What did you have to change about the traditional shoehorn design to make the Bracehorn?
Share
Short answer: Dominic outlines the core design departures that separate the Bracehorn from a conventional shoehorn. The most significant change is width, as the Bracehorn is substantially wider than a typical shoehorn. The second change is the concave profile, which cradles the brace and heel counter rather than presenting a flat or narrow surface. The third is the angle at which the device sits, which was designed so that a seated user can slide their foot directly into position without awkward repositioning. Taken together, these three changes address the same underlying problem: a standard shoehorn is too narrow to control a brace and too unstable to hold an angle. The wider, concave, angled form gives the brace a defined path into the shoe and lets the user work from a seated position with far less effort.
In Dominic's words
It is definitely a lot wider, and it is concaved in. And the way that it sits at an angle just makes it easier for a person to sit down and slide their foot right into it. It is definitely wider than a typical regular shoehorn.
Those three things are really what changed. The width matters because a brace is a lot bulkier than a bare foot, so you need a surface that is wide enough to actually control it rather than something skinny that the brace slides off of. The concave shape matters because that is what cradles the brace and the heel counter and keeps everything lined up instead of letting it wander.
And the angle matters because most people are going to be doing this sitting down, so the device has to sit at a position where the foot can come straight into it naturally. A regular shoehorn does not do any of those three things.