Toyota Seeks Wheelchair Users’ Ideas

[Cal]

Always good to see new ideas, however they come about ....

#MyMobilityUnlimited Seeks Wheelchair Users’ Ideas for Technological Innovation

The Toyota Mobility Foundation is crowdsourcing ideas for its $4 million Mobility Unlimited Challenge, which is designed to spur innovation in mobility tech for those with lower-limb paralysis. Got a brilliant idea or even just a pipe dream for a device to help you get around whenever, wherever? Share it, and maybe, just maybe it’ll provide a spark of inspiration for designers around the world.

http://www.newmobility.com/2018/04/mymobilityunlimited-seeks-ideas/

[Burgerman]

They dont really want to know what we actually need. They want to know about some wizz bang student invention thing. That will come to nothing. I just spent months looking for a vehicle that I can order that is finished well, that I can drive from a wheelchair that isnt a badly / cheaply made minivan from the US and non exists.

I want something that is FAST to get in and out. Not waiting minutes to enter or exit. Too slow. Just like seating actuators/lifts. And that is built like a BMW including the seamless modifications direct from the factory. No nasty mouldings, or rear entry stuff thats too small etc. That I WANT to drive.

[mgwmgw]

This is what they think they have found out:

http://toyotamobilityfoundation.org/pdf/press_release_20180424_en.pdf

While I cannot argue against anything they say, I am not sure how to translate parts of it into design.

[Burgerman]

Thats because they ask the WRONG people, who know nothing of engineering or whats wrong/or in fact possible, or why.

And... The wrong questions.
Every time I fill in any of those stupid forms I give up after the first few question since the questions are simply WRONG and dont make any sense from an engineering perspective as far as actually making a better chair is concerned.

One example. If you ask a user if they want a faster or slower chair, they will allmost all answer faster. But I chose 6mph over 8mph on my last chair for about 6 or so reasons that these sort of questions do not address. So you will get a load of manufacturers producing faster chairs based on the survey. With huge consequenses that the user did not understand when answering the question. When designing a chair there are a mass of compromises. Or worse, the questions do not adress the chair design at all! Almost always they already have some wizbang stair climbing/balancing idea and the questions are trying to justify how marvelous it would be.

Ask the user the same question regarding range. Or torque. Or control. Or hill/ramp climbing capability. Or battery lifespan. Or charge time. Or weight. Or how compact they want a chair, or stability. Or any number of things. Because more speed for examply, works directly against all of the above. Yet they would answer these questions with more torque, more control, more range, more compact etc too... They want a 30mph barstool, with the comfort and stability of a armchair, and the range of a car, in a 50lb folding chair with off road capability that makes tea and climbs stairs...

And every question is the same or even worse, than the above example. Thats why we end up with what we get.

Another examply.
Ask, does your chair have enough range for what you do daily? Almost all answer yes. Because a. they never run out. And b. Because they have learned its limitations and conform to what it allows . Its limiting what they do or attempt to do subconsiously, but they simply accept that as normal.

Ask them if they want 4x the range, all will answer yes... And they will use it. Because their expectations have now changed.

Yet its the same question. And speed reduces this...

[greybeard]

Thats because they ask the WRONG people, who know nothing of engineering or whats wrong/or in fact possible, or why.

And... The wrong questions.
Every time I fill in any of those stupid forms I give up after the first few question since the questions are simply WRONG and dont make any sense from an engineering perspective as far as actually making a better chair is concerned.

One example. If you ask a user if they want a faster or slower chair, they will allmost all answer faster. But I chose 6mph over 8mph on my last chair for about 6 or so reasons that these sort of questions do not address. So you will get a load of manufacturers producing faster chairs based on the survey. With huge consequenses that the user did not understand when answering the question. When designing a chair there are a mass of compromises. Or worse, the questions do not adress the chair design at all! Almost always they already have some wizbang stair climbing/balancing idea and the questions are trying to justify how marvelous it would be.

