JP5893306B2 - Response delay evaluation method - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a response delay evaluation method. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method for evaluating a response delay of a yawing of a vehicle with respect to steering.

  Conventionally, a test for evaluating a response delay of a yawing response of a vehicle to steering is performed. This evaluation of the response delay leads not only to the evaluation of the motion performance of the target vehicle, but also to the evaluation of the motion performance of the tire mounted on the vehicle. At present, the evaluation of the response delay of the yawing of the vehicle with respect to the steering is performed only by sensuality. For example, how much the driver driving the vehicle to be evaluated steers the steering wheel generates yaw rate (rotational angular velocity around the center of gravity of the vehicle), or the increase in the yaw rate of the vehicle relative to its own steering steering is linear Whether or not, and the degree of linearity, etc. are evaluated by assigning grades of 6 grades, 10 grades, etc. by sensory alone.

  An example of a sensory evaluation test for tire performance is as follows. A test vehicle is fitted with one of a plurality of types of tires having different specifications, and an evaluator performs a test run including meandering (yawing). Next, different tires are mounted on the vehicle, and the same evaluator performs a test run including yawing. The evaluator is not informed which tire is installed. The evaluator then declares which tire has the greater response delay.

  There is no known document that teaches a method for quantitatively evaluating the yaw response delay of the vehicle. On the other hand, a document (Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 63-192667) that discloses a rear wheel steering device that obtains steering stability on the premise of the presence of a response delay of the yaw rate of the vehicle, can improve the response of the yaw rate of the vehicle. A document (Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 7-156819) that discloses a control method for a front and rear wheel steering device is known.

  In the evaluation based only on the sensuality as described above, even if the same evaluation target vehicle is used, if the evaluator is different, or if the same evaluator is in a different physical condition, the evaluation results vary greatly.

JP-A-63-192667 Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 7-156819

  The present invention has been made to solve such a problem, and the response delay of a traveling vehicle in which variation in evaluation results for the same object is reduced regardless of differences in evaluators and physical conditions of evaluators. The purpose is to provide an evaluation method.

The response delay evaluation method according to the present invention is:
Obtaining a graph showing the relationship between the steering angle and yaw rate of the vehicle during running including yawing;
In this graph, there is included a step of judging a response delay from the position of the changing point, which is a point where the curvature of the curve indicating the correspondence between the steering angle and the yaw rate changes greatly. .

  Preferably, the value of the steering angle at the curve change point position indicating the relationship between the steering angle and the yaw rate is used as an index of response delay.

  Preferably, the changing point is an intersection of a first straight line connecting two points with a steering angle of 5 degrees or less and a second straight line connecting two points with a steering angle of 8 degrees or more in the curve.

  Preferably, when the value of the intersection angle between the first straight line and the second straight line in the graph is less than a predetermined threshold, no response delay is present, and when the value is equal to or greater than this threshold, there is a response delay.

  Preferably, the threshold is an angle obtained by subtracting the inclination angle of the first straight line from the inclination angle of the second straight line, the steering angle unit is (degrees), and the yaw rate unit is (degrees / degree). Second) and a value corresponding to a value within a range of 0.2 ± 0.05 (1 / second) when the unit of each inclination angle is (1 / second).

  Preferably, in the traveling of the vehicle, the correlation coefficient between the steering waveform and the sine wave is 0.9650 or more.

  Preferably, in the traveling of the vehicle, the average steering speed is in a range of 38 ± 10 degrees / second.

  Preferably, in the travel of the vehicle, the average steering angle is in a range of 20 ± 2 degrees.

  Preferably, in the travel of the vehicle, the average steering time is in a range of 0.8 ± 0.2 seconds.

  Preferably, in the traveling of the vehicle, the average traveling speed is in a range of 140 ± 2 km / h.

  According to the response delay evaluation method according to the present invention, a highly reliable evaluation result with little variation is obtained regardless of the ability of the evaluator.

FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram schematically showing an example of a test vehicle used for execution of the evaluation method. FIG. 2 is an example of a graph showing the relationship between the steering angle and yawing obtained from the travel data used in this evaluation method. FIG. 3 is another example of a graph showing the relationship between the steering angle and yawing obtained from the travel data used in this evaluation method.

  Hereinafter, the present invention will be described in detail based on preferred embodiments with appropriate reference to the drawings.

