Abstract:
A lift-off shoe system uses non-locking sash support shoes (30) movable vertically and spring biased upwardly in a tilt window. Sash pins (25) have heads (26) that interlock with open top slots (31) in sash shoes (30) so that the sash pins are removable from the shoes only by lifting the pins vertically from above the uppermost position of the shoes. This simplifies the shoes, eliminates damage caused by shoe-locking mechanisms, and makes sash removal and replacement simple and convenient.

Description:
BACKGROUND 
     Support shoes for tilt windows have caused many problems. Understanding what these problems are and what causes them underlies the reasons for a shoe system that I have devised to solve the problems. The way the problems are seen, though, necessarily affects the way the solutions are devised, so that my view of the problems becomes part of my invention--by setting the goals to be met. 
     With that understood, I have recognized that previous tilt window shoe systems suffer the following problems: 
     Most shoe systems require lateral withdrawal of the sash pins from the shoes, and lateral replacement of the sash pins into recesses in the shoes. Replacing the pins into the recesses is difficult, because it is hard to hold the sash in position and also see to guide the pins into the shoe recesses. 
     For relatively inexpensive shoe systems that do not lock when the sash is tilted and removed, sash pin withdrawal from the shoes sometimes damages the window hardware. This occurs because the sash must be slanted to withdraw its pins laterally from the shoes, and this necessarily pulls one shoe down below the other to where it can snap upward under spring tension when the lower pin is withdrawn. As the upward snap occurs, an extension counterbalance spring can contract coil-to-coil and transmit the snapping force to the top of the spring, where it can damage or dislodge the spring anchor. The snapping force can also damage the shoe. 
     The shoes that lock against upward movement must allow one shoe to move downward relative to the other so that the sash can be slanted for withdrawal. Lowering one side of the sash is less natural than lifting one side of the sash to achieve the slant necessary for withdrawal. 
     Shoes that lock sometimes fail from the abuse they suffer. People try to force them upward from a locked position, as appears to be necessary for slanting the sash; and this can break the locking mechanisms or damage the jamb liner. 
     Shoe systems must survive construction site environments, where the jamb liners are filled with dry wall dust, and the windows are treated more roughly than in home owner usage. Dry wall dust is abrasive and generally increases the friction of moving the shoes vertically within the jamb liners. The shoes must have enough friction to prevent hop and drop, but not so much that they stick fast when subjected to dry wall dust. 
     Shoes locked with their springs extended place considerable stress on the resin jamb liners. In warm weather, this stress, which can be applied for days at a time at construction sites, can deform jamb liners. 
     Shoe systems, although essential to tilt windows, are under competitive price pressure so that they must be made at a low cost to avoid customer price resistance. Thus, any solution to the many shoe problems must be one that can be made at a low and competitive cost. 
     When a sash is tilted inward from the plane of the jamb liner, the counterbalance springs pulling upward on the support shoes are relieved of the weight of the upper part of the sash, and they tend to yank the bottom of the window upward. Some shoe systems prevent this by locking the shoes when the sash is tilted, but those that do not lock give the feeling of the sash being jerked upward out of control. 
     Shoe systems have not been designed to take advantage of the exploratory movements that a sash remover is likely to try, in getting the sash out of the window. This happens infrequently enough so that the home owner often has forgotten the operative motions and feels his way toward movements that do work. An optimum shoe system would put no restraints on this and would not let any attempted movement cause damage. It would also make the most likely movements be the ones to succeed in removing the sash. 
     This list is not exhaustive of the problems of support shoes in tilt windows, but it includes the many problems that my support shoe system solves. In doing so, my shoe system aims at trouble-free functioning in all the circumstances that a tilt window system may encounter, while reducing the manufacturing costs so that the functional advantages can be competitively priced. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     My sash shoe system for a tilt window uses headed sash pins that interlock in open top slots in sash shoes that do not lock in place when the sash is tilted or removed. The sash pins cannot be withdrawn laterally from the shoes and can only be lifted above the shoes when the shoes are raised to their uppermost positions, for withdrawing the sash from the window. 
     The shoes of my system are also connected to counterbalance spring systems in regions that are offset from the pin slot so that the shoes are canted by the moment arm between the upward bias of the spring and the downward weight of the sash. This makes upper and lower corners of the shoe rub against the jamb liner channel to produce a friction that is automatically related to sash weight. 
     Shoes for my system preferably have friction screws that can be turned in and out of the shoes to rub against the jamb liner for producing an adjustable friction. I also prefer that each shoe have a block of elastomeric material that rubs against the jamb liner as the shoe moves vertically, to add friction that slows down shoe movement, especially when an upper end of a sash is tilted out of the plane of the jamb liners; and the reduced weight on the lower end of the sash is lifted upward by the counterbalance springs. 
