X-Shaped Carabiner Lock to Prevent Accidental Opening

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing carabiners are heavy, expensive, and prone to accidental opening due to excessive inertia, posing safety risks during sudden collisions.

Innovation Solution

A carabiner design featuring a lightweight, X-shaped closing element with offset interlocking ends and an arc-shaped portion that embraces a protrusion, providing elastic return and structural rigidity through deformation under traction, ensuring secure closure.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Strength

If a heavy and rigid closing element is used to ensure structural rigidity, then the carabiner gains strength and stability, but the weight increases and the closing element becomes prone to accidental opening due to excessive inertia during sudden collisions

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestructural rigidityVSAvoidweight of closing element
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSWeight of moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The closing element is divided into two separate branches (first branch and second branch) that are offset relative to each other. This segmentation allows each branch to be lighter while collectively providing the necessary structural rigidity through their distributed configuration around the protrusion.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The two branches are arranged in an X-shaped configuration that extends in multiple dimensions rather than a single rigid linear structure. This dimensional distribution reduces the inertia concentrated in one direction while maintaining overall structural strength through the geometric arrangement.

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

2Strength

If a heavy and rigid closing element is used to ensure structural rigidity, then the carabiner gains strength and stability, but the cost of implementation increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestructural rigidityVSAvoidmanufacturing cost
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

Dividing the closing element into two branches allows for simpler manufacturing of each individual branch compared to a single complex rigid structure. The segmented design can be more easily formed and assembled, reducing manufacturing complexity and cost.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The branches incorporate curved and arc-shaped portions that can be more efficiently formed through bending and shaping processes rather than requiring complex rigid geometries. This curvature allows for easier manufacturing while maintaining structural integrity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #14Spheroidality (Curvature)

3Weight of moving object

If the closing element is made lightweight, then the carabiner becomes easier to use and safer during collisions, but the structural rigidity may be compromised

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveweight of closing elementVSAvoidstructural rigidity
Core Design Contradiction:
Weight of moving objectVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The closing element utilizes the composite structural arrangement of two offset branches working together, where the distributed configuration provides rigidity comparable to heavier single-structure designs. The X-shaped arrangement creates a composite mechanical system that achieves strength-to-weight optimization.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #40Composite materials

Solution Approach 2:

By distributing the structural support across multiple dimensions through the X-shaped configuration, the lightweight branches achieve adequate rigidity through geometric stability rather than relying on mass. The multi-dimensional arrangement provides structural efficiency.

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

4Weight of moving object

If the closing element is made lightweight with low inertia, then accidental opening during collisions is prevented, but the closing element may lack sufficient structural support

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveweight of closing elementVSAvoidresistance to accidental opening
Core Design Contradiction:
Weight of moving objectVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The offset arrangement of the two branches creates a balanced configuration where the centers of gravity are distributed. This balanced distribution counteracts the effects of sudden shocks and collisions, preventing the closing element from opening accidentally while maintaining low overall weight and inertia.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #8Anti-weight (Counterweight)

Solution Approach 2:

The segmented two-branch structure provides distributed support points that enhance reliability. When subjected to sudden loads, the force is distributed across both branches rather than concentrated in one location, improving resistance to accidental opening while keeping each branch lightweight.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

The design achieves a lightweight, safe, and economical carabiner with enhanced structural rigidity and resistance to accidental opening, even under strong shocks, while maintaining ease of operation.

Implementation Method 1

the closing element itself may contribute to the structural rigidity of the carabiner... the closing element, configured so as to deform under the action of a pulling force exerted by the rope, to contribute to the structural rigidity of the carabiner

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectElastic deformation: Elasticity

Data Source

PatentEP4467827B1Carabiner with improved lock
Publication Date: 2025.07.02 OBER ALP
  • EP4467827B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4467827B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4467827B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A carabiner (4) for ropes comprising a main body (8) having a 'C' configuration, between a lower free end (12) and an upper free end (16) which identify an inlet opening (20) for the insertion of a cord or rope, the upper free end (16) being provided with at least one protrusion (28), a closing element (32), wedged in said lower free end (12) and configured so as to elastically pass from a closing configuration, in which it connects said lower free end (12) and said upper free end (16) together, so as to prevent the passage of the rope through the inlet opening (20), to an opening configuration in which it deviates at least partially from the protrusion (28) of the upper free end (16) so as to allow for the passage of the rope through the inlet opening (20). The closing element (32) comprises a first branch (36) and a second branch (40), having a first lower interlocking end (44) and a second lower interlocking end (48), respectively, interlocked to the lower free end (12) of the main body (8), and a second upper closing end (52) which, in a closing configuration, makes a shape coupling with said protrusion (28). Said first branch (36) and second branch (40) are arranged in an X-shaped configuration, crossing at an intersection point (56), on opposite sides with respect to a centreline plane (M-M) of the carabiner (4) connecting the upper free end (16) and the lower free end (12). Advantageously, the upper closing ends (52) of said branches (36, 40) are connected to each other by means of an arc-shaped portion (60) that at least partially embraces said protrusion (28), in a closing configuration, on the side of the main body (8), said arc-shaped portion (60) also making a front undercut which opposes the rotation of the closing element (32) on the opposite side of the main body (8).