Dual-Foot Pedal Pivoting Control Surface for Jam Prevention

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Vehicle pedals pose a hazard due to the space around them, which can lead to objects becoming wedged or interfering with proper operation, potentially causing loss of control or unsafe functioning.

Innovation Solution

A dual-foot pedal system with a control surface that pivots about a fulcrum, allowing one foot to control acceleration and the other braking, equipped with sensors to detect direction changes and map movement ranges onto acceleration or braking degrees, preventing simultaneous acceleration and braking.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If traditional single-pedal arrangements are used, then the space behind the pedal is larger, but objects may become wedged or entangled with the pedal mechanism

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepedal operation safetyVSAvoidpedal mechanism complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The control surface is divided into two distinct sides (first side and second side) that pivot in opposite directions about a fulcrum. Each side independently controls either acceleration or braking, eliminating the risk of objects jamming the entire pedal mechanism while maintaining simple individual pedal paths.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The pedal system transitions from static positional control to dynamic directional pivoting. The control surface can pivot dynamically between two directions (first direction for acceleration, second direction for braking), allowing the system to adapt its response based on the direction of pedal input rather than relying on fixed positional zones.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Ease of operation

If a dual-foot pedal system is implemented, then acceleration and braking control is improved, but the device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveacceleration and braking controlVSAvoidcontrol system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The accelerator and brake controls are merged into a single control surface that pivots about a fulcrum. Instead of requiring two separate pedals, the system combines both functions into one component where the first side controls acceleration and the second side controls braking, simplifying the overall control architecture.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The control surface serves multiple functions through its dual-sided pivoting capability. A single component performs both acceleration control (when pivoted in the first direction) and braking control (when pivoted in the second direction), making the pedal system universal rather than requiring separate specialized pedals for each function.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

3Productivity

If the control surface pivots through a large range of movement, then the dynamic range of acceleration and braking is improved, but the space required behind the pedal increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedynamic range of acceleration and brakingVSAvoidspace behind pedal
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSVolume of stationary object

Solution Approach 1:

The control surface utilizes angular/directional movement rather than linear displacement to achieve its full range of motion. By pivoting about a fulcrum, the pedal achieves large dynamic ranges in acceleration and braking control through rotational movement that occurs within a compact footprint, eliminating the need for extensive space behind the pedal.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the measurement parameter from linear pedal travel distance to angular pivot direction and extent. The sensor detects the degree of pivoting and maps it onto the appropriate acceleration or braking output, allowing the system to achieve full dynamic range control without requiring proportionally large physical movement space.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Measurement precision

If sensors and controllers are added to detect pivot direction and map movement ranges, then control precision is improved, but the device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepivot direction detectionVSAvoidsensor and controller complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

A sensor provides continuous feedback on the pivot direction and extent of the control surface to a controller. The controller uses this feedback to determine whether the pedal is being pivoted in the first direction (acceleration) or second direction (braking) and to map the measured pivot range onto the appropriate output, enabling precise control through closed-loop feedback.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentEP2548095B1Vehicle control system
Publication Date: 2019.11.06 ABU AL RUBB KHALIL
  • EP2548095B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP2548095B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP2548095B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A pedal (2) for use with both feet wherein depression with one foot causes acceleration and depression by the other foot causes braking. The pedal pivots about a medial line of a user. A system to detect a change in the pivot direction of the pedal is also included, the system automatically switching between acceleration and braking in response to a detected change.