|Publication number||US20080010860 A1|
|Application number||US 11/777,920|
|Publication date||Jan 17, 2008|
|Filing date||Jul 13, 2007|
|Priority date||Jul 13, 2006|
|Publication number||11777920, 777920, US 2008/0010860 A1, US 2008/010860 A1, US 20080010860 A1, US 20080010860A1, US 2008010860 A1, US 2008010860A1, US-A1-20080010860, US-A1-2008010860, US2008/0010860A1, US2008/010860A1, US20080010860 A1, US20080010860A1, US2008010860 A1, US2008010860A1|
|Original Assignee||Kaj Gyr|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Referenced by (6), Classifications (12)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/830,807, filed Jul. 13, 2006 and entitled “CLEATED FOOTWEAR”, the complete disclosure of which is herein incorporated by reference for all purposes.
The footwear of the present inventive concept is designed to optimize the natural biomechanics of the ankle/foot, promoting better performance and causing fewer injuries than the cleated shoes of the prior art. The primary biomechanical dynamic being addressed with the present inventive concept is enhancement of the foot's natural tendency to stay relatively perpendicular to the tibia when making lateral cutting moves—something standard cleated shoes do not allow.
The most prominent injury by far in any of the cleated-shoe sports is ankle sprain. This is due to the fact that cleated shoes create a significant lever for torsional/pivoting forces (due to the increased distance off the ground), and said lever is not countered by any effective means of stabilizing the ankle and/or reducing the lever force.
Most prior art focuses on increasing traction, not on making the foot respond in a biomechanically efficient manner. Cleats and stiff soles, coupled with irregular fields and poor traction create a situation that severely compromises the foot and lower leg, leading to injuries and decreased athletic performance. The footwear of the present inventive concept allows for biomechanics akin to the unshod foot, thereby increasing both comfort and performance.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,776,111 discloses a plastic cuff on an article of footwear, as does U.S. Pat. No. 5,177,884. These address the need for increased ankle support through the use of a relatively rigid hinging cuff. Neither patent addresses the increased angular forces (due to height off the ground and sharp sole edges) that necessitated such a cuff. By simply incorporating a hinging cuff without altering the configuration of the sole, one is merely creating a more uncomfortable shoe, since, in order to overcome the lever force of the wide flat sole the cuff has to be of a stiffness similar to the cuff on alpine ski boots for the foot to actually role naturally perpendicular to the tibia. In short, proper medio-lateral rolling of the foot does not happen simply by incorporating an ankle cuff or “hightop” with no tapered sole profile, as the hard edges and flat soles of standard shoes counter the lever force exerted by the ankle cuff/hightop, resulting in the shoe's sole remaining flat while the cuff applies undo pressure to the ankle during angular cutting moves.
Frampton Ellis has numerous US patents based on U.S. Pat. No. 4,989,349, all of which address the dynamics of angular forces and how alterations in the sole itself can decrease such forces. His designs teach away from the sole of the present inventive concept however, as they are comprised of uniform sole thickness, bulges, sipes, and contoured portions that are integral with the sides of the shoe, etc. Ellis' notion of uniform sole thickness (mimicking the contours of the foot) still creates an unnessarily large lever force when the sole is on either lateral edge, as the thickness of the sole itself at its edges adds to the lever length (the lever length being the distance between the center of ankle rotation and the most lateral portion of the sole). The footwear of the present inventive concept includes a very thin sole at its edges, while bulging towards the center, thus with the present concept the lever length is decreased commensurate with the difference between the thicknesses of the soles at their edges. No prior art teaches a sole configuration similar to that of the present invention—thickest in the middle and narrow at the edges, coupled with a hinging upper and integral ankle protector.
Advantages of the present inventive concept include:
The foregoing is not intended to be an exhaustive list of embodiments and features of the present inventive concept. Persons skilled in the art are capable of appreciating other embodiments and features from the following detailed description in conjunction with the drawings.
Representative embodiments of the present inventive concept are shown in
The salient features of the present inventive concept are: tapered sole/cleat profile, integral ankle protection, and hinging cuff—the most prominent feature being the tapered transverse profile of the cleats. As
A tapered sole is of course inherently less stable than a flat sole if not coupled with a hinged cuff which supports the ankle. For example, when making a cutting turn to the right the left tibia is necessarily canted towards the right off the vertical 10-30 degrees. In the present inventive concept the sole of the left foot is allowed to roll naturally in the same direction as the tibia (angling 10-30 degrees), thus the sole of the foot maintains an angle roughly perpendicular to the tibia, as would occur if one were barefoot in sand.
