexes”. FIG. 33 shows a summary of such influence indexes. FIG. 34, FIG. 35 (a), and FIG. 35 (b) show an example of a table that defines the relationship between each vehicle evaluation item and the influence index.

  For example, in FIG. 34, as the influence index of the entire vehicle, the center of gravity, the wheel base, and the like are shown on the vertical axis. In the present embodiment, the center of gravity is defined as one that affects handling performance, braking performance, and safety performance. Such a table is predefined for all vehicle specifications and system performance. For example, as shown in FIGS. 35 (a) and 35 (b), the correlation between the influence index and the vehicle evaluation item is also defined for the system such as the suspension and the engine. For example, the longitudinal stiffness of the suspension is defined as having an influence on a plurality of performances such as the ride comfort performance that is a vehicle evaluation item.

  As described above, the planned vehicle is constructed based on a reference vehicle selected from existing vehicles. Therefore, the reference vehicle has an evaluation score for each vehicle evaluation item as an objectively accurate value. In this embodiment, such an evaluation score of the reference vehicle is calculated by the database 1. The ability value of the planned vehicle is calculated by adding and subtracting using the performance influence function stored in the business data.

  Here, for example, the evaluation score of handling performance increases when the center of gravity of the vehicle is lowered. Such a relationship is defined as an objective numerical value, which is a performance influence function shown in FIG. In the example shown in FIG. 36, a variation amount (performance influence amount) of an evaluation point of handling performance that is a vehicle evaluation item with respect to a change amount of “center of gravity” that is an influence index is defined. Such a relationship can be obtained by conventional research and development or tests using actual vehicles.

In this embodiment, when the specifications of the planned vehicle and the system performance are changed, in order to calculate the ability value as an objective numerical value, all of the impact indicators (all specifications and system performance) and vehicle evaluation items are calculated. Data is created in advance for these combinations. Therefore, for example, when the wheelbase is raised, an objective relationship is obtained such that the evaluation score of riding comfort is increased by XX and the evaluation score of handling performance is decreased by XX.
In FIG. 36, the performance influence function is shown as a linear function, but it is also expressed as another function such as a quadratic function.

  Furthermore, in the present embodiment, the error amount is defined as a performance influence error function for such a magnitude of the performance influence amount as shown in an example in FIG. In the example shown in FIG. 26B, the error is ± 3% when the center of gravity is changed by 50 mm. Such an error amount differs depending on the category of the vehicle. For example, in a sports car, handling performance is very important, so the amount of error is intentionally increased so that the operator can recognize that the addition or subtraction of evaluation points may greatly affect the handling performance. Yes.

  When calculating the ability value of the planned vehicle, if planning is started and the center of gravity of the reference vehicle is changed by 50 mm, 0.2 points will be added to the evaluation score of the handling performance of the reference vehicle. Thus, the ability value of the planned vehicle is calculated. On the other hand, when the suspension type is changed, as the suspension type is changed, as shown in FIG. 35A, other influence indexes such as the longitudinal rigidity of the suspension are also changed. What happens to the evaluation point is determined by the sum of the amount of adjustment of all the performance impact functions of those impact indexes.

  As described above, the ability of the planned vehicle when the specifications and system performance are changed is calculated as an objective numerical value.

  Next, conversion of the performance verification model to the layout verification model will be described. As a planning vehicle, it is necessary to make the shape consistent in the end. In other words, when planning with a performance verification model, in order to convert it to a layout verification model, the inconsistency of the arrangement and shape continuity between systems and regions is corrected, and the vehicle shape and structure are established as a whole. It is necessary to let In this case, for example, the conversion is performed according to the following rules.

  First, from the performance verification model, a layout verification model that should be constrained is extracted. For example, bumper positions, overhang distances, cowl positions, bonnet heights, and other items that are constrained by performance, such as collision requirements, are maintained as the specifications in the performance verification model. In the layout verification model, the engine is arranged at a position that does not interfere with the cowl position and the hood height.

  In addition, for example, items that affect various vehicle evaluation items such as a wheel base are basically not changed. In other words, the specifications to be adjusted in order to obtain the consistency of the shape are determined in order of priority to be fixed for each region, and are adjusted from the lowest priority. In this way, shape consistency can be obtained while maintaining performance as much as possible. Specifically, specifications and systems that have a large contribution rate that affect vehicle evaluation items are defined in advance, and the priority order to be adjusted is fixed based on that definition, such as fixing specifications that have a large contribution rate. It is defined as.

  In addition, the contribution ratio in appearance shape reproduction is determined for each region. For example, in the case where the cowl position is low in terms of visibility and high in terms of collision performance, in order to maintain the performance evaluation value of the performance verification model, the front region and the front seat upper region or the front seat lower portion In the area, the contribution ratio of the front area is increased (for example, 80%) so that the cowl position in the front area does not change significantly. On the other hand, since visibility is also required, the contribution ratio of the front seat area is given to some extent (for example, 20%). In addition, the operator can set priorities in advance.