  FIG. 1 shows a test vehicle 1 used for execution of the evaluation method. The vehicle 1 is a general four-wheeled passenger car. The vehicle 1 is used for a test for evaluating a yawing response delay with respect to steering during steering. An example of the test is a test for evaluating the difference in the response delay of the vehicle 1 when tires having different specifications are mounted. Hereinafter, the test and an evaluation method based on the test result will be described with reference to FIGS. 1 to 3.

  The vehicle 1 is equipped with a control device 10 and various sensors for detecting the steering state and the traveling state of the vehicle 1. These sensors include a steering angle sensor 11, a yaw rate sensor 12, and a vehicle speed sensor 13. From the detection results of these sensors, the yawing response delay of the vehicle 1 is quantitatively confirmed in the control device 10. As described above, the response delay of the vehicle 1 can be quantitatively evaluated from the detection result of each sensor and the calculation result of the control device 10.

  As the steering angle sensor 11, a steering angle sensor for the front wheels 2 is normally used, but a steering angle sensor for the rear wheels 3 may be used. A test tire T, which will be described later, is mounted on all four wheels. The steering angle sensor 11 detects the rotation of the steering wheel 4 or the steering shaft 5 and transmits a front wheel steering angle signal corresponding to the steering angle (steering angle) of the front wheels 2 to the control device 10. As the yaw rate sensor 12, a gyro sensor is usually used. The yaw rate sensor 12 transmits a yaw rate signal corresponding to the rotational angular velocity (yaw rate) around the center of gravity of the vehicle 1 to the control device 10. The vehicle speed sensor 13 detects the rotational speed of the wheels 2, 3 or the axle 6 and transmits a speed signal corresponding to the traveling speed of the vehicle 1 to the control device 10.

  Detection by the steering angle sensor 11, the yaw rate sensor 12, and the vehicle speed sensor 13 is performed simultaneously in parallel. Further, the detected steering angle, yaw rate, and vehicle speed are recorded along the time axis (in time series) by the control device 10. In the control device 10, the steering time, the steering speed, the steering waveform, the relationship between the steering angle and the yaw rate, and the like are calculated from these detection results.

  The relationship between the steering angle and the yaw rate provides a material for determining the yawing response delay of the vehicle 1. The relationship between the steering angle and the yaw rate at this steering angle can be represented as a curve on the graph with the steering angle as the horizontal axis and the yaw rate as the vertical axis (reference C in FIGS. 2 and 3). A graph including the curve C is created in the control device 10. In the graph of the present embodiment, the steering angle is the horizontal axis and the yaw rate is the vertical axis, but the present invention is not limited to such a method. The steering angle may be the vertical axis and the yaw rate may be the horizontal axis.

  Hereinafter, the response delay evaluation based on the graph showing the relationship between the steering angle and the yaw rate will be described. As will be described later, the relationship between the steering angle and the yaw rate is that the test vehicle is steered with a predetermined steering waveform, within a predetermined steering speed range, within a predetermined steering angle range, with a predetermined steering time, and with a predetermined steering time. It is obtained while running at a running speed of. The “steering time” is the time from the steering angle zero to the maximum steering angle in absolute value.

  2 and 3 are graphs showing the relationship between the steering angle and the yaw rate obtained from the travel data. FIG. 2 shows the test results determined to have no response delay, and FIG. 3 shows the test results determined to have a response delay. In this graph, the horizontal axis indicates the steering angle, and the unit is degrees (°). The vertical axis represents the yaw rate, and its unit is degrees / second (° / second). A change point (sign PI in FIG. 3), which is a point where the curvature of the curve C in the graph changes greatly, is a point indicating a response delay. The value of the steering angle at the change point PI indicates the response delay index. The reason for setting the response delay index in this way is as follows. According to the investigations by the inventors, it is known that the relationship between the steering angle and the yaw rate is generally linear after passing through the curve changing point indicating the relationship between the steering angle and the yaw rate. Therefore, it is appropriate to determine the response delay index based on the magnitude of the steering angle at the change point position.

  A method of obtaining the change point PI of the curve C will be described below. Two straight lines are drawn on the curve C in each graph. In any graph, the left straight line (small steering angle side straight line) is the first straight line SL1, and the right straight line (large steering angle side straight line) is the second straight line SL2. The first straight line SL1 is a straight line passing through the point of the steering angle 0 ° and the point of 5 ° in the curve C. The second straight line SL2 is a straight line passing through a point at a steering angle of 10 ° and a point at 15 ° in the curve C. The intersection of the first straight line SL1 and the second straight line SL2 is regarded as the change point PI. For example, in the case of FIG. 3, the change point PI determined by the above method exists at a position where the steering angle is 7.8 °. Therefore, for the test results shown in FIG. 3, the response delay index is determined to be 7.8 °. In other words, it is determined that the test vehicle 1 (test tire T) has a response delay of 7.8 °. Also in the test results shown in FIG. 2, there is an intersection between the first straight line SL1 and the second straight line SL2. However, as will be described later, this is not a change point PI. That is, the test vehicle 1 (test tire T) shown in FIG. 2 has no response delay.

  In the present embodiment, both straight lines SL1 and SL2 are defined by a steering angle of 0 ° and a 5 ° point, and a steering angle of 10 ° and a 15 ° point. However, the present invention is not limited to this point. The first straight line SL1 may be defined by two points with an interval of 4 ° or more between the steering angles of 0 ° and 5 °. The second straight line SL2 may be defined by two points having an interval of 5 ° or more and less than 10 ° between the steering angles of 8 ° and 18 °. The reason for this determination is as follows. That is, according to the investigation by the inventors, it is known that when there is a change point on the curve, it generally exists between the steering angle of 5 ° and 8 °. Further, it is known that the curve approaches linearity around a steering angle of 10 ° to 15 °. In addition, in order to easily perform the evaluation test, it is preferable to set the absolute value of the steering angle when the vehicle is traveling to 20 ° or less.

  Before the response delay index is determined from the position of the change point PI, it is determined whether or not the change point PI exists in the curve C. This determination is performed using the two straight lines SL1 and SL2. As described above, the first straight line SL1 and the second straight line SL2 are drawn in the graph. Next, the intersection angle θ between the first straight line SL1 and the second straight line SL2 is obtained. If the intersection angle θ is less than a predetermined threshold, it is determined that there is no change point PI in the curve C. If the intersection angle θ is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it is determined that the change point PI exists.

  The intersection angle θ is an angle obtained by subtracting the inclination angle of the first straight line SL1 from the inclination angle of the second straight line SL2. The inclination angles of the straight lines SL1 and SL2 can be obtained from (yaw rate value) / (steering angle value). The units of the inclination angle and the crossing angle are (degree / second) / (degree) = (1 / second), respectively. For example, in the case of FIG. 2, the inclination angle of the first straight line SL1 is 1.0 (° / second) ÷ 5 using a yaw rate value 1.0 (° / second) between the steering angle 0 ° and 5 °. (°) = 0.20 (1 / second). The inclination angle of the second straight line SL2 is 1.8 (° / second) ÷ 5 (°) = 0.0 using the yaw rate value 1.8 (° / second) between the steering angle 10 ° and 15 °. 36 (1 / second). The crossing angle θ is 0.36−0.20 = 0.16 (1 / second). The threshold value in the present embodiment is 0.2 (1 / second). Therefore, with respect to the test result shown in FIG. 2, it is determined that there is no change point PI in the curve C. In other words, it is determined that this sample vehicle 1 (sample tire T) has no response delay.

  In the case of FIG. 3, the inclination angle of the first straight line SL1 is 0.2 (° / second) ÷ 5 (using a yaw rate value 0.2 (° / second) between the steering angle 0 ° and 5 °. °) = 0.04 (1 / second). The inclination angle of the second straight line SL2 is 1.5 (° / second) ÷ 5 (°) = 0.0 using a yaw rate value 1.5 (° / second) between the steering angle 10 ° and 15 °. 30 (1 / second). . The crossing angle θ is 0.30−0.04 = 0.26 (1 / second). This crossing angle θ is larger than the threshold value 0.2 (1 / second). Therefore, for the test result shown in FIG. 3, it is determined that the change point PI exists in the curve C. In other words, it is determined that the test vehicle 1 (the test tire T) has a response delay. As described above, the response delay index is a value (7.8 °) of the steering angle at which the change point PI is located.

  The reason for setting the threshold for determining the presence or absence of the change point PI to be 0.2 (1 / second) is that the threshold of change that the evaluation driver can feel empirically is in the range of 0.2 ± 0.05 (1 / second). Because it existed.

