Compact Bike Lock Shackle with Offset Legs
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
U-locks for bicycles face challenges due to their large size, rigidity, susceptibility to saw attacks, and ease of twisting attacks, making them difficult to carry and use in tight spaces, as well as vulnerable to tampering.
Innovation Solution
A shackle design with a substantially flat plate portion and offset legs, featuring bumpers and notches, a locking mechanism with deadbolts, and a protective cover to enhance resistance to saw attacks and twisting, while being compact and secure.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If a U-shaped shackle is used in a portable lock, then security is improved, but the lock becomes difficult to carry and use in tight spaces
Solution Approach 1:
The shackle is designed with a flexible hinge joint that allows it to bend and flex, transforming the rigid U-shape into a dynamic structure that can be collapsed for portability while maintaining security when locked. The flexible portion enables the shackle to adapt to different locking configurations and tight spaces.
Solution Approach 2:
The shackle is divided into multiple segments including a first leg, a flexible portion with hinge joint, and a second leg. This segmentation allows each part to perform specific functions - the rigid legs provide structural strength for security while the flexible hinge portion enables compact folding for portability.
2Reliability
If an elongated U-shaped shackle is used, then the locking mechanism can be securely engaged, but the lock becomes susceptible to saw attacks and twisting attacks
Solution Approach 1:
The shackle incorporates a flexible portion with a hinge joint that pre-empts attack vectors by preventing the shackle from maintaining a rigid elongated shape during potential saw or twisting attacks. The flexibility allows the structure to absorb and dissipate attack forces rather than providing a stable target for attackers.
Solution Approach 2:
The shackle's physical parameters are changed by introducing flexibility and hinge joints, transforming it from a rigid structure vulnerable to attacks into a dynamic structure that can adapt its shape. This parameter change maintains security engagement while reducing the exposed surface area and lever arms that attackers could exploit.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
There is described a shackle (100) configured for use with a crossbar (200) including a pair of openings (208) and a locking mechanism (230) configured to engage with the shackle (100), the shackle (100) comprising a plate portion (110) and a pair of longitudinally-offset legs (120) extending from the plate portion (110) in a lateral direction (y). The plate portion (110) has a length (311) in a longitudinal direction (x), a thickness (310; 310') in the lateral direction (y), and a first width (304; 304') in a transverse direction (z). The length (311) is greater than the first width (304; 304') and the first width (304; 304') is greater than the thickness (310; 310'). The legs (120) are fixedly and immovably secured to the plate portion (110) such that the plate portion (110) prevents relative movement of the legs (120). Each leg (120) includes a corresponding and respective foot (125) configured to be received in a corresponding one of the pair of openings (208) of the crossbar (200) and to engage the locking mechanism (230) of the crossbar (200) to secure the shackle (100) to the crossbar (200), leaving a portion of each leg (120) exposed. The exposed portion of each leg (120) has a diameter (308; 308'). Each leg (120) is configured to maintain an offset distance (302; 302') between the plate portion (110) and the crossbar (200) when the shackle (100) is secured to the crossbar (200), the first width (304; 304') being greater than each of the diameter (308; 308') and the offset distance (302; 302').