Ask the user the same question regarding range. Or torque. Or control. Or hill/ramp climbing capability. Or battery lifespan. Or charge time. Or weight. Or how compact they want a chair, or stability. Or any number of things. Because more speed for examply, works directly against all of the above. Yet they would answer these questions with more torque, more control, more range, more compact etc too... They want a 30mph barstool, with the comfort and stability of a armchair, and the range of a car, in a 50lb folding chair with off road capability that makes tea and climbs stairs...

And every question is the same or even worse, than the above example. Thats why we end up with what we get.

Another examply.
Ask, does your chair have enough range for what you do daily? Almost all answer yes. Because a. they never run out. And b. Because they have learned its limitations and conform to what it allows . Its limiting what they do or attempt to do subconsiously, but they simply accept that as normal.

Ask them if they want 4x the range, all will answer yes... And they will use it. Because their expectations have now changed.

Yet its the same question. And speed reduces this...

All absolutely right. But ONLY someone with your expertise, John, would think like this.

So why not do us all a favour and send the above to the organisers of this survey. THEN - perhaps - they might begin to understand. You have nothing to lose and possibly a great deal to gain.

[Burgerman]

I cant even fill in many forms. US only!

[greybeard]

https://youtu.be/AsNjyCzYCgk

[mgwmgw]

You could send email to
mobilityunlimited@challenges.org
or, better, you could send email to
Sarah-Jane Rumford at
sj@89up.org
who is listed in the press release as the person to contact for more information.

The hoverboard project that exgooserider is working on is, as far as I know, funded by these people, so his team might have better contact information, if you get no reply from the email addresses above. For technical reasons, exgooserider cannot see the conversation in this forum. Not sure how to fix that, but I told him about it.

Burgerman, you don't need to be stopped by U.S. only. This is an international forum, and you have friends in other countries. Rumford is in London.

[Burgerman]

It will fall on deaf ears. They are not actually interested in improving a powerchair. That would involve hundreds of incremental changes to a conventional chair. They want a wizz bang invention that they can drag around all the shows. Thats why they have literally polished up an old ibot guts, and stuck the works under a manual chairs frame. They could have done the same with any chair. But that one has some stair climbing technology that stands out. It fits the wizz bang invention theme. Even though its an awful daily chair. And now made much worse by what they have done to it for most people.

I used an original pre production iBot 3000 18 momths before it made it to market. And again the iBot 4000 when it was redesigned (and actually worse in many ways).

Problem. They were not iunterested in a good chair for daily use. Only that it did tricks. Everything else fell by the wayside. Why?

1. Suspension? Nope. Either end. It had the worst ride of any chair I ever tested in the normal mode you need most of the time.
2. Tiny casters that hat to bear around FIFTY % of the chairs weight. It was massively nose heavy, due to the stair climbing method. The casters destroyed themselves and rattled you to death as they ran on pavements. Before you actually hit any bump or ridge.
3. It rode on its rearmost pair of drive wheels. Those are way behind you. Meaning its like driving an oil tanker indoors. Half the weight is on two tiny solid casters. It tries to tear up carpets when it turns. And its is swinging you and the front casters around way in front. Indoors it is hopeless.
4. Its programming and software is of course bespoke. And I couldnt accurately go between two cars without slowing down first. Its gor terrible slow turn acceleration/deceleration that we cannot change. That alone would rule it out.
5. Changing to 4x4 mode or any other mode is S L O W ... So you dont bother mostly.
6. 4X4 mode sounds like a good idea. And it is, on loose ground. Anywhwere else, it tears up the fragile bycicle tubed tyres. And kills the bateries fast.
7. Arms too weak for pressure lifts, transfering.
8. Stair climbing really needs 2 people to do safely. And it overheated aand shut down and said "contact service" when I tried it... Leaving me stranded 4 steps up a staircase. Also murders the battery. Best avoided.
9. Balance mode. This is fun, and works, and saves battery power. But only safe on flat ground. I got it to fall over very easily on a 1 inch threshold. Caught by the rep!

When I wanted to get to the pub fast, I took my own chair and lleft the one that does tricks at home.