1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a safety binding for interfacing a ski boot to a ski or skiboard. A skiboard is defined as a ski with an overall length of 100 cm or less.
2. Discussion of the Related Art
Skiboards have been offered for sale with non-releasable bindings for several years. Non-releasable bindings were justified for use on skis under 100 cm due to the reasonable belief that the limited length of the ski would limit loads on the skier's leg to safe levels. Recently available statistics now show that injuries to skiboarders, although not largely disproportionate to the overall injury rate among skiers, show a disproportionate number of the injuries to the lower leg. These injuries include spiral fractures of the tibia, a very common injury to skiers before the availability of well engineered releasable safety bindings for skis in the 1970's and 1980's. The development of releasable safety bindings for skis has practically eliminated lower leg fractures and therefore appropriately designed releasable safety bindings can reasonably be expected to practically eliminate the lower leg fractures seen among skiboarders.
Conventional safety bindings for skis are not suitable for use on ski boards or other short skis for a variety of reasons:
a. They are generally too long. The release mechanism is generally located in front of the toe and behind the heel of the boot. The running length of a skiboard is typically 65 cm. A boot/binding system is typically 60 cm.
b. The thickness required by the skiboard design will not allow enough thickness for the typical attachment screws that hold the toe piece and heel pieces to the ski.
c. The desirable flexibility of the extremities of the skiboard would compromise the function of conventional bindings that depend on the very stiff and stable platform typical of conventional skis and described by ASTM and ISO standards for compatibility.
d. Skiboards do not and probably cannot be reasonably designed to conform to the ASTM and ISO standards for binding mounting areas on skis. These standards were developed to make ski designs compatible with conventional binding designs.
Furthermore, since the basic configuration of safety bindings was developed in the 70's and 80's, when skiboards and very short adult skis did not exist, there is an opportunity to eliminate some of the design limitations and flaws that have been perpetuated by the various binding manufacturer.
Current trends in ski design are towards much shorter ski lengths. Even skis used by elite world-class racers are often less than 160 cm in length, with running lengths less than 135 cm. The binding mounting area controlled by ASTM and ISO compatibility standards is 60 cm long. That is approximately 45% of the running length of a 160 cm ski. Compromises must be made in order to design these short skis to conform to ASTM and ISO standards intended to assure compatibility with the various bindings on the market. If a binding could be designed to eliminate or reduce the constraints imposed by conventional binding designs then ski design could be advanced to a new performance level. There have in the past been some efforts to create bindings which would not impair the ability of a ski to flex, such as U.S. Pat. No. 5,129,668 (Hecht) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,671,939 (Pineau) both of which describe a system in which a mounting is provided for the ski binding, said mounting creating a raised surface for the binding while allowing the ski to flex to a full arc. These mounting however add to both the cost and the complexity of a binding since an entirely new part is added.
Mounting conventional bindings is a complex procedure that is normally done by certified professionals employed by ski shops and trained by specialists. If a binding could be designed to mount to metal inserts built into a ski in a standard insert pattern with machine screws then this complexity can be eliminated. This is the norm in the snowboard industry where bindings can be simply mounted by the consumer with nothing more than a Phillips screwdriver.
Controlling the effects of boot/binding friction on binding performance is one of the most, difficult factors of binding design. Shortcomings in how friction has been dealt with by designers of conventional bindings makes the adjustment of the binding to the boot, and confirmation that such adjustments will produce the desired release characteristics, a very complex task that is normally performed by certified professionals. This is due to the fact that most of the friction between the boot and the binding is not “sensed” by the release mechanism of the binding. Therefore, any variation in frictional forces produces a variation in release torque. The person adjusting the binding must understand this relationship to properly adjust the binding.
If a binding could be designed with a sensing mechanism that senses all the forces between the boot and the binding that result in a torque on the tibia then friction would not have to be controlled within very strict limits. Frictional loads would only have to be held below a value that is in the range of normal friction between a typical shoe sole and the ground since humans have evolved the strength to withstand such forces. All fictional forces not seen by the release mechanism would be contained within the binding mechanism and therefore would be subject to the control of the design engineers and of no concern to the person mounting and adjusting the binding. Boot binding adjustment would not be critical to binding performance and could potentially be undertaken by the consumer.