There are many possibilities for combining a hinged cuff and tapered sole, as illustrated in
Instead of arranging the arc of the sole relative to the sole edges it's possible to incorporate a thickness demarcator, as illustrated in
The sole shown in
Cleated shoes are offered in both low and high-top versions, hightops generally offering greater stability. By extending higher than the malleoli of the ankles hightops brace the ankle to varying degrees. Hightops are insufficient however, as they don't offer enough lateral ankle protection, and they invariably restrict fore-aft flexion of the ankle. A better alternative is a hinged cuff similar to that found on nordic ski boots and inline skates. See
There are many possibilities for cuff configurations and actual hinging hardware, but in general the cuff hinge should be placed near the malleoli, and the cuff itself should extend far enough upward so that it gives the support needed to counteract any lateral forces. The shoe upper may extend up past the cuff, and/or incorporate some sort of inner boot similar to that used with inline skates, as in
For soccer shoes specifically it may be advantageous to have a bit more lateral play in the hinged cuff in order to execute ball handling moves which involve rolling the ankle laterally. This can be achieved via a vertical slot or other sliding means on either the shoe and/or the hinged cuff, allowing the hinge to slide vertically. This vertical slot in combination with an elastomer or other absorptive means adjacent to the hinge could allow for linear resistance to any lateral ankle forces engendered during play. A means for adjusting minimum and maximum lateral play may be included, similar to the mechanisms germane to skiboots. Thus various ball handling moves meet with little lateral resistance, while sprain-inducing rolls of greater magnitude are nullified at the given maximum lateral angle the hinges/cuffs are set at. Lateral play may also be promoted via a cuff which floats on the shoe upper, being secured by either an elastomer hinge or other means of attachment which allows for fore/aft play and some lateral laxity. All such hinges should use materials which eliminate the possibility of squeaking, being that there are invariably at least two surfaces sliding against each other.
The hinged cuff and its interface with the shoe should be smooth in order to enhance contact with the ball. This can be a huge advantage, as the above-ankle interface in standard soccer shoes is not smooth at all due to protruding malleoli, bulbous ankle protectors (if employed), and the irregular borders of shin guards.
A shoe that is designed to attach to a shin guard may be desirable, and it would be easy to do by connecting the hinged cuff to the lower portion of a shin guard with an integral attachment means.
Although having a hinged cuff is a salient feature of the present inventive concept, it is possible to capture the same dynamics of medio-lateral foot roll without the use of any sort of hinged cuff. It's largely a matter of how strong a person's ankle ligaments are. Although they are less ideal than a hinged cuff, standard hightops may be coupled to the tapered sole of the present inventive concept in lieu of a hinged cuff.
It's evident that there are a variety of options available for various combinations of tapered soles and hinged cuffs. The tapered sole and hinged cuffs are somewhat dependent on each other in order for this design to work optimally. High top shoes are simply not that effective when used with standard flat soles/cleats. That's why U.S. Pat. No. 4,776,111 is not practical. By using a cuff to stiffen the ankle without addressing the forces exerted on the sole itself (which then translate up through the ankle) one creates even more ankle discomfort than if one had not used a cuff at all. That approach has already been tried by various companies, with negative results. A flat sole half an inch thick effectively nullifies the lever force a stiff cuff exerts. In addition, with a flat sole there is no smooth transition between being flat and stable on the ground and a full-blown ankle-roll situation, as the ankle pivots suddenly around the edge of the sole (the effective fulcrum) with great force when the center of ankle rotation moves lateral to the sharp sole edge.
The tapered sole and hinged cuff of the present inventive concept may also be adapted to court shoes such as basketball or tennis shoes. A tapered/rounded sole (tapered/thin at the edges, thicker in the middle) coupled with a hinged cuff enhances efficiency in all court sports. The prior art for court shoes is focused largely on ways of broadening the shoe sole as a means of maximizing stability, as opposed to recognizing that the ankle's stability is already hugely compromised when wearing an athletic shoe (due to height off the ground and sole shape). Thus the ankle must be actively braced via a hinged cuff, while lever forces originating in the sole need to be reduced via a sole that is thin at the edges and thickest near the middle.
Accordingly, it can be seen that the cleated footwear of the present inventive concept ushers in a whole new realm of possibilities for traction, safety, performance and comfort. Although the description above contains many specificities, these should not be construed as limiting the scope of the invention, but as merely providing illustrations of some of the preferred embodiments of the present inventive concept. Various other embodiments and ramifications are possible within its scope.
Persons skilled in the art will recognize that many modifications and variations are possible in the details, materials, and arrangements of the parts and actions which have been described and illustrated in order to explain the nature of this inventive concept and that such modifications and variations do not depart from the spirit and scope of the teachings and claims contained therein.
While the inventor understands that claims are not a necessary component of a provisional patent application, and therefore has not included highly detailed claims, the inventor reserves the right to claim, without limitation, at least the following subject matter.
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US8869435||Aug 1, 2012||Oct 28, 2014||Nike, Inc.||Golf shoe with natural motion structures|
|US9072333||Sep 9, 2011||Jul 7, 2015||Nike, Inc.||Article of footwear with forefoot secondary studs|
|US20110302808 *||Jun 14, 2010||Dec 15, 2011||Yu David C||Walking Support|
|US20140013617 *||Jul 10, 2012||Jan 16, 2014||Reebok International Limited||Article of Footwear With Sole Projections|
|EP2904920A3 *||Feb 11, 2015||Aug 19, 2015||Adidas AG||Improved soccer shoe|
|WO2015020686A1 *||Aug 4, 2014||Feb 12, 2015||Otus Tracy C||Soccer cleat with leg protective structure|
|U.S. Classification||36/89, 36/114, 36/67.00A|
|International Classification||A43C15/00, A43B5/00, A43B7/20|
|Cooperative Classification||A43B7/20, A43B19/00, A43C15/16|
|European Classification||A43B19/00, A43B7/20, A43C15/16|