  By the way, the construction of the layout verification model and the construction of the performance verification model may proceed in parallel. In this case, for example, when the specification (wheel base) is changed in one model, the specification of the other model is also changed, and accordingly, the shape or performance is also changed. That is, by changing the wheel base, the shape (layout verification model) also changes, and the performance (performance verification model) such as riding comfort also changes.

  In addition, since the engine center affects the performance such as the maneuverability, first, the engine center is determined by the performance verification model. On the other hand, in the layout verification model, the engine is arranged with reference to the engine center. At that time, if the gap with the dashboard is small or the requirements on the layout such as not satisfying the heat exhausting requirements are not satisfied, a warning is displayed. In that case, the operator adjusts other parts so that a clearance of the dashboard can be secured with the engine center as a constraint.

  In such a case, the operator develops by assuming that each model is imaginary, and that this type of car (the layout verification model D car) has such a performance (fusion performance of A to D). Proceed. In order to proceed with such a plan, it is necessary to finally make one car, so adjustments are made so as to approach each other at the operator's discretion. In order to make it easier for the operator to perform the work, the layout verification model displays a combination of models A to D, and the shape of the D vehicle, which is the reference vehicle of the layout verification model, is changed with reference to it. Also good.

  In addition, when giving priority to the development of the shape, the planning based on the layout verification model may be advanced, and the planning based on the performance verification model may be advanced thereafter or in the middle.

  By the way, conversion from a performance verification model to a layout verification model is not always possible. For example, when the cowl position is low in terms of visibility and high in terms of collision performance, such a trade-off relationship may not be satisfied. In that case, for example, it is necessary to allow interference between parts and display the shape (layout verification model) or compromise somewhere, so the operator corrects it with the layout verification model in mind for the reported error. Is good.

  Further, even if the operator adjusts the vehicle models, the design standard (collision space (distance between parts, etc.) and thermal requirements) and regulation may not be satisfied and it may not be possible.

  As the layout verification model, a model excluding the structural model may be used. In this case, in particular, the exterior, the living space, and visibility can be verified. On the other hand, performance including rigidity and strength is verified by a performance verification model. Finally, the performance verification model and the layout verification model are combined. A portion where consistency is not achieved (a boundary portion of each region or a portion that interferes with other appearance models) can be corrected as described above. Further, a reference model or an appearance model of the layout verification model may be constructed from a plurality of reference vehicles combined in the performance verification model. In that case, correct the inconsistency.

  Next, the calculation step (step S6 in FIG. 15) of the gap value between the actual value and the target value of the planned vehicle will be described. The step of calculating the gap value between the planned vehicle ability value and the target value includes the step of S61 shown in FIG.

  Step S61 for calculating the gap value between the actual value and the target value of the planned vehicle is obtained as a result of the examination of steps S51 to S56 in FIG. 31 for each vehicle evaluation item, similarly to step S41 in FIG. 29 described above. The difference (gap value) between the current ability value of the planned vehicle (evaluation point of the vehicle evaluation item) and the final target value set in step S31 of FIG. 25 is calculated. Then, a gap value display (see FIG. 37) and a graph display (see FIG. 30) at this time are displayed. FIG. 37 shows gap value display. It can be seen that the actual value of the handling performance is in the target value, and the fuel efficiency is not in the target value.

  Here, when the vehicle planning is subsequently performed, if the specifications and system are changed in order to improve the fuel consumption performance that does not reach the target value at all, it is expected that the handling performance is also affected. Therefore, the handling performance is indicated by a white triangle mark as being not sufficient but within the target value. In the present embodiment, when the average value of the target value (6.5 points in handling performance) is cleared in the system, it is determined that the target is completely achieved, and the planned vehicle is actually competitive in the market. I try to become something with.

  Thus, in S15, it is possible to grasp how much the difference between the planned vehicle and the final target value is smaller than the difference between the performance evaluation value of the reference vehicle. Thus, by displaying such a display during the planning, the operator can effectively and efficiently proceed with the planning work.

  For example, if the power performance does not reach the target value, the degree of improvement in engine output is set to 2% UP in S9, but it can be determined that it is necessary to further increase 5%. Then, when it is determined that 5% UP is difficult as a result of specific examination, it is possible to specifically examine the achievement of the target by changing the specification such as turning on the turbo again in S9.

  Since the database stores data such as the cost and weight of the system and parts, the cost and weight of the entire vehicle at the present time can also be calculated. By displaying such numerical values, it is possible to consider the cost increase rate and weight increase.

Next, the gap elimination examination step (step S7 in FIG. 15) will be described.
In steps S51 to S56 in FIG. 31, vehicle planning is performed by incorporating the concept and concept of the planned vehicle. If the gap value calculated in step S61 in FIG. 37 is large, the operator, for example, specifications It is necessary to take some measures such as changing the system. In addition, if the planned vehicle becomes very expensive, it cannot be actually manufactured and sold. Therefore, in the present embodiment, the planning support system displays the problem so that there is a problem in solving the gap calculated in step S61 and how to solve the problem based on the data in an objective manner. To support the operator.

  First, a case will be described in which the planning support system displays a conflicting relationship map, that is, a relationship map of conflicting vehicle evaluation items (in a trade-off relationship), and supports gap resolution examination.

