Segmented Guide Rail for Compact Load Carrier

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing load carriers for vehicles face challenges in achieving a balance between being lightweight, compact, and resilient, while also supporting high loads and requiring minimal installation space, which is not adequately addressed by current rail profiles.

Innovation Solution

The design incorporates short reinforcement legs for guide rails, allowing for a compact and lightweight structure with a clamping device that securely fastens runner rails to guide rails using a tie rod, and includes reinforcing ribs and spacers for additional support and guidance, optimizing space usage and load distribution.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Strength

If traditional rail profiles with multiple leg sections are used to withstand high loads, then the load-bearing capacity is improved, but the installation space requirement increases and the weight increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveload-bearing capacityVSAvoidinstallation space
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSArea of stationary object

Solution Approach 1:

The guide rail is segmented into functional sections: a support leg for mounting, a bearing leg for guiding the runner rail, and a reinforcement leg for strengthening. This segmentation allows each part to be optimized independently, achieving high load-bearing capacity with compact dimensions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The reinforcement leg extends in the longitudinal direction rather than increasing transverse dimensions. This dimensional change allows strengthening without increasing the installation space footprint, as the reinforcement is distributed along the length of the guide rail.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

2Strength

If traditional rail profiles with multiple leg sections are used to withstand high loads, then the load-bearing capacity is improved, but the weight increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveload-bearing capacityVSAvoidguide rail weight
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSWeight of stationary object

Solution Approach 1:

The guide rail is divided into distinct functional legs (support, bearing, reinforcement) that can be optimized for minimal weight while maintaining strength. Each leg performs a specific function, eliminating unnecessary material.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Reinforcement is applied locally through the reinforcement leg only where needed to withstand loads, rather than uniformly strengthening the entire rail profile. This localized approach minimizes weight while maintaining load-bearing capacity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

3Area of stationary object

If the guide rail is made compact to save installation space, then the installation space requirement is reduced, but the load-bearing capacity may be compromised

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveinstallation spaceVSAvoidload-bearing capacity
Core Design Contradiction:
Area of stationary objectVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The compact guide rail maintains load-bearing capacity through segmentation into specialized legs. The reinforcement leg specifically addresses strength requirements while the overall compact design saves installation space.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Strength is achieved by extending the reinforcement leg in the longitudinal dimension rather than increasing transverse dimensions. This allows the guide rail to be compact in footprint while maintaining load-bearing capacity through longitudinal reinforcement.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

4Strength

If the reinforcement leg is made long to increase strength, then the load-bearing capacity is improved, but the available free space below it is reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveguide rail strengthVSAvoidfree space below reinforcement leg
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSVolume of moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The reinforcement leg provides localized strengthening exactly where loads are transmitted from the runner rail to the support leg. This targeted reinforcement achieves maximum strength efficiency without requiring excessive length that would consume valuable free space.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

Instead of increasing the height (vertical dimension) of the reinforcement leg, the reinforcement is achieved through longitudinal extension and cross-sectional optimization. This dimensional strategy maintains free space below the leg while providing sufficient strength.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Data Source

PatentEP2256002B1Load carrier with a guide rail for a slider
Publication Date: 2012.06.27 WESTFALIA AUTOMOTIVE
  • EP2256002B1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP2256002B1 patent drawingFigure 3~4
  • EP2256002B1 patent drawingFigure 5a~6

AI summary

The load carrier has a reinforcement shank (63) arranged at longitudinal side of a support shank (62) running toward a longitudinal axis opposite to a protective shank (61). The reinforcement shank is transverse to the longitudinal axis more briefly than the protective shank, so that a free space (65) is present underneath to the reinforcement shank beside that protective shank.