In order to obtain a stable evaluation result regarding the response delay, that is, an evaluation result with little variation, it is desirable to make the test condition (running condition) as constant as possible regardless of the difference in the specimens. Further, in order to obtain an appropriate response delay index, it is desirable to keep the traveling conditions such as the steering input of the vehicle 1 as constant as possible. From the viewpoint of ensuring the reproducibility of steering, it is desirable to set the steering input condition within a certain range. From this point of view, the traveling conditions of the test vehicle 1 are managed within a predetermined range as follows.
<1> The correlation coefficient of the steering waveform with the sine wave is 0.9650 or more. This is because if the correlation coefficient is less than 0.9650, a difference occurs in the initial steering operation, and the absolute value of the response delay may change.
<2> The average steering speed when steering a plurality of times (6 times in each of the examples and comparative examples described later) during one run is in the range of 38 ± 10 ° / second. This is because if it is out of this range, there is a risk that the initial operation of steering will be different, and the absolute value of the response delay may change, as described above.
<3> The average steering angle when steering a plurality of times during one run is within a range of 20 ± 2 °. This is because if it is out of this range, there is a risk that the initial operation of steering will be different, and the absolute value of the response delay may change, as described above. In addition, the absolute amount by which the test vehicle 1 moves is different, which may greatly deviate from the lane to be traveled.
<4> The average steering time when steering a plurality of times during one run is within a range of 0.8 ± 0.2 seconds. This is because if it is out of this range, there is a risk that the initial operation of steering will be different, and the absolute value of the response delay may change, as described above.
<5> The average running speed when steering a plurality of times during one run is within a range of 140 ± 2 km / h. This is because if the vehicle is out of this range, the traveling speed of the vehicle 1 changes, so that the absolute value of “response delay” changes. In general, the response delay tends to increase as the speed deviates to the high speed side, and the response delay tends to decrease as the speed deviates from the low speed side.

  The traveling condition can be satisfied by the driving technique of the driver who drives the test vehicle 1. For this assistance, a predetermined sinusoidal line may be drawn on the travel path of the vehicle 1. A stopper, marking, or the like may be provided at the position of the steering angle with a maximum absolute value (for example, 22 °) on the steering shaft or steering wheel. The actual steering waveform, steering speed range, steering angle range, steering time, and traveling speed during traveling can be confirmed from the detection results of the sensors 11, 12, and 13. For the steering input, a robot (referred to as a steering robot) that performs designated steering by computer control without depending on the driver's technique may be used. By using this robot, the above traveling conditions can be easily satisfied.

  Hereinafter, the effects of the present invention will be clarified by examples. However, the present invention should not be construed in a limited manner based on the description of the examples.

[Running test]
An actual vehicle running test of the vehicle 1 on which the test tires T having different specifications are mounted was performed. The purpose is to compare the evaluation accuracy between the conventional response delay evaluation based only on sensory (comparative example) and the numerical evaluation based on the response delay index calculated as described above (example). The test procedure is as follows.

[Test procedure]
Two different types of tires T (X specification, Y specification) were mounted on the vehicle 1 alternately, and the vehicle 1 ran five times. That is, in each comparative example and each example, the X specification tire T was run 5 times, and the Y specification tire T was run 5 times. Response delay was evaluated after each run. That is, five evaluations were performed for each example.
-Vehicle 1: A four-wheeled passenger car manufactured by a Japanese manufacturer. The aforementioned control device 10 and various sensors 11, 12, and 13 are mounted. These devices operate when performing numerical evaluation (example) of response delay, but do not operate when performing sensory evaluation of response delay (comparative example).
-Tire T of X specification: It is a genuine installation product, and its air pressure is a genuine specified internal pressure.
Y-specific tire T: genuinely mounted product, the air pressure of which is genuine specified internal pressure +80 kPa.
A person who drives the vehicle 1: a veteran driver A having an evaluation experience of 10 years or more and a new driver B having an evaluation experience of 2 years.
Evaluator evaluating response delay: Driver A (also referred to as Evaluator A) and Driver B (also referred to as Evaluator B).
Sensory evaluation of response delay (comparative example): The evaluators A and B drive the vehicle 1 in a state in which the mounted tire T does not know whether it is the X specification or the Y specification. Thereafter, the evaluators A and B declare which tire T has a larger response delay. Evaluation accuracy is determined by the accuracy rate of five evaluations.
-Numerical evaluation of response delay (Example): The evaluator B drives the vehicle 1 in a state where the mounted tire T does not know whether it is the X specification or the Y specification. After that, based on the index obtained from the above-mentioned graphs (illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3) created by the average value of the six measurement results, the evaluator B has a response delay for any tire T. Declare it big. Evaluation accuracy is determined by the accuracy rate of five evaluations. In this numerical evaluation, there is no room for the evaluator's subjective judgment.