First, FIG. 38 shows an example of the reciprocal relationship map. In FIG. 38, as an example of the conflict relationship map, the correlation between the handling performance of the planned vehicle and the predetermined existing vehicle and the road noise performance is displayed.
Note that the contradictory relationship usually means a trade-off relationship such that the road noise performance decreases when the rigidity of the suspension is increased in order to improve the handling performance.

First, in this figure, the planned vehicle is indicated by a black triangle mark, and the other plots indicate existing vehicles. Moreover, the target achievement range corresponding to each performance is displayed on a horizontal axis and a vertical axis | shaft. In the present embodiment, the existing vehicle to be displayed as a plot is a benchmark vehicle.
Note that the graph as shown in FIG. 38 can be displayed for each category and class for all contradictory vehicle evaluation items (for example, fuel efficiency and power performance).

  In order to obtain the target achievement range 1 for both the handling performance and the road noise performance that are in a reciprocal relationship by using such a reciprocity relationship map, the operator must confirm that the suspension system has a great influence on the handling performance and the road noise performance. In view of this, it can be determined that a system equivalent to the vehicle suspension system (equivalent technology) indicated by the double circle plot may be employed. Then, the operator can determine whether or not the gap value calculated in step S61 can be eliminated from the evaluation point of such a “double circle plot”.

In this way, the operator can grasp the trade-off relationship at a glance at the relationship map and increase the work efficiency.
Note that only one vehicle evaluation item (for example, only handling performance) can be displayed as a plot. Furthermore, as a reciprocal relationship map, another vehicle evaluation item such as riding comfort performance may be added to display the reciprocal relationship on a total of three axes.

  In addition, the planning support system of the present embodiment cancels the vehicle having the evaluation score equal to or higher than the gap value calculated in step S61 with respect to the actual value of the planned vehicle (plot indicated by a black triangle in the figure). Vehicle) to be obtained is calculated based on the evaluation score of each vehicle evaluation item stored in the existing vehicle data of the database, and the information of the vehicle is displayed. In this example, a suspension system mounted on a vehicle capable of eliminating the gap is displayed. That is, in this example, three suspension system options (A to C) from (1) to (3) that can eliminate the gap are displayed.

  Here, in the present embodiment, the gap value is excessively eliminated, that is, the option of information regarding the vehicle that greatly exceeds the target value is not intentionally displayed. For example, information about the vehicle indicated by the star plot in the figure is not displayed. In this way, it is possible to plan a vehicle that reliably reflects the individuality of the manufacturer while keeping the balance of the vehicle evaluation items of the planned vehicle.

  Also, since the reciprocity map as shown in FIG. 38 is displayed according to the segment and class selected in step S11 of FIG. 16, for example, the suspension system of the sports car is displayed for the minivan selected in step S11. Not to be. That is, the gap value can be surely eliminated and a realistic selection can be made based on the technology (for example, a suspension system according to the minivan) installed in the planned vehicle.

  Here, if there is no option that can eliminate the gap (for example, the alternative technologies indicated by the double circle mark, black circle mark, and white square mark plots in the graph of FIG. 38), the fact is displayed. (Not shown). In this case, the operator can grasp that new development of the suspension system and adjustment of other specifications are necessary.

  On the other hand, in consideration of cost and vehicle weight (vehicle weight) at the vehicle planning stage, it is possible to plan a vehicle that can be actually manufactured and sold. Therefore, in the present embodiment, among the options that can eliminate the gap, the one that requires the minimum cost or the one that displays the smallest increase in the vehicle weight (or the maximum decrease in the vehicle weight) is displayed. I have to.

  Specifically, when the operator presses the “Cost” or “Weight” button displayed in the lower right of FIG. 38, the vehicle planning support system picks up and displays the optimum one from the options. That is, the vehicle planning support system refers to the cost and weight data stored in the existing vehicle data in the database and picks up the minimum ones. In the example shown in FIG. 38, the suspension system (3) (plotted with white squares) is optimal in terms of cost, and the suspension system (2) (plotted with black circles) is optimal in terms of weight. ing.

  That is, it can be seen that the suspension system shown by the double circle plot is very excellent in terms of handling performance and road noise performance, but inferior in terms of cost and weight. Note that a plurality of options can be displayed side by side in order of cost and weight, or the value of the cost itself and the weight itself can be displayed.

  Based on such indications, the operator should refer to the technology of the three suspension systems (based on development) or adopt the suspension itself in consideration of cost and weight. Alternatively, it is possible to determine whether another suspension system (black triangle mark plot) is employed although performance is inferior or new technology needs to be developed. In this way, this gap elimination study can also be used to assist management decisions including cost.

Next, the case where the planning support system displays a radar chart and assists in studying gap elimination will be described.
As described above, the conflicting vehicle relationship map shown in FIG. 38 can be used to display conflicting vehicle evaluation items and examine the adoption technology, etc., but as a vehicle plan, all vehicle evaluation items are balanced. It is desirable to obtain a good vehicle (a vehicle that has achieved each target achievement range). Therefore, in this embodiment, the operator is supported by displaying a solution radar chart based on a predetermined standard (rule) for performing a study for eliminating the gap while balancing the vehicle evaluation items. Yes.

