Work machines such as, for example, motor graders, backhoe loaders, agricultural tractors, and other types of heavy machinery may have a variety of optional work tools that can be attached to and controlled by the work machine. These optional work tools can be relatively complicated and difficult to operate. Each work tool may have a different operator interface with numerous controls for position, orientation, and other associated features and functions.
Historically, work machines have incorporated permanently located single-axis lever control mechanisms with complex mechanical linkages and multiple operating joints, or a plurality of cables to provide the desired work tool functionality. Such control mechanisms require operators with high skill levels to control the many input devices. After a period of operating these control mechanisms, the operators may become fatigued, with no way to rest the hand or arm while operating the various control mechanisms. Further, because an operator's hand may be required to travel from one actuating element to another, an operator's delayed reaction time and the complexity and counter-intuitiveness of the controls may result in poor quality and/or low production. Also, because these single-axis lever control mechanisms are not location-adjustable, they may be inefficiently and/or non-ergonomically-located for all machine operators.
One example of an operator interface designed to reduce operator fatigue and response time while improving results of the work machine is described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,039,141 (the '141 patent) issued to Denny on Mar. 21, 2000. The '141 patent describes an instrumentation arrangement for an off-road vehicle. The arrangement includes co-located control elements, which the operator manipulates to control the vehicle and tool operation. The arrangement also includes an armrest and is movable upon the vehicle to conform to a particular operator's positioning preference.
Although the arrangement of the '141 patent may alleviate some of the problems associated with separate work machine controls, the arrangement may be ineffective for controlling work tools available to a work machine. In addition, because both vehicle and tool operator controls are co-located within the same console, all work machines must be equipped with the entire console regardless of whether or not a particular work machine is equipped with the tools controllable by the console. This requirement may unnecessarily increase the overall cost of the base work machine. Further, the arrangement of the '141 patent may not provide enough support or adjustability to the machine operator.
The disclosed control system is directed towards overcoming one or more of the problems as set forth above.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds