Snowshoe Binding Top Buckle Strap Routing

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing snowshoe bindings lack stability and convenience in securing the boot, with straps that are often too long and prone to disarray, and do not adequately cradle the shoe's arch, leading to discomfort and inefficiency in use.

Innovation Solution

The improved snowshoe binding features a pair of straps that reverse direction at side loop points and are secured to buckles at the top of the binding, with a flexible tongue for adjustability and a modular footbed with contoured side wings for better arch support, along with a stiffening rib for easy release and a modular design for different front ends.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If the straps are made longer to accommodate different shoe sizes, then adaptability is improved, but the straps become prone to disarray and instability

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveaccommodation of different shoe sizesVSAvoidstrap disarray and binding stability

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSStability of the object's composition

Solution Approach 1:

A tongue member is introduced as an intermediary component between the straps and the shoe. The tongue receives and organizes the straps, preventing them from becoming disarrayed while still allowing adjustment for different shoe sizes. The tongue acts as a mediator that maintains strap organization regardless of strap length variations.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The tongue member is made flexible and movable rather than fixed, allowing it to dynamically adapt to different strap lengths and shoe sizes. The tongue can pivot and adjust its position to maintain proper strap tension and organization across various configurations.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

2Stability of the object's composition

If the binding structure is made more rigid to improve stability, then binding stability is improved, but comfort and ease of adjustment are reduced

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvebinding stabilityVSAvoidcomfort and adjustability

Core Design Contradiction:

Stability of the object's compositionVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

Different parts of the binding have different rigidity characteristics. The side wings and footbed provide rigid structural support for stability, while the tongue member and strap interfaces provide flexible, comfortable contact points. This local differentiation of rigidity allows both stability and comfort to coexist.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The binding is divided into distinct functional segments: rigid structural components (side wings, footbed) for stability, and flexible components (tongue, straps) for comfort and adjustment. This segmentation allows each part to optimize its specific function without compromising the other.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

3Stability of the object's composition

If the straps are shortened to reduce disarray, then stability is improved, but adaptability to different shoe sizes is reduced

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvestrap organization and binding stabilityVSAvoidaccommodation of different shoe sizes

Core Design Contradiction:

Stability of the object's compositionVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The tongue member serves as an intermediary that allows shorter straps to still accommodate larger shoes. By providing an extended surface area and adjustment mechanism on the tongue, the effective adjustable range is increased without requiring longer straps.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Ease of operation

If the binding is made more complex to improve security and adjustability, then ease of operation is improved, but manufacturing complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesecurity and adjustabilityVSAvoidmanufacturing complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Multiple functions are merged into single components. The tongue member combines strap organization, adjustment, and comfort functions. The side wings combine structural support with arch cradling. This merging reduces the number of separate parts and simplifies manufacturing while maintaining operational complexity for secure adjustment.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Data Source

PatentUS7497034B2Snowshoe binding with top buckles

Publication Date: 2009.03.03 K-2 CORPORATION

AI summary

A binding for a snowshoe has, in several different embodiments, a pair of straps to draw the binding tight over a user's boot, the two straps reversing direction at side loop points and being secured to a pair of buckles on a floating tongue at the top of the binding, generally over the ball area of the foot. In one form the straps are anchored at toe points on the binding and extend back in a crossing, X configuration, as in U.S. Pat. No. 6,814,360. In another form the straps are shorter and do not cross, the forward ends being replaced with toe-cradling strap-like members that extend up and back and come together at a pivot connection with a tongue, in this case a shorter tongue, to which the two buckles are connected. The binding tends to open with release of the straps. In a third form the tongue is a larger, padded X-shaped flexible member under which the boot is slid to engage the binding. Front elements provide a hinged, springing action that lifts the tongue off the boot, opening the binding, when the two buckles are released. A modular footbed is also disclosed, capable of receiving a series of different front ends for different bindings.