  For example, as shown in FIG. 39, the actual value of each vehicle evaluation item with respect to the final target value (S4, S7) set according to the target achievement range is excellent in road noise performance over other performance, fuel consumption When performance and emission performance are inferior, the degree of achievement of the target is not balanced. Otherwise, the performance balance of the vehicle will be lost.

  FIG. 40 shows such a balance displayed for the operator to compare and adjust. The planning support system scores the balance of the ability value of each vehicle evaluation item according to a predetermined standard, and displays it as a radar chart as shown in FIG.

  In the present embodiment, the radar chart is displayed in three layers. First, as shown in the drawing, the first hierarchy displays the balance of each vehicle evaluation item (item of the first hierarchy), and shows the current balance. As shown in FIG. 40, the second level displays technical items (second level items) related to each vehicle evaluation item. In the example of FIG. It is displayed. The third hierarchy displays lower technical items (items of the third hierarchy) related to the respective technical items of the second hierarchy. In the example of FIG. 40, the technical items related to the engine fuel consumption rate are displayed. Is displayed.

  In each of these layers, the items in the same row, that is, vehicle evaluation items (first layer), performance and specifications affecting each vehicle evaluation item (second layer), or parts affecting the performance. And specifications (third layer) are displayed. For example, as the third level, for the second level tire rolling resistance, the tread pattern, the tire width, etc. For the second level air resistance, the second level mission such as the vehicle height and Cd value, etc. For performance, there are FGR (final gear ratio) and mission weight. In addition, each item of the 2nd hierarchy and the 3rd hierarchy is the influence index mentioned above.

  By the way, in FIG. 40, in order to improve the fuel efficiency, the rolling resistance (tire), the weight, the mission can be changed, or the engine can be improved. It may be difficult for the operator to determine whether to do this.

  Therefore, in the present embodiment, first, the operator can adjust the balance of each displayed hierarchy by dragging or the like. In order to solve the balance adjusted by the operator, the balance of the second and third hierarchies, which are the lower hierarchies, is automatically changed according to a predetermined condition when the balance of the vehicle evaluation items that are the upper hierarchies is adjusted. In addition, it is possible to know which technical items should be adjusted.

  On the other hand, when the balance of the third hierarchy, which is the lower hierarchy, is adjusted, the balance of the upper second hierarchy and the first hierarchy is automatically changed by the performance influence function described above, and the adjustment in the lower hierarchy is, for example, It can be seen how it affects the balance of vehicle evaluation items.

  When the balance of the second hierarchy is adjusted, the lower third hierarchy and the upper first hierarchy are changed in the same manner as in these cases.

Hereinafter, these adjustment methods and conditions for changing the balance by the system will be described.
First, the conditions for changing the lower hierarchy when the operator adjusts the balance of the upper hierarchy will be described.

As the condition (first condition), the vehicle planning support system of the present embodiment determines an item (influence index) to be changed in a lower hierarchy in consideration of the degree of influence of the influence index on the vehicle evaluation item.
Here, the magnitude of the influence on the vehicle evaluation item differs for each influence index. For example, the handling performance shown in FIG. 33 includes the suspension performance and the center of gravity as the influence index, but the change amount of the handling performance with respect to the change amount (such as the slope of the performance influence function) is different. From large to small.

  On the other hand, some of the impact indicators affect multiple vehicle evaluation items (vehicle weight, suspension performance, etc.), and those that affect fewer or one vehicle evaluation item (fuel tank dimensions, etc.) There is.

  In the present embodiment, the magnitude of the influence on a certain vehicle evaluation item and the number of the vehicle evaluation items having an influence are defined in advance for each influence index. For example, in the table as shown in FIG. 33, “Wheelbase (45)” and a numerical value (influence numerical value) are added to the wheelbase. The tenth place represents the rank of the degree of influence within a certain vehicle evaluation item (in this example, the magnitude that the wheelbase affects the handling performance is the fourth), and the first place has an influence. This represents the number of vehicle evaluation items (in this example, the wheelbase affects five vehicle evaluation items). Although not shown in the drawing, similar influence degree values are defined for other influence indexes.

  As shown in FIG. 40, the influence level button is pressed on the display screen of the first hierarchy, and such influence degree is taken into consideration. In the figure, as shown by the broken line, the operator adjusts the balance so that the fuel efficiency performance is increased and the road noise performance is slightly decreased with respect to the actual power value indicated by the solid line.

  In such a case, in order to obtain a changed balance, in the lower hierarchy, the system first has the largest influence that affects the fuel consumption performance (the above-mentioned influence degree numerical value is a tenth digit). “1”) and the one that has the least influence on other vehicle evaluation items (the one with the above-mentioned influence degree numerical value of “1”) is changed. Subsequently, the next largest influence and the next smallest influence on other vehicle evaluation items are changed one after another. Then, the number of influence indexes changed in the second hierarchy and the third hierarchy, and the change amounts thereof are determined so that a balance adjusted by the operator in the first hierarchy is obtained. That is, the change amount of the influence index can be determined by the above-described performance influence function that defines all the influence indices and the amount of increase / decrease in the evaluation points of the vehicle evaluation items.

