Hinged Sports Shoe Sole Reinforcement for Uneven-Terrain Stability

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing sports shoes for running on uneven terrain fail to provide durability, shock absorption, stability, and effective impulse transmission while maintaining lightweight design.

Innovation Solution

A sole structure with a reinforcing element comprising a rear part, a front part, and a central hinge, where the front part is less rigid than the rear part, featuring longitudinal branches and a set of stiffening ribs, embedded within cushioning layers to enhance stability and shock absorption without adding weight.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a reinforcing element is added to the sole to improve stability and shock absorption, then durability and stability are improved, but weight increases

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovestabilityVSAvoidweight

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSWeight of moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The reinforcing element is strategically positioned only in the rear part of the sole, specifically under the plantar fascia and extending in front of the posterior support point. This localized placement provides stability and shock absorption where most needed during heel strike and midfoot phase, while avoiding unnecessary weight in the entire sole structure.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The reinforcing element is divided into distinct functional zones: a rear part for shock absorption and stability, and a front part with longitudinal branches for impulse transmission. The central hinge connects these segments, allowing differential rigidity - the rear part remains rigid for stability while the front part can flex for natural foot movement.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

2Reliability

If the rear part of the reinforcing element is made rigid to improve stability, then stability is improved, but shock absorption decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovestabilityVSAvoidshock absorption

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

Different regions of the reinforcing element have different rigidity characteristics. The rear part is made rigid to provide stability during the loading response phase, while the front part is designed with longitudinal branches that can flex to absorb shock during the transition to push-off phase.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The central hinge connects the rigid rear part to the more flexible front part, creating a dynamic structure that adapts to loading conditions. During heel strike, the rigid rear part provides stability. During push-off, the hinge allows the front part to flex and absorb shock, then transmit impulses effectively.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

3Ease of operation

If the front part is made less rigid to improve comfort and natural movement, then comfort is improved, but impulse transmission decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovecomfortVSAvoidimpulse transmission

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSPower

Solution Approach 1:

The front part of the reinforcing element is designed with longitudinal branches that have specific rigidity characteristics - rigid enough to transmit impulses during push-off, but flexible enough to allow natural foot movement and comfort during the transition phase.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The central hinge creates a dynamic connection between the rigid rear part and the flexible front part. During the push-off phase, the hinge transmits impulses effectively from the rigid rear part through the flexible front part to the ground, maintaining both comfort and power transmission.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

4Ease of manufacture

If a monolithic reinforcing element is used to simplify manufacturing, then ease of manufacture is improved, but structural flexibility decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveease of manufactureVSAvoidstructural flexibility

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of manufactureVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The reinforcing element is segmented into a rear part and a front part connected by a central hinge, allowing each segment to be optimized independently for its specific function while being manufactured as an integrated component. This segmentation provides structural flexibility without complicating the manufacturing process.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The rigidity parameter is varied along the length of the reinforcing element through the central hinge design. The rear part maintains high rigidity for stability, while the front part has reduced rigidity for comfort and natural movement, all within a single manufacturable component structure.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP4635355A1Reinforcing element for a sports shoe

Publication Date: 2025.10.22 ROSSIGNOL LANGE SRL

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

AI summary

Sole (2) for a sports shoe (1) comprising a reinforcing element (11), the reinforcing element being intended to extend under the plantar fascia (44), the reinforcing element comprising a rear portion (21), a front portion (22), and a central hinge (23) connecting the front portion to the rear portion, the front portion being less rigid than the rear portion, the rear portion being intended to extend in front of a posterior support point (41) of the foot, the front portion comprising at least one longitudinal branch (24, 25), the at least one longitudinal branch being intended to extend between an antero-internal support point (42) and an antero-external support point (43) of the foot.