    
    
     DRAWINGS 
     FIG. 1 is a partially cutaway side elevational view of the frame side of a jamb liner holding a preferred embodiment of my lift-off shoe system for a tilt window and showing a sash in one sash run and a sash removed from another sash run. 
     FIG. 2 is a cross-sectional view of the embodiment of FIG. 1, taken along the line 2--2 thereof. 
     FIG. 3 is an elevational view of the window side of a sash shoe such as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. 
     FIG. 4 is an elevational view of the window side of the spring anchor shown in FIG. 1. 
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     My lift-off shoe system applies to a tilt window using a sash 20 that can move vertically between a pair of jamb liners 10. These are preferably extruded of resin material, and a preferred embodiment of one jamb liner 10 is partially illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2. 
     Each jamb liner 10 is formed to provide a pair of shoe channels 11, and each channel 11 contains a shoe 30 that can move vertically within jamb liner 10. A vertical slot 13 on the sash side of each channel 11 opens into channel 11 so that a pin 25 can extend from sash 20 through slot 13 and into channel 11 where the pin 25 engages shoe 30. 
     Each shoe 30 is counterbalanced by a spring system such as the illustrated extension spring 40 that extends upward within channel 11 to an upper region of jamb liner 10. There, a top bracket 50 attaches to each counterbalance spring 40, to anchor the springs in place. This biases both shoes 30 upward within channels 11 to counterbalance the weight of sash 20, which is supported on shoes 30 by pins 25. In the illustration of FIG. 1, one sash 20 has been removed from the sash run on the right side of jamb liner 10, and another sash 20 remains in place in the left sash run of jamb liner 10. 
     Shoes 30 for my lift-off shoe system do not lock in place in channels 11. Instead, they accomplish the supporting and counterbalancing of sash 20 and accommodate its tilting and removal from jamb liner 10 without any locking in a vertical position within channels 11. This simplifies shoes 30 and allows them each to be made of a single piece of resin material. It also eliminates many of the problems caused by locking of sash shoes within the jamb liners of tilt windows. 
     Instead of locking in place, to allow lateral withdrawal of sash pins 25, my shoes 30 have open top slots 31 that allow sash pins 25 to be lifted vertically above shoes 30, while shoes 30 are at their uppermost positions. Sash pins 25 have heads 26 that interlock with slots 31 in shoes 30 so that pins 25 cannot be laterally withdrawn from shoes 30. This ensures that pins 25 stay engaged with and supported by shoes 30 at all times except when pins 25 are lifted above the uppermost position of shoes 30 to remove sash 20 from the window. 
     To accommodate the interlock between pin heads 26 and open top slots 31, I prefer that slots 31 have a wide region 32, separated from sash 20 by a narrow region 33. I also prefer that the open top of slot 31 be flared outward to allow sash pins 25 to slide easily into slots 31 from above. Narrow region 33 is wide enough to receive the stem 27 of sash pin 25, but narrow enough to block passage of the head 26 of pin 25. Pin head 26 then rests in the wider internal region 32 of slot 31 where it cannot be withdrawn laterally from shoe 30. 
     For coiled extension springs 40 I prefer that the spring connectors for shoes 30 and top bracket 50 be wedge retainers 51 that can slide between coils of a spring and interlock with the spring to retain it in place. Wedge connectors 51 are preferably angled from the horizontal, as illustrated, to match the pitch of spring 40, and keep spring 40 vertical where wedge retainer 51 fits between spring coils. Use of wedge retainers 51 saves bending the terminal coils of springs 40, which weakens them, and is otherwise a simple and effective way of anchoring each end of springs 40. 
     To accommodate a pair of counterbalance springs 40, if necessary for counterbalancing a specially heavy sash 21, I also prefer a pair of wedge retainers 51 on each shoe 30. This would require a different top bracket 50 arranged to connect to a pair of springs 40 extending upward within a single channel 11. Two wedge retainers 51 also allow shoes 30 to be made identical for accommodating a counterbalance spring 40 on either side, so that each shoe can serve in either jamb liner channel. Of course, different counterbalance connectors can be used for other types of counterbalance spring systems. 
     For most of the sashes 20 to be counterbalanced with my lift-off shoe system, a single counterbalance spring system is adequate. For the illustrated extension spring 40, I prefer that this be connected to a wedge retainer 51 in a position offset from a vertical line through the center of shoe slot 31. This keeps the counterbalance spring neatly arranged on one side of channel 11, where it is clear of channel slot 13. The counterbalance springs then do not interfere with replacement of pins 25 back into shoe slots 31, as is necessary for replacing sash 20 into the window. 
     The preferred offset connection of springs 40 relative to pin support slots 31 also has a desirable frictional effect. The upward counterbalance force exerted by the spring system is offset from pin 25 and slot 31, which bear the weight of sash 20. This offset tilts shoes 30 so that a lower corner 34 and an upper corner 35 are pressed against respective side walls 14 and 15 of channel 11, as shown in FIG. 1. The frictional engagement of shoe corners 34 and 35 with channel walls 14 and 15 is automatically related to the sash weight and the counterbalance force of the spring system to provide a frictional resistance against hop and drop of sash 20. The sash can then stay in place in an uppermost position, where the force of counterbalance spring 40 is light, and can also stay in place in a lowermost position, where the counterbalance force of spring 40 is heavier. 
