Search Results

‘To achieve more from less’ has been the oft-quoted phrase in auto industry for quite some time. This philosophy has many analogies like fuel efficiency, modularity, weight reduction, alternative fuels etc. Of these ‘modularity’ is seen as an effective tool, especially for automotive OEMs catering to a wide portfolio of similar products. This paper discusses the implications of modularization on a passenger bus OEM, by taking the ‘bus super structure’ as a test case. The modularized bus structure is compared with the conventional structure for design strength, safety, weight and more importantly manufacturing flexibility. The challenges faced in each of these aspects are discussed. From the study it was understood that the task of manufacturing body modules and interfaces is complex and it calls for a complete revamp of existing fixtures, material handling equipment and even the prescribed tolerances.

The aerodynamic drag of cars, trucks and buses have been closely examined over the years. Many of them focus on the front end and to some extent on rear end of the vehicles [1]. Of course these are the two surfaces that contribute to more than 85 % of the total drag. This is because these surfaces are almost normal to the direction of air flow and hence create enormous pressure differences and hence drag. A lot of optimization has also gone into these, by way of reducing the sharp corners at ‘A’ pillars, introducing aerodynamic dome and even ‘boat tail flap plates’ [2-3] for some trailers. However, part of the vehicle that has not received sufficient attention in aerodynamic drag considerations is the ‘transverse outer profile’ of vehicle. This transverse outer profile is nothing but the cross sectional profile formed by the vehicle's sides, roof and their integration.

Bus and coach drivers spend considerably more time in the vehicle, compared to an average personal car user. However, when it comes to comfort levels, the personal cars, even the inexpensive hatchbacks score much higher than a standard bus. This is because the amount of ergonomic design considerations that go into designing a car's DWS (driver workspace) is much more than that of buses. To understand this lacuna, the existing standards and recommendations pertaining directly or remotely to bus driver workspace were studied. It was understood, beyond certain elementary recommendations, there were very few standards available exclusively for buses. This paper ventures to establish a set of guidelines, exclusively for designing bus and coach driver workspace. The various systems in the driver's work space and their relevance to driver's ergonomics are discussed. References are drawn from different case studies and standards to come up with recommendations and guidelines.