  FIG. 41 shows a case where the suspension performance and the ride comfort performance are relatively improved with respect to other performances in the first level. Since the performance of the suspension and the vehicle body greatly contribute to these performances, a balance in which the suspension performance and the vehicle body performance are enhanced is displayed in the second level.

  In the second layer and the third layer, such a change amount and a specific solution technique are displayed. For example, as shown in the figure, the balance in which the performance of the suspension and the vehicle body is improved is displayed as the second level, and the damping value of the damper spring and the like are shown as the solution in the same row regarding the suspension performance in the third level. As a solution in the same row related to vehicle body performance, a cross member cross section related to vehicle body rigidity, a material of an under panel steel plate, and the like are shown.

  In addition, as shown in FIG. 41, the first level can also display the target achievement levels (95% and 110% graphs) of the handling performance when these technologies are adopted. Will help.

  As for such a change for eliminating the balance, the second and third candidates can be determined and displayed. Therefore, for example, in the first candidate, even if it is determined that the handling performance is simply changed from the strut to the multi-link suspension, other specifications and systems are maintained while maintaining the strut suspension desired by the operator. You can also get changed candidates.

Further, for example, when the system selects to change the suspension itself to that of an existing vehicle, the result is reflected in the above-described reciprocal relationship map. That is, in the reciprocal relationship map shown in FIG. 38, the suspension selected by the system is displayed so that the operator can see that it is a black circle plot. This makes it easy to determine whether the engine needs to be improved.
In this way, a technique for eliminating the gap is selected.

  Next, considering the cost and weight as the second and third conditions, it is possible to determine the items (influence indicators) of the second and third layers to be changed and the amount of change. In these cases, the priority of changing the items to be changed is, for example, when the importance is placed on the cost, in order to change the fuel efficiency, each of the impact indicators that affect the fuel efficiency is stored in the database. The parts and systems are changed in order from the lowest cost. Further, in the case of the same level of cost, the priority is changed from the one having a large degree of influence on the vehicle evaluation items and a small influence on the other vehicle evaluation items (one having the above-described influence degree value being small). In this way, the amount of change in the items of the second and third layers is determined so as to be inexpensive and have few items to be adjusted. The same applies to the weight. In these cases as well, a plurality of candidates that can be balanced can be displayed.

  Here, there are naturally cases where it is difficult to completely obtain the balance adjusted by the operator in the first hierarchy. In that case, the one closest to the balance (broken line in the figure) adjusted by the operator in the first hierarchy is determined. In such a case, a warning (not shown) is displayed and the determined balance is displayed repeatedly (for example, the balance value of the fuel efficiency is 3 while the road noise performance is The balance value drops to 3, or the handling performance balance value drops to 2.5). Further, the degree of achievement of the target corresponding to this is displayed (for example, 95% is displayed in the graph of FIG. 41).

In such a case, the operator can determine whether it is necessary to review again with the correlation map as shown in FIG. 38, the necessity for new development, or the like.
In this way, it is possible to select a technology that eliminates the gap while also considering cost and weight.

Next, an example will be described in which past cases are taken into consideration as the fourth condition and the items of the second and third layers to be changed and the amount of change are determined.
The past case is a case related to a vehicle planned by this system in the past. As the fourth condition, plan requirements (category, class, development time, cost, equipment condition, etc.) and evaluation of each vehicle evaluation item stored in the auxiliary data for evaluation in the database as shown in FIG. Based on the points (the actual values at the start of planning, during planning, and at the end of planning), the current planning vehicle gap is considered.

  Based on such past case data, the system, for example, shows past cases in which the balance of the first tier as shown in FIG. 43 (fuel efficiency is 2, road noise is 4, others are 3) from past vehicles. Pick up. Specifically, from the data of the evaluation points of the vehicle evaluation items of a plurality of past vehicles, what is in such a balance is picked up at the start of planning or during planning. When the picked-up past vehicle is the past vehicle 1, for example, as shown in FIG. 42, it is highlighted so that it can be understood. In the example shown in FIG. 42, a case where the handling performance is increased from 5.6 to 6.0 is picked up.

  As a modification, the planning support system may pick up a past case in which the calculated gap amount is eliminated. In that case, for example, a past case where a gap of a vehicle evaluation item with a large gap is eliminated among a plurality of vehicle evaluation items is searched first, and a gap of a vehicle evaluation item with the next largest gap is eliminated from among the past cases. It is better to pick up past cases that can eliminate the gap between the vehicle evaluation items of the planned vehicle. The results picked up by the system are displayed in a list. When the gaps of all the vehicle evaluation items cannot be eliminated, it is preferable to display the gaps in descending order.

  Further, in combination with such display, a radar chart (first to third layers) as shown in FIG. 43 can be displayed even in a past case vehicle. Such a radar chart can be displayed side by side with that of the planned vehicle.