     The frictional effect of shoe corners 34 and 35 pressing against channel walls 14 and 15 also depends on the lateral offset between spring 40 and pin 25 and the vertical distance between lower corner 34 and upper corner 35. I prefer that the lateral offset of spring 40 be from 0.2 to 0.5 times the vertical distance between upper corner 35 and lower corner 34 of shoe 30. Larger offsets and shorter vertical shoe heights increase the frictional force from canting shoe 30. 
     The frictional resistance of shoes 30 to vertical movement in channels 11 is also preferably adjustable by means of a screw 45 that is threaded through the body of shoe 30 to engage a back wall of channel 11. The deeper screw 45 is threaded into shoe 30, the harder it presses against the back wall of channel 11, and the more it increases the frictional movement resistance of shoe 30. 
     Another feature that I prefer for my lift-off shoe system is a block or piece of elastomeric material 55 carried on each shoe 30 to reduce the speed of shoe movement when sash 20 is tilted out of the plane of the window. As this occurs, the sash weight on pins 25 supported by shoes 30 is greatly reduced so that counterbalance springs 40 tend to snap shoes 30 rapidly upward. This can give a sash remover a feeling of loss of control as the bottom end of the tilted sash rises rapidly in the window. Elastomeric material 55 overcomes this by producing increased frictional resistance against rapid movement. Material 55 can be a foamed resin elastomer, for example, and can be lodged in place in a recess 56 in the back side of shoe 30. For slow movement of a shoe 30 in channel 11, as a sash is raised and lowered, elastomeric material 55 is only slightly deformed and offers low frictional resistance. More rapid movement of shoe 30 in channel 11 deforms elastomeric material 55 by a greater amount and increases its frictional resistance. This tends to dampen or slow down the movement of shoe 30 so that while it rises in response to tilting of sash 20, it does so at a moderate rate of speed that is not alarming to the person who tilted the sash. 
     To remove a sash 20 supported by my lift-off shoe system, sash 20 is first tilted inward, as is normally done for tilt windows. This does not lock shoes 30, however, which are free to rise in response to the reduced supported weight of sash 20. Shoes 30 then rise at a moderate speed to their uppermost positions, where counterbalance springs 40 are fully retracted. This occurs at or slightly above the middle of a typical double-hung window. This movement also occurs automatically as the sash remover holds the upper end of the tilted sash. 
     Once the lower end of the tilted sash has reached its uppermost position, where counterbalance springs 40 will lift it no higher, then removal of the sash from the window can occur. This is done by slanting the sash to lift one of the pins 25 vertically upward out of a shoe slot 31. This can be done without any interference from spring 40; and it is a likely movement for the sash remover to attempt, in slanting the window for withdrawal. 
     Once one of the sash pins 25 lifts upward to clear a shoe 30 and withdraw from liner slot 13, it follows naturally for the sash remover to lift the other pin clear of its shoe and out of liner slot 13 so that the sash is withdrawn from the window. 
     Replacing a withdrawn sash is also simple. Instead of laterally replacing sash pins into shoes that are locked somewhere within the jamb liners and are difficult to see, the sash replacer merely slants the sash so that the pins 25 can enter the liner slots 13 above the uppermost positions of shoes 30. Then the sash is lowered so that pins 25 move downwardly into shoe slots 31. The outward flare at the upper end of slots 31 aids in this process, and the offset mounting of spring 40 keeps it clear of downwardly descending sash pins 25. Once these are lowered into engagement with slots 31, shoes 30 partially support the weight of the sash. The sash replacer can feel this occur and realize that the sash pins are properly engaged with the sash shoes. All that remains is then to tilt the sash back into the plane of the window. As this is done, shoes 30 support and counterbalance the full weight of sash 20. 
     A lack of any locking mechanism not only simplifies shoes 30, but prevents damage to liner 10 or shoes 30 if a locking mechanism is forced and broken. Unlocked shoes that return automatically to their uppermost positions also simplify withdrawal and replacement of the sash, so long as sash pins 25 have heads 26 that interlock with slots 31 and are removable only vertically from slots 31. Shoes 30 also provide the friction necessary to prevent hop and drop of the sash and do this automatically in cooperation with the offset of springs 40 from pins 25. The amount of this friction can be designed as desired by varying the spring offset from the sash pin and the vertical distance between upper and lower corners of the shoe. The rise of the shoes when the sash is tilted is dampened or slowed by the preferred use of an elastomeric material 55, and overall friction of shoe 30 is additionally adjustable by means of screw 45.