Development and evaluation of a driver coaching function for electric vehicles

1. Development and evaluation of a driver coaching function for electric vehicles Dr. Marcus SCHMITZ Vienna, 05.06.2014

2. Introduction

3. Eco-driving approaches

4. eFuture ”Driver coaching function” • Integrated approach with visual icons via head-up display • Real-time feedback during trip • Situation specific advices -> possibility to change driving behavior immediately • Possibility of advice free driving -> reducing workload and distraction • Considering safety critical aspects of driving • Specific advices for electric vehicles

5. Real-time driver coaching Energy consumption Optimal behavior Actual behavior Evaluation Topography Traffic signs/rules Coaching advices 1. Acceleration behavior 2. Legal speed limit 3. Speed behavior when approaching curves 4. Achieving new target speed 5. Speed behavior when approaching downhill sections 6. Car following Surrounding traffic

6. Evaluation study

7. Evaluation study • Research questions • Is there an significant impact of the specific real-time coaching on energy consumption(in comparison to unspecific coaching or sole verbal instruction)? • Does the specific real-time coaching change the driving behavior? • How do drivers evaluate the acceptance of specific real-time coaching?

8. Evaluation study • Study design

9. Coaching approaches

10. Simulator • Simulator • WIVW Driving simulator • Electric vehicle model with combined pedal solution • Measurement of energy consumption, acceptance/usability, and driving behavior • Specific advices and consumption scale via head-up display

11. Track & sample • Track • 15 km test track including several changes of speed limit, sharp curves, in-/declines, car following, and intersections • Sample • N = 30 (16 women, 14 men) • Age: m = 33 years (sd = 14 years)

12. Results

13. Results – Energyconsumption Energy consumption • Baseline: nodifferencebetweengroups • Eachmethodreducedsignificantlyenergyconsumption • Nodifferenceregardingenergyconsumptionbetweenfeedbackconditions F(2, 27) = 1.83, p = .180

14. Results – Drivingbehaviour Velocity Positive acceleration F(2, 27) = 5.85, p = .008 F(2, 27) = 3.94, p = .032

15. Results– Drivingbehaviour Deceleration Sailing F(2, 27) = 2.46, p = .105 F(2, 27) = 2.86, p = .075

16. Results– Acceptance • Drivers assessed specific online coaching to be helpful • Subjective improvement of driving style and efficiency • Advices were rated to be • not frustrating • not disturbing • not distracting • quite motivating • understandable • Drivers criticised velocity advice to be too restrictive • Need to increase accuracy of the recuperation advice as participants sometimes reached the according velocity too early or too late.

17. Conclusions

18. Conclusion • Real-time feedbackisacceptableandseenasmoreeffectivethanthe verbal instructions • Nodifferenceregardingenergyconsumptionbetweenfeedbackgroups • Feedback type hassignificantimpact on driving style -> Recommendationforspecific real-time feedback • Long-term usagestudieshavetoshowimpact on familiarandunfamiliarroutes • Further studieshavetoshowwhichadvicescanbereplacedbytheactiveaccelerator pedal  workloadreduction • Drivers askformoreinformationaboutsavedenergy/savedmiles

19. Manythanks! Dr. Marcus SCHMITZ Dipl.-Psych. Monika JAGIELLOWICZ Dipl.-Ing. Michael HANIG Cand.-Psych. Thomas HAMMER Würzburger Institut für Verkehrswissenschaften GmbH (WIVW) Robert-Bosch-Str. 4 97209 Veitshöchheim Tel.: +49-(0)931-78009-116 Fax: +49-(0)931-78009150 e-mail: info@wivw.de