  The operator refers to such a list or radar chart for the planned vehicle and the past vehicle that has been picked up, and adopts a technique for eliminating the gap of the current planned vehicle as shown in FIG. Development guidelines can be obtained.

  It should be noted that a sports car is not limited to a category, such as when it is set in advance to pick up a requirement that satisfies an arbitrary requirement (for example, handling of vehicle evaluation items) from among a plurality of requirements or when handling performance is particularly desired to be improved. Can also be picked up from such a range. When there are a plurality of past vehicles picked up, the vehicles can be rearranged in an arbitrary order (from those satisfying the handling performance to the next one having the best riding comfort, etc.).

  In this way, it is possible to effectively utilize the present vehicle planning with reference to past data, particularly balance, with relatively close planning requirements and requirements focused on by the operator.

  Next, considering the customer request as the fifth condition, it is possible to determine the items of the second and third layers to be changed and the amount of change.

  As the fifth condition, the system is an item (impact indicator) that increases the customer evaluation of the performance that the customer attaches importance to when the items of the second layer and the third layer are changed, and the impact level Priority is changed from items that are large (those that have a small impact value) (impact indicators).

  Here, as described above, data relating to the importance of customer evaluation (see FIG. 44) and data indicating the relationship between the customer evaluation index and the vehicle evaluation items (see FIG. 45) are stored in the database. In addition, the database shows the relationship between each item (wheelbase (impact indicator) in FIG. 45) and the customer evaluation index point as shown in the figure for all impact indicators (items in the second and third layers). Data is stored.

  Therefore, the performance that the customer attaches importance to is determined from the data as shown in FIG. 28 (a), and the item (impact indicator) whose customer evaluation is increased is determined from FIG. And the customer evaluation index point are determined from FIG.

  In this way, the system selects a solution technique that obtains a balance adjusted by the operator in the first hierarchy and considers customer requirements.

  In addition, when the system selects the technology according to the first to third conditions described above, the conformity of the customer request is confirmed based on the data in FIGS. 28A and 28B as shown in FIG. Is displayed. For example, the change in the customer evaluation due to the change in each impact index is calculated from the change in the items in the second and third layers and the figure, and the change in the customer evaluation due to the change in the evaluation score of the vehicle evaluation item in the first layer The calculated results are applied to a predetermined standard, and whether or not the customer request is satisfied is displayed as A rank or B rank. As the predetermined standard, in the example shown in FIG. 44, according to the score distribution of the vehicle evaluation items, for example, with respect to riding comfort, 6.0 points or more are A rank, 5.4 to 5.9 points are B rank, For example, a database is created for each vehicle evaluation item.

In the display of FIG. 40, regarding the fuel consumption performance, it is assumed that the conformity of the customer request has increased from the B rank to the A rank, satisfied the customer request, and the road noise performance has been reduced from 4 to 3.5 in the evaluation point itself. However, it can be seen that customer requirements are still satisfied.
In this way, it is possible to select a technique for eliminating the gap while considering customer requirements.

Here, a case where an item of a lower hierarchy (second hierarchy or third hierarchy) is changed will be described.
When the item of the third hierarchy is changed, the evaluation score of each vehicle evaluation item is added or subtracted by the performance influence function described above, and the display of the balance of the vehicle evaluation item of the first hierarchy is changed. As described above, the target achievement level is also displayed. Since the operator can know the change in the evaluation point of the vehicle evaluation item when each item of the third hierarchy is changed, the workability is improved and the target can be achieved earlier. The same applies when the second hierarchy is changed. When the second hierarchy is changed, the item to be changed and the change amount are determined based on the above-described first to fifth conditions as the third hierarchy.

Next, as another example, an example will be described in which the operator arbitrarily selects which engine to select when looking at a predetermined list when the power performance gap is large.
For example, as shown in FIG. 42, as a list, a system selection list (option list) is displayed according to planning conditions such as categories (category, class, displacement, drive system, etc.). The contents of this list can be arbitrarily rearranged according to the order of the high evaluation score of the vehicle evaluation items, the order of costs, or the like.

  Moreover, as this list, for example, it is possible to display a system or a part that can achieve the target value for a certain vehicle evaluation item. In other words, if an existing combination of engines and missions is changed to that combination, the data of the impact index possessed by those engines and the performance influence function (see FIG. 36) are used to determine the planned vehicle. An evaluation score can be calculated to determine whether the target value can be cleared. In this case, it is also possible to arrange in order of increasing gap resolution, or in decreasing order of cost and weight. In addition, the data as shown in FIG. 44 can be arranged in the order in which customer requests can be satisfied. And if an operator selects a unit etc. from them, a gap can be eliminated.

  In addition to such a list, various information (weight, cost, etc.) can also be displayed (not shown). In FIG. 47, the combinations (selection numbers) are displayed, but can be displayed arbitrarily for each engine, mission, etc. Then, the evaluation points of the vehicle evaluation items when the vehicle planning system or parts are changed can be displayed as shown in FIG. 46 or can be displayed in a balanced manner.

