|
jjk47
Mar 3, 2012, 12:31 PM
Post #1 of 14
(1782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2012
Posts: 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
theextremist04
Mar 3, 2012, 9:23 PM
Post #2 of 14
(1718 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2010
Posts: 178
|
jjk47 wrote: Hello Everyone! I understand I am not the first person to come to the rockclimbing.com forums with a design problem, but please bare with me, as your feedback could be a great help to me. I am an industrial designer exploring rock climbing shoe possibilities. As someone with a little climbing experience, I understand that climbing footwear is really wide open to personal preferences. I only ask that you take a look at my proposed design and tell me if you think it is practical, realistic, or just silly. My focal point is in the sole. The idea is similar to that of mountain goat hooves. The design separates the large toe from the rest of your phalanges. There will be a split in the rubber sole between the large toe and the rest of your toes. The theory is that this will allow the rubber to sort of spread when pressed against the rock. Meanwhile, the elasticity of the rubber should apply a force back inward. Imagine it almost pinching the rock. I’m not entirely convinced that the standard sticky rubber used in the industry is elastic enough for this, so it may have to be combined with other material. Additionally, I think it would be best for the rubber around the large toe to be rigid, but I wonder, do any climbers out there think it would be better for a more flexible toe? Ultimately, I would like the design to be appropriate for a sort of “all-day comfort” shoe and for novice to maybe intermediate climbers. Any additional ideas for or thoughts on the subject are welcome. Thank you for your time and cooperation, John
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Mar 4, 2012, 3:17 AM
Post #3 of 14
(1689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1498
|
Nope. Hiking or scrambling, meh, maybe. Rock climbing, absolutely not.
As someone with little climbing experience, you should get more of that before trying to totally redesign something as well explored as shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Mar 4, 2012, 4:11 AM
Post #4 of 14
(1672 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388
|
Climbers purposely buy shoes that are too small so their toes are squeezed together. Separating the toe wouldn't help.
You might as well design a hiking shoe with a separate big toe.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Mar 4, 2012, 5:24 AM
Post #5 of 14
(1665 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 865
|
The idea behind climbing shoes is the sole is as flexible as possible to conform to the rock but at the same time the toes are bunched together (and normally down curved) to allow the maximum pressure to be applied accurately to a small area. The chances of me standing on my big toe alone are minimal!
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 4, 2012, 5:33 AM
Post #6 of 14
(1661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18681
|
I agree with what's been said, but unlike everybody else, I don't think you should 86 the idea just yet. The problem is that one toe alone is weak. in a modern climbing shoe, even when you're only standing on one toe, you're getting help from the others. If you can find a way to make it so that big toe isn't on it's own so much out there, I think it could work.
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Mar 4, 2012, 5:44 AM
Post #7 of 14
(1655 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2804
|
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Mar 4, 2012, 6:01 AM
Post #8 of 14
(1649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1498
|
I mean, granted, it would have a pretty sweet name. . .
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Mar 4, 2012, 11:00 AM
Post #9 of 14
(1599 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 865
|
shoo wrote: I mean, granted, it would have a pretty sweet name. . . [image]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iqwaexo9gys/Thh06Jy2caI/AAAAAAAAAE0/sxquPs08-Lk/s1600/camel.jpg[/image]
Something like dromedary toe?
|
|
|
|
|
jjk47
Mar 4, 2012, 11:03 AM
Post #10 of 14
(1597 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2012
Posts: 2
|
Thanks for the feedback.
So I've got that the toe division is absolutely ridiculous.
If we scrapped the total division of the toes, does the design hold any merit?
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Mar 4, 2012, 11:18 AM
Post #11 of 14
(1589 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 8835
|
JimTitt wrote: shoo wrote: I mean, granted, it would have a pretty sweet name. . . [image]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iqwaexo9gys/Thh06Jy2caI/AAAAAAAAAE0/sxquPs08-Lk/s1600/camel.jpg[/image] Something like dromedary toe?
And here I thought that referred to stretch pants...
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Mar 4, 2012, 12:09 PM
Post #12 of 14
(1576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
jjk47 wrote: Thanks for the feedback. So I've got that the toe division is absolutely ridiculous. If we scrapped the total division of the toes, does the design hold any merit?
No. Unaugmented toe division doesn't work. Maybe stiffining the top would allow it to work.
You still need the toe to be sensitive - to have feel for the rock; so I don't think usuing stiff rubber will be good.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Mar 4, 2012, 2:56 PM
Post #13 of 14
(1543 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1498
|
Correct. You are trying to build a better mousetrap, but you've never even seen a mouse.
|
|
|
|
|
jbro_135
Mar 5, 2012, 7:31 AM
Post #14 of 14
(1464 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2009
Posts: 661
|
all i can think about is the huge blister between my toes that would inevitably develop
|
|
|
|
|
|