[Example 1]
As Example 1, an example of the conditions and results of the evaluation test described above is shown. The degree of satisfaction of the above-described test conditions (steering management items, etc.) is as shown in Table 1. That is, the control device and each sensor were operated, and the response delay was indexed by the graph (circle mark in Table 1). However, the steering input and the traveling speed were all out of the management range (X in Table 1). The evaluation (declaration of whether the response delay is the X specification tire or the Y specification tire) was performed by the evaluator B based on an index based on the graph.

[Example 2]
As Example 2, an example of the conditions and results of the evaluation test described above is shown. The degree of satisfaction of the above-described test conditions (steering management items, etc.) is as shown in Table 1. That is, the control device and each sensor were operated, and the response delay was indexed by the graph (circle mark in Table 1). However, with regard to the steering input and the traveling speed, only the steering waveform was within the management range (◯ mark in Table 1), and other items were out of the management range (X mark in Table 1). The evaluation was performed by the evaluator B based on an index based on the graph.

[Example 3]
As Example 3, an example of the conditions and results of the evaluation test described above is shown. The degree of satisfaction of the above-described test conditions (steering management items, etc.) is as shown in Table 1. That is, the control device and each sensor were operated, and the response delay was indexed by the graph (circle mark in Table 1). However, with regard to the steering input and the traveling speed, only the steering angle was within the management range (◯ mark in Table 1), and other items were out of the management range (X mark in Table 1). The evaluation was performed by the evaluator B based on an index based on the graph.

[Example 4]
As Example 4, an example of the conditions and results of the evaluation test described above is shown. The degree of satisfaction of the above-described test conditions (steering management items, etc.) is as shown in Table 1. That is, the control device and each sensor were operated, and the response delay was indexed by the graph (circle mark in Table 1). However, with regard to the steering input and the traveling speed, only the steering speed was within the management range (◯ mark in Table 1), and other items were out of the management range (X mark in Table 1). The evaluation was performed by the evaluator B based on an index based on the graph.

[Example 5]
As Example 5, an example of the conditions and results of the evaluation test described above is shown. The degree of satisfaction of the above-described test conditions (steering management items, etc.) is as shown in Table 1. That is, the control device and each sensor were operated, and the response delay was indexed by the graph (circle mark in Table 1). However, with regard to the steering input and the traveling speed, only the steering time was within the management range (◯ mark in Table 1), and other items were out of the management range (X mark in Table 1). The evaluation was performed by the evaluator B based on an index based on the graph.

[Example 6]
As an example, an example of the conditions and results of the evaluation test described above is shown. The degree of satisfaction of the above-described test conditions (steering management items, etc.) is as shown in Table 1. That is, the control device and each sensor were operated, and the response delay was indexed by the graph (circle mark in Table 1). However, as for the steering input and the traveling speed, only the traveling speed was within the management range (◯ mark in Table 1), and other items were out of the management range (X mark in Table 1). The evaluation was performed by the evaluator B based on an index based on the graph.

[Example 7]
As an example, an example of the conditions and results of the evaluation test described above is shown. The degree of satisfaction of the above-described test conditions (steering management items, etc.) is as shown in Table 1. That is, the control device and each sensor were operated, and the response delay was indexed by the graph (circle mark in Table 1). However, with regard to steering input and travel speed, all items were within the management range (circles in Table 1). The evaluation was performed by the evaluator B based on an index based on the graph.

[Comparative Example 1]
As Comparative Example 1, an example of the conditions and results of the evaluation test described above is shown. The control device and each sensor did not operate, and the response delay was not indexed by the graph. Therefore, it is unclear whether all items of the steering input and the traveling speed are within the management range or not (x in Table 1). The evaluation was performed by the evaluator A using only the sensuality.

[Comparative Example 2]
As Comparative Example 2, an example of the conditions and results of the evaluation test described above is shown. The control device and each sensor did not operate, and the response delay was not indexed by the graph. Therefore, it is unclear whether all items of the steering input and the traveling speed are within the management range or not (x in Table 1). Evaluation was performed by the evaluator B using only the sensuality.

