Cross-Country Ski Binding With Opposed Hooks for Secure Release

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing cross-country ski bindings are heavy, complex, and prone to unexpected release due to mechanical complexity and the need for significant lever action, compromising reliability.

Innovation Solution

A cross-country ski binding with a mechanism that allows hooks to pivot around a vertical axis, featuring two protruding portions that move in opposite directions to securely engage and disengage the boot, incorporating a simplified design with a rotating plate and return mechanism for enhanced reliability.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a wide hook design is used to securely engage the boot axis, then engagement reliability is improved, but weight and mechanism complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveengagement reliabilityVSAvoidmechanism complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The retaining element is divided into two separate hooks instead of one wide hook. Each hook independently engages with the boot axis, distributing the engagement function across multiple simpler components rather than requiring a single complex wide hook structure.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The hooks are designed to move in a longitudinal direction along the ski rather than rotating horizontally. This vertical/longitudinal movement dimension simplifies the mechanism by eliminating the need for complex horizontal rotation while maintaining secure engagement capability.

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

2Ease of operation

If a lever mechanism is used to retract hooks for boot release, then ease of operation is improved, but mechanical complexity and risk of unexpected release increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveboot release easeVSAvoidfastener reliability
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The complex lever arm mechanism is removed entirely. Instead, the user directly manipulates the hooks themselves to retract and release them, eliminating the intermediary lever component that added complexity and potential failure points.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

The hooks are designed to be manually retracted and released directly by the user without requiring a separate lever mechanism. The boot release function is performed self-contained by the hooks themselves, reducing overall system complexity and improving reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Ease of operation

If return means are used to automatically return hooks to engaged position, then ease of operation is improved, but risk of unexpected release increases when vertical force exceeds return mechanism force

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomatic return functionVSAvoidfastener security
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The return means mechanism is removed from the design. The hooks remain in whatever position they are placed, eliminating the automatic return function that could fail when vertical forces exceeded the return mechanism's capacity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

The design accepts that the hooks may need manual repositioning rather than relying on a complex return mechanism that could fail. This simpler, more robust approach prioritizes reliability over automatic return convenience.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #27Cheap short-living objects (Disposable)

4Ease of operation

If a mechanism with significant lever arm is used to move hooks by knob rotation, then ease of operation is improved, but device complexity and weight increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvehook movement easeVSAvoidmechanism complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The knob rotation mechanism with significant lever arm is completely removed. The hooks are designed to be manipulated directly by hand, eliminating the need for any rotational conversion mechanism or lever arm.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

Instead of using a knob to indirectly move the hooks through mechanical conversion, the design allows direct manual manipulation of the hooks themselves. This inverted approach simplifies the mechanism by removing the intermediary conversion system.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

Data Source

PatentEP4678250A1Cross-country ski binding and cross-country ski provided with such a binding
Publication Date: 2026.01.14 SKIS ROSSIGNOL SA VOIRON FR
  • EP4678250A1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP4678250A1 patent drawingFigure 3~5
  • EP4678250A1 patent drawingFigure 6~7

AI summary

Binding (1) for cross-country skiing to receive a boot equipped with a connecting element, said binding comprising a base including a receiving portion (15,16) configured to receive said connecting element, and a retaining element (17,18) movable between an engaged position in which it prevents the exit of said connecting element from the receiving portion, and a retracted position, in which the receiving portion is open to allow the insertion and removal of said connecting element into the receiving portion, the retaining element being carried by a mechanism (50) allowing its rotation about a vertical axis (Z), the retaining element comprising two protruding portions (62, 64) oriented in opposite directions, arranged to cover the connecting element (46) when the retaining element is in the engaged position, such that said protruding portions (62, 64) are moved in opposite directions between the engaged and retracted positions.