Two-Wheeler Assistance Control Using Rider Reaction Feedback

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing two-wheeler assistance systems often intervene in ways that contradict the rider's expectations, lacking adaptability to the driver's reaction and situational awareness.

Innovation Solution

An assistance system that adjusts its interventions based on the driver's reaction and tolerance values, using captured driving dynamics parameters and upcoming situation assessments to determine a hazard level, activating or suppressing assistance systems accordingly.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the assistance system continuously monitors and intervenes based on detected hazards, then safety is improved, but the system may intervene contrary to the driver's expectations

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidadaptability to driver's expectations
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system monitors driver interventions (braking, acceleration, steering) and uses this feedback to adjust the hazard level assessment. When the driver actively intervenes to change vehicle dynamics, the system detects this and modifies the hazard evaluation accordingly, ensuring future interventions align with the driver's intentions and expectations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The hazard level is not fixed but dynamically adjusted based on real-time driver behavior. The system continuously adapts the hazard assessment by incorporating detected driver interventions, making the safety system flexible and responsive to the driver's changing intentions rather than following a rigid intervention protocol.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Measurement precision

If the assistance system uses multiple detection devices and evaluation steps, then measurement precision is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvehazard level assessment accuracyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The evaluation unit serves multiple functions: it detects driving dynamics parameters, assesses upcoming driving situations, determines hazard levels, and monitors driver interventions. By consolidating these functions into a single multi-functional evaluation unit, the system achieves high measurement precision without proportionally increasing device complexity.

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

Solution Approach 2:

The system combines multiple detection devices (for vehicle dynamics, environment, and driver behavior) into an integrated assessment process. The evaluation unit merges data from various sensors and processes them together to determine the hazard level, reducing overall system complexity while maintaining comprehensive monitoring capabilities.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Data Source

PatentEP4703223A1Method for controlling an assistance system of a two-wheel, assistance system and two-wheel as well as computer program
Publication Date: 2026.03.04 ROBERT BOSCH GMBH
  • EP4703223A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4703223A1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4703223A1 patent drawing

AI summary

The invention comprises a method for controlling an assistance system of a two-wheeler, an assistance system and a two-wheeler, and a computer program. The method comprises the steps of acquiring at least one driving dynamics parameter of the two-wheeler and acquiring an upcoming driving situation. The method further comprises assigning the upcoming driving situation, depending on the at least one driving dynamics parameter, to a first value of a hazard level, and acquiring a change in the at least one driving dynamics parameter due to driver intervention. It comprises assigning the change in the at least one driving dynamics parameter to a tolerance value, and determining a second value of the hazard level, wherein the second value is the difference between the first value and the tolerance value.The procedure includes activating the assistance system if the second value is greater than an intervention limit, or suppressing the assistance system if the second value is less than the intervention limit.