[Evaluation]
Table 1 shows the “evaluation accuracy” as the results of the evaluation tests of Examples 1 to 7 and Comparative Examples 1 and 2. In the sensory evaluation by the evaluator A of Comparative Example 1, it was determined that the response delay was larger in the X specification tire for four out of five runs. The correct answer is that the X-specific tire has a greater response delay. This is because it agrees with 85% of all veteran sensory evaluation drivers. Therefore, the accuracy of the sensory evaluation by the evaluator A of Comparative Example 1 is 80%. In the sensory evaluation by the evaluator B of Comparative Example 1, it was determined that the X-specific tire had a larger response delay for 2 out of 5 runs. The evaluation accuracy is 40%. In the numerical evaluations of Examples 1 to 6, the vehicle traveled 5 times, but only one item out of the management items such as the steering input was within the management range. Items within the management range are different in each of the first to sixth embodiments. The evaluation accuracy is in the range of 50% to 80%. The importance of the management item can be estimated based on the difference in evaluation accuracy between the first to sixth embodiments. In the numerical evaluation of Example 7, all the management items were within the management range. In Example 7, it was determined that the response delay was larger in the X specification tire for all five runs. The evaluation accuracy is 100%.

  From the above evaluation test results, according to numerical evaluation using a graph, highly accurate evaluation can be performed without depending on an experienced evaluator. In addition, in this numerical evaluation, not only the driver who drives the test vehicle but also any number of people can perform highly accurate evaluation. Further, it is possible to evaluate not only the response delay between the plurality of vehicles and the response delay between the plurality of tires, but also the degree of the response delay itself with high accuracy. From this evaluation result, the superiority of the present invention is clear.

  The response delay evaluation method according to the present invention can be applied to the dynamic performance evaluation of vehicles and tires.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 ... Vehicle 2 ... Front wheel 3 ... Rear wheel 4 ... Steering wheel 5 ... Steering shaft 6 ... Axle 10 ... Control device 11 ... Steering angle sensor 12 ... Yaw rate sensor 13 ... Vehicle speed sensor C ... Curve PI ... Change point SL1 ... First straight line SL2 ... Second straight line θ ... Intersection angle T ... Test tire

Claims (10)

A method for evaluating tire motion performance,
Obtaining a graph showing the relationship between the steering angle and yaw rate of the vehicle during running including yawing;
A response delay evaluation method including a step of determining a response delay from a position of a change point that is a point at which a curvature of a curve indicating a correspondence between a steering angle and a yaw rate in the graph changes greatly.   The response delay evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein a steering angle value at a change point position of a curve indicating a relationship between the steering angle and the yaw rate is used as an index of response delay. Obtaining a graph showing the relationship between the steering angle and yaw rate of the vehicle during running including yawing;
Determining the response delay from the position of the changing point, which is the point at which the curvature of the curve indicating the correspondence between the steering angle and the yaw rate changes greatly in this graph,
The value of the steering angle at the change point position of the curve indicating the relationship between the steering angle and the yaw rate is used as an index of response delay,
The change point, in the curve, and the straight line connecting between 5 degrees or less two points of the steering angle, which is the intersection of the second straight line connecting two points of more than 8 degrees, the response delay evaluation method.   4. The response delay according to claim 3, wherein when the value of the intersection angle between the first straight line and the second straight line in the graph is less than a predetermined threshold, there is no response delay, and when the value is equal to or greater than the threshold, there is a response delay. Evaluation method. The threshold is
The crossing angle is an angle obtained by subtracting the inclination angle of the first straight line from the inclination angle of the second straight line, the steering angle unit is (degrees), the yaw rate unit is (degrees / second), 5. The response delay evaluation method according to claim 4, which is a value corresponding to a value within a range of 0.2 ± 0.05 (1 / second) when the unit of the inclination angle is (1 / second).   6. The response delay evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein a correlation coefficient between a steering waveform and a sine wave is 0.9650 or more in traveling of the vehicle.   The response delay evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 6, wherein an average of the steering speed is in a range of 38 ± 10 degrees / second in traveling of the vehicle.   8. The response delay evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein an average of steering angles is in a range of 20 ± 2 degrees in traveling of the vehicle.   9. The response delay evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein an average of the steering time is in a range of 0.8 ± 0.2 seconds in traveling of the vehicle.   10. The response delay evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein an average of traveling speed is in a range of 140 ± 2 km / h in traveling of the vehicle.

Images