  Vehicle planning can be promoted in a meaningful manner through the above-mentioned gap resolution study. In other words, in the past, a design engineer was included in the planning stage to make technical or cost considerations. In that case, since each department was adjusting each other based on the know-how of each department without having data as shown in FIG. 38 and FIG. 40, it took time, and as a result average It was easy to become a car. On the other hand, according to the planned vehicle support system, such an evaluation can be performed based on objective data, improving the efficiency of vehicle planning and making the planned vehicle more realistic. can do.

  Following such a step, the planned vehicle construction is completed by the detailed examination in step S8 in FIG. 15, the presentation in step S9, and the transition to the design stage in step S10.

  By using the vehicle planning support system described above, at the vehicle planning stage, which is important and indispensable for automobile manufacturers, formulate the vehicle concept including the basic structure (including layout and package) such as the vehicle shape and engine. With this, you can plan a vehicle that is embodied. In other words, at the stage of planning, vehicle performance (for example, compliance with laws, strength, aerodynamic performance, collision performance, etc., which can be made in a factory) can be roughly verified.

  In addition, each department can concentrate on individual examinations in order to realize a planned vehicle that is objectively determined numerically. Therefore, a unique car can be made without being affected by the convenience of each department.

  Furthermore, if a prototype vehicle is made for the planned vehicle, in principle, the vehicle will satisfy basic performance. For this reason, the necessity of an experiment reduces and a design period can be shortened. Also, at the design stage, it is only necessary to make adjustments such as noise countermeasures and small interference between parts. In other words, CAE verification and the like performed in the conventional design stage can be efficiently performed together with vehicle planning, and the design stage can be shortened.

And if the planning accuracy is increased, the design stage is shortened. Since the vehicle structure (frame shape, etc.) is considered at the planning stage, the design stage is shortened.
It should be noted that detailed design items such as welding, suppliers, and mounting positions can be performed at the design stage.

It is a block diagram which shows the structure for implement | achieving the vehicle plan assistance system of this embodiment. It is a figure which shows the structure of a database. It is a figure which shows an example of the specification value of vehicle data. It is a figure which shows an example of the performance evaluation value for every evaluation item of vehicle data. It is a figure which shows an example of the hierarchical structure of the unit of vehicle data, and the data of components. It is a block diagram which shows the structure of a vehicle model. (A) is a figure which shows an example of the main dimension model of the reference | standard model by this embodiment, (b) is a figure which shows an example of a passenger | crew model, (c) shows an example of an underbody model. FIG. (A) is a figure which shows an example of the exterior model of an external appearance model, (b)-(d) is a figure which shows an example of the door model of an external part model, (e) is an example of a glass model FIG. (A) is a figure which shows the upper interior model of an interior model, (b) is a figure which shows an example of a lower interior model, (c) is an instrument panel model of an interior part model, a console model, and a seat model It is a figure which shows an example. (A) And (b) is a figure which shows an example of a structural model. It is a figure which shows an example of a specification value input screen. It is a figure which shows an example of the three-dimensional morphing screen of a layout verification model. (A)-(c) is a figure which shows an example of the 3rd page figure of the two-dimensional morphing screen of a layout verification model. It is a figure which shows the hierarchical structure of the performance verification model of this embodiment. It is a schematic flowchart of vehicle planning. It is a figure which shows the detailed process of step S1 of the flowchart of FIG. 15, and the example of a setting display in each step. (A) It is a table | surface which shows the target achievement lens (rank) for every vehicle evaluation item, (b) is a figure which shows the evaluation point distribution and range of a benchmark vehicle. It is a graph which shows an evaluation point distribution and an achievement range for a benchmark vehicle and range setting, respectively. It is a Venn diagram which shows the relationship of the vehicle selected as a benchmark vehicle and range setting vehicle in embodiment. (A) is a flowchart which shows the detailed process of step 2 of the flowchart of FIG. 15, (b) is a figure which shows the example of a display of the setting of a reference | standard vehicle. It is a figure which shows the reference | standard vehicle model of a performance verification model. It is a graph which shows the contribution rate with respect to each vehicle evaluation item of each area | region of a performance verification model. It is a graph which shows the contribution rate of the vehicle model part for every evaluation item. It is a graph which shows the contribution rate of each area | region regarding the performance of the model for performance verification. It is a graph which shows the relationship between indoor back-and-forth length and bending rigidity. It is a block diagram which shows the detailed process of step 3 of the flowchart of FIG. 15, and a figure which shows the example of a display of the target value after correction | amendment. It is a graph which shows the correlation with the riding comfort performance of a vehicle evaluation item, and time. It is a graph which shows the correlation with the wheel base which is a specification, and time (year). (A) It is a graph regarding a customer evaluation index point, (b) is a graph which shows the relationship between the customer evaluation index point regarding a fuel consumption, and a fuel consumption performance. It is a figure which shows the example of a block which shows the detailed process of step S4 of the flowchart of FIG. 15, and the gap value display of the performance evaluation value and basic target value for every vehicle evaluation item of a plan vehicle model. Regarding handling and fuel consumption, target value of planned vehicle, estimated actual value of planned vehicle, standard expected value of competitor vehicle at sales time, current competitor's flag familiarity, and standard vehicle (D vehicle) performance evaluation example It is a bar graph to show. It is a flowchart which shows the detailed process of step 5 of the flowchart of FIG. (A) is a figure which shows an example of the part / unit in a performance verification model, and the setting / change screen of a performance, (b) is a figure which shows an example of the screen which changes a specification in a performance verification model. is there. It is a graph which shows the influence parameter | index for every vehicle evaluation item. It is a graph which shows a response | compatibility with a specification and a vehicle evaluation item. (A) is a chart showing the correspondence between the specifications and performance of the suspension and the vehicle evaluation items, and (b) is a chart showing the correspondence between the specifications and performance of the engine and the vehicle evaluation items. (A) is a graph which shows an example of a performance influence function, (b) is a graph which shows an example of a performance influence error function. It is a figure which shows the example of a display of the gap value of the block which shows the detailed process of step S6 of the flowchart of FIG. 15, and the performance evaluation value according to the vehicle evaluation item of a plan vehicle model, and the corrected target value. It is a figure which shows an example of a reciprocal relationship map. It is a bar graph which shows the ratio of the ability value of each vehicle evaluation item with respect to the final target value (S4, S7) set according to the target achievement range. It is an example of a radar chart. It is an example of a radar chart. It is a graph which shows an example of the past data regarding the vehicle planned by this system in the past. It is an example of a radar chart. It is a chart which shows an example of customer demand conformity. It is a graph which shows the relationship between a customer evaluation parameter | index and a vehicle evaluation item. It is an example of a radar chart. It is a chart which shows an example of the combination of unit selection.