One solution which has been used in trying to solve this problem in the past are plate bindings. Plate bindings of various types have a plate which is either formed integral with the binding, U.S. Pat. No. 4,052,086 (Eckhart), U.S. Pat. No. 5,240,275 (Jungkind), U.S. Pat. No. 5,044,657 (Freisinger et al.), U.S. Pat. No. 4,893,831 (Pascal et al.), U.S. Pat. No. 4,892,326 (Svoboda et al.), U.S. Pat. No. 4,314,714 (Gertsch), and U.S. Pat. No. 4,073,509 (Gertsch) being examples of this type; or having a detachable plate which is fastened to the ski boot, as in U.S. Pat. No. 5,145,202 (Miller), U.S. Pat. No. 5,044,654 (Meyer), U.S. Pat. No. 4,395,055 (Teague, Jr.), U.S. Pat. No. 4,185,851 and U.S. Pat. No. 3,944,237. In both of these types of binding the designer attempts to take the unknown friction between the boot and the binding out of the picture by having the boot be fixed to a plate and leaving only a known friction between the plate and the binding.
Conventional bindings release by sensing a lateral force at the toe of the boot and cannot differentiate between loads at the tip of the ski and loads at the tail of the ski that produce the same torque about the tibial axis. For example, a release caused by a force on the lateral (outside) edge of the ski 70 cm in front of the tibial axis will subject the tibia and connective tissues to same torque but opposite shear load than if the same load where applied to the medial (inside) edge 70 cm behind the tibial axis. It is believed by many knowledgeable in the art of ski binding design and ski injury analysis that Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injuries to the knee are often caused by a load to the medial (inside) edge of the tail of the ski. This kind of load causes an abduction and inward twisting of the lower leg. If a binding could be designed that could differentiate between loads applied at the tip of the ski, outward twisting loads applied at the lateral side of the ski tail and inward twisting loads applied at the medial side the ski tail it may have the potential to afford skiers significant additional protection against ACL injuries that conventional bindings cannot provide.
It is an object of the present invention to provide an improved ski binding that addresses, but is not limited to addressing the above issues, and to provide a safety binding for interfacing a ski boot to a ski or skiboard. As previously explained, a skiboard is defined as a ski with an overall length of 100 cm or less. The safety binding in question saving a base plate which in the preferred embodiment of the invention is shorter than a conventional ski binding and which can be mounted on standard inserts built into the ski. The connection with the ski itself is located centrally on the binding and once mounted the base plate is raised slightly above the surface of the ski. Thus the binding does not require the same flat surface area as a conventional binding, and the normal flexibility of the ski is not hindered by the binding.
Mounted on the base plate is a top plate which is pivotable in a lateral direction. The top plate is biased towards a predetermined position. Mounted on the top plate are means for holding a ski boot in place. The mounting is such that any pivoting movement of the top plate will result in at least one of the holding means being pivoted or otherwise moved. This pivoting or movement will cause the holding means to release. The heel is also designed to release with conventional means. While in the binding, the boot rests on a toe pad and a heel pad. These pads are connected to the top plate such that any torque on the boot is transferred through these pads to the top plate. If the force is sufficient to overcome the bias on the top plate then it pivots, and the boot is released. After the boot is released, the bias on the top plate returns it to its normal state. The heel portion of the binding can also be outfitted with a conventional ski brake to prevent the ski from sliding away in the case of a release.
In accordance a first (
In a accordance with a second (
In accordance with a third illustrative embodiment of the invention, a ski binding is provided that comprises a base, a rigid plate pivotably attached to the base near its centroid, a toe and heel cup slidably attached near the extremities of the rigid plate, one or more connecting rods attached at one end to the toe and/or heel cup(s) and at the other end connected or in contact with a link or cam surface on the base so that any rotational moment, from the boot through the toe and heel cups, that overcomes the biased alignment of the rigid plate causes the connecting rod(s) to translate the toe and/or heel cup(s) away from the boot in such a way that the boot free to release from the binding.
