Sole Board Variable Channel Geometry for Flexible Forefoot Support
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing footwear often lacks adequate cushioning, support, and flexibility, leading to discomfort, fatigue, and potential injuries such as blisters, muscle damage, and bone stress fractures, especially during daily activities and athletic movements.
Innovation Solution
A sole board with a channel in the forefoot region that varies in width and depth from the medial and lateral edges to the middle, providing dynamic flexibility and stiffness based on bending angles, combined with a tapering thickness and optional features like indents and layers of materials for enhanced support.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Strength
If the sole board is made thicker to provide more support, then support and protection are improved, but flexibility and comfort deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
The sole board is divided into multiple regions with different thicknesses (forefoot region with first thickness, midfoot region with second thickness, heel region with third thickness). This segmentation allows each region to provide optimized performance - thicker regions for support and thinner regions for flexibility - resolving the contradiction between overall support and localized flexibility.
Solution Approach 2:
Different portions of the sole board are given different local properties through varying thickness. The forefoot, midfoot, and heel regions each have specific thickness characteristics tailored to their functional requirements, enabling the sole board to provide both support where needed and flexibility where required simultaneously.
2Ease of operation
If the sole board is made more flexible to accommodate movement, then comfort is improved, but support and stability deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
By segmenting the sole board into regions with different thicknesses, the invention creates a structure that is flexible in specific areas (allowing natural foot movement) while maintaining stability in other areas (providing support and preventing hyperextension). This resolves the contradiction between flexibility and stability.
Solution Approach 2:
The varying thickness design creates a dynamically responsive sole board that adapts its flexibility and stability characteristics based on the bending angle and location. The structure naturally transitions between flexible and stable states depending on the mechanical loads applied, resolving the static contradiction between flexibility and stability.
3Ease of operation
If the channel width is increased at edges to allow greater flexibility, then comfort is improved, but structural integrity deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The channel width is varied locally - wider at the edges to allow flexibility and narrower in the middle to maintain structural integrity. This local differentiation of channel dimensions resolves the contradiction between edge flexibility and overall structural strength.
Solution Approach 2:
The channel exhibits asymmetric width distribution along its length, being wider at terminal regions and narrower in intermediate regions. This asymmetric design optimizes both flexibility at the edges and structural integrity in the middle, resolving the contradiction between these two requirements.
Data Source
AI summary
A sole board for an article of footwear includes a plate that has a forefoot region, a midfoot region, and a heel region. The sole board includes a channel disposed in a top surface of the plate in the forefoot region. The channel extends from a lateral edge of the plate to a medial edge of the plate. A characteristic of the channel at the lateral and medial edges of the plate is different than the characteristic of the channel at a middle of the channel.