Explanation of symbols

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 Database 2 Computer 3 Network 4 Terminal 5 Evaluation screen 11 Existing vehicle data 12 Unit / part data 13 Planning vehicle data 14 Calculation data 15 Evaluation auxiliary data 16 Auxiliary data 60 Reference vehicle model 61 Front performance verification model 62 Lower front seat Performance verification model 63 Rear seat lower performance verification model 64 Rear performance verification model 65 Front seat upper performance verification model 66 Rear seat lower performance verification model 67 Engine performance verification model 68 Suspension performance verification model 69 Tank performance verification model 80 Standard model 82 Main dimensions Model 84 Crew model 86 Underbody model 90 Appearance model 92 Exterior model 100 Exterior part model 102 Door model 104 Glass model 110 Interior model 112 Upper interior Dell 114 lower interior model 120 Interior Parts Model 122 instrument panel model 124 console Model 126 sheets Model 130 structural model

Claims (5)

A vehicle planning support system for building a vehicle model and supporting vehicle planning,
A database storing vehicle data for building a vehicle model;
Using the vehicle data stored in the database, and having a computing device for constructing a planned vehicle model of the vehicle to be planned,
The vehicle data stored in the database includes performance evaluation values obtained by quantifying the vehicle performance evaluation for each predetermined evaluation item for a plurality of existing vehicles.
The arithmetic unit is
A target value setting unit for setting a target value for each evaluation item,
A layout verification model construction unit for constructing a layout verification model for evaluating a planned vehicle by displaying the shape of the vehicle model on a screen based on the vehicle data of the first reference vehicle selected from the existing vehicles; ,
Based on the vehicle data of the second reference vehicle selected from the existing vehicles, the performance of the evaluation items of the planned vehicle is evaluated without displaying the shape of the vehicle model, separately from the layout verification model. A performance verification model building unit for building a performance verification model for
About the performance verification model, a performance calculation unit that calculates a performance evaluation value for each evaluation item,
For each of the evaluation items, a target value and a performance evaluation value of the performance verification model are compared, and an achievement level calculation unit that calculates a target achievement level;
I have a,
For the specifications of the performance verification model, the priority order to be fixed is set based on the magnitude of the influence on the performance evaluation item,
The layout verification model construction unit is configured to adjust the specifications from the low priority in order to obtain the consistency of the shape of the layout verification model when converting the performance verification model into the layout verification model. A vehicle planning support system characterized by being provided. The vehicle planning support system according to claim 1, wherein the performance verification model construction unit constructs the performance verification model based on vehicle data of a second reference vehicle different from the first reference vehicle. . The performance verification model construction unit constructs a vehicle constituent part model from vehicle data of vehicle constituent parts of each of a plurality of vehicles selected from the existing vehicles as the second reference vehicle. 3. The vehicle planning support system according to claim 1, wherein a performance verification model is constructed by combining partial models. The vehicle data stored in the database includes the contribution rate of the vehicle components to the entire vehicle for each performance evaluation item,
4. The vehicle planning support system according to claim 3, wherein the performance calculation unit calculates the evaluation score for each of the evaluation items of the performance verification model, using the vehicle data of the contribution rate of each vehicle component. The performance verification model calculation unit obtains the weight and center of gravity of each vehicle component model, and further obtains the weight and center of gravity of the performance verification model from the weight and center of gravity of each vehicle component model. Item 5. A vehicle planning support system according to item 3 or 4.

Images