In accordance with a fourth (
The invention will be better understood and appreciated from following the description of illustrative embodiments thereof, and accompanying drawings, in which:
The invention will be better understood in the following detailed description of the preferred embodiments with reference to the drawings.
As seen in
By properly designing the cam surfaces 187, 188, 189, and 190 it is possible to obtain a ski binding in which the ski boot will be released more easily if a load is applied to the medial (inside) edge of the tail of the ski than if a similar load is applied to the lateral (outside) edge of the front of the ski. For instance,
It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that several modifications and variations not mentioned exists. Accordingly the previous descriptions are only meant for the purposes of illustration, and are not meant to limit the scope of the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3145027 | Berchtold et al. | Aug 1964 | A |
3667770 | Lawrence | Jun 1972 | A |
3731943 | Wilkes | May 1973 | A |
3764155 | Perryman | Oct 1973 | A |
3866929 | Lacroix | Feb 1975 | A |
3936064 | D'Alessio et al. | Feb 1976 | A |
3937480 | Korger | Feb 1976 | A |
3944237 | Teague, Jr. | Mar 1976 | A |
3964760 | Riedel | Jun 1976 | A |
3966218 | Beyl | Jun 1976 | A |
4052086 | Eckart | Oct 1977 | A |
4063752 | Whitaker et al. | Dec 1977 | A |
4073509 | Gertsch | Feb 1978 | A |
4134603 | Zoor | Jan 1979 | A |
4182525 | Spademan | Jan 1980 | A |
4185851 | Salomon | Jan 1980 | A |
4190264 | Himmetsberger et al. | Feb 1980 | A |
4219217 | Gertsch | Aug 1980 | A |
4270770 | Spademan | Jun 1981 | A |
4312517 | Spademan | Jan 1982 | A |
4314714 | Gertsch | Feb 1982 | A |
4336955 | Schmidt | Jun 1982 | A |
4340243 | Spademan | Jul 1982 | A |
4352508 | Spademan | Oct 1982 | A |
4360218 | Spademan | Nov 1982 | A |
4360219 | Spademan | Nov 1982 | A |
4395055 | Spademan | Jul 1983 | A |
4407520 | Spademan | Oct 1983 | A |
4429896 | Spademan | Feb 1984 | A |
4465295 | Spademan | Aug 1984 | A |
4492387 | Spademan | Jan 1985 | A |
4505494 | Gertsch | Mar 1985 | A |
4533156 | Gertsch | Aug 1985 | A |
4561672 | Spitaler | Dec 1985 | A |
4589673 | Dimier et al. | May 1986 | A |
4600214 | Spademan | Jul 1986 | A |
4660849 | Sedlmair et al. | Apr 1987 | A |
4676522 | Hue | Jun 1987 | A |
4679815 | Pascal et al. | Jul 1987 | A |
4709942 | Dimier et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
4768792 | Spademan | Sep 1988 | A |
4779891 | Freisinger et al. | Oct 1988 | A |
4792157 | Stritzl et al. | Dec 1988 | A |
4797185 | Polak et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4867471 | Stritzl et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4892326 | Svoboda et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
4893831 | Pascal et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
4930802 | Sedlmair | Jun 1990 | A |
5040819 | Horn | Aug 1991 | A |
5044654 | Meyer | Sep 1991 | A |
5044656 | Peyre | Sep 1991 | A |
5044657 | Freisinger et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5129668 | Hecht | Jul 1992 | A |
5145202 | Miller | Sep 1992 | A |
5149123 | Rohrmoser | Sep 1992 | A |
5213356 | Rohrmoser | May 1993 | A |
5240275 | Jungkind | Aug 1993 | A |
5282643 | Jungkind | Feb 1994 | A |
5636455 | Meiselman | Jun 1997 | A |
5671939 | Pineau | Sep 1997 | A |
5915721 | Laughlin et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
6189911 | Caron et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6338497 | Chevalier et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
20030155744 | Gorza et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20020101063 A1 | Aug 2002 | US |