I'm looking at mounting the rear coilovers horsontally with a lever arm to connect them to the diff after searching I only found 1 referance

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=340681&stc=1&d=1197268561

this picture

any information on this set up would be helpfull

Some monster trucks are set up that way. Samson is/used to be. Google Patrick Racing.

plenty of prople do it in the lowrider scene with bags, search canteliver (sp)suspensions

what would be the point in doing that except to keep em out of harms way and coolness factor

what would be the point in doing that except to keep em out of harms way and coolness factor

By changing the length of the lever arm, you can get alot of travel out of a short shock so its a hell of a lot cheaper than buying an 18" coilover and the springs to go with it. Then there's the easier packaging, lots of folks have trouble getting a shock between the tire and frame with out the shock rubbing something through its range of travel. And finally, on full bodied rigs using a short shock and bellcrank arrangement you dont end up with coilovers going through the body taking up cargo room inside or holes in the floor that let dirt/mud/ice/water through.


Just my thoughts while looking at the pic. I saw that heep at a WEROCK comp last year and thought it was a pretty good idea.

By changing the length of the lever arm, you can get alot of travel out of a short shock so its a hell of a lot cheaper than buying an 18" coilover and the springs to go with it. Then there's the easier packaging, lots of folks have trouble getting a shock between the tire and frame with out the shock rubbing something through its range of travel. And finally, on full bodied rigs using a short shock and bellcrank arrangement you dont end up with coilovers going through the body taking up cargo room inside or holes in the floor that let dirt/mud/ice/water through.


Just my thoughts while looking at the pic. I saw that heep at a WEROCK comp last year and thought it was a pretty good idea.

That pretty much covers my motivation for this idea I still want to be able to take both the kids wheeling and keep it as legal as posible.

My main concerns are how the lever arm will effect the spring rate and shock valving( I've spoken to a few local racers who couldn't shed much light on this or recomend anyone who is really good at setting up coilovers).

My other main area of concern is the linkage from the diff to the leverarm couple of people sugested bushings

There is quite a bit of actual engineering in an application of this sort. Depending on link the design of the cantilever arm, you could end up with a really sweet setup (one possibility) or a complete POS (a whole lot more likely)

I wouldn't try to emulate a suspension design from a monster truck, because, While I don't know it for a fact, I would imagine they have a lot of rising rate built into the design, to keep the suspension relatively soft at normal ride, but really stiffen the hell out of it at max compression, like right after they clear 2 bent up school buses, and come falling back to mother earth.

You can build one with either a rising rate, which would be good for a coil type spring, or a slight falling rate, better for an air shock, or even one with a relatively linear rate, which is what a typical coil spring in a vertical configuration is. If you have the resources, you can get more out of this type of suspension, than any other, but like I said, for any given vehicle/application, there is only going to be a narrow margin between hitting the sweet setup, and the almost infinite number of really fucked up setups. The real trick is in knowing how you want the suspension to behave, and then designing around it. I'd start out with a linear spring rate, or possibly a little bit of rise in the last 25 percent of travel. You don't want too much rise in a crawler design, or it will not allow the tire to stuff. It is more to absorb hard hits (jumping).

If you have the time to deal with that, go for it, if not, I'd look into something else.

I know a little bit about it, and I wouldn't even consider it, unless I was willing to bring an engineer into the design.

Doug

Its called cantalever suspension... You'll see it alot on desert trucks

I call the "lever arm" a bellcrank. Seen it on desert trucks and a few other small buggies.

Some reasons for doing it are you can use smaller shocks mounted lower.

Some reasons for doing it are you can use smaller shocks

Or the same shock to get more travel

I've done this on a street rod before to get the coilovers behind the grill and out of view, thought about doing it on a buggy, never have though... If you do it, post it up and let us know how it comes out.

I've done this on a street rod before to get the coilovers behind the grill and out of view, thought about doing it on a buggy, never have though... If you do it, post it up and let us know how it comes out.

do you have any pictures or further detail of this set-up and if you were to do it again is there anything you would do differently next time

cheers

Frank

Ive done this on bagged trucks IE: Lowriders,mini trucks ,and a prerunner,Never a crawler If you have room to run them conventional DO IT>>> the engineering is a nightmare to do correctly.Bags are easy because of changing in pressures..Best way if your going only for clearance is to do them 1to1 ratio "think the shape of a boomerang"that way you can run off the shelf valving and keep rates to a minimum..just my 2 cents..Hope it helps:D Also the smaller the shock The harder is is on it..Shaft speed,heat,heim load,etc...

A boomerang shape would work pretty well but can still be either a rising or a falling rate. The thing about that particular link is that the end that the shock is mounted doesn't move in a straight line, but rather an arc. If you set it up with the bellcrank directly in line with the shock at the end of travel, that is going to give you a rising rate. If you set it up past that point, then the spring rate will be falling off as it goes thru the arc past this point. Again, as I said, you don't really want your spring rate to get lower as you run out of shock travel. A little bit would probably be ok, but too much could have disastrous results (suspension bottoming hard).

It would be the easiest to set up and build, and probably the easiest to get right, but you still need to have some idea of what is going on with rate, as you go thru that arc.

Back from the dead..... Where can one find suspension theory on this? I understand the concept fine enough, but all the details I'm hazy on.... Does anyone have a book or a link to somewhere that explains it a bit? Everything I search either brings up bridges, low riders or nothing useful in the way of theory.

I'm not webster but i think it's spelled horiZontal. :flipoff2:

Sept 2008 Petersen's 4-Wheel & Offroad had an article on this subject. Off Road Evolution makes a cantilever kit for JK's. Check out www.offroadevolution.com.

they use them on rc cars maybe can use some of the ideas from them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIJTT9yBbAM&feature=related

they look like they flex good on the small scale but would like to see this applied to a jeep.

http://www.traxxas.com/products/nitro/revo/revo5308/gallery/5308-bare-chassis.jpg

Sept 2008 Petersen's 4-Wheel & Offroad had an article on this subject. Off Road Evolution makes a cantilever kit for JK's.

I read that....almost a worthless article....did nothing but describe how to install the kit. I'm looking for theory and design....engineering aspects really.

Its also a common setup in open wheeled race cars (F1 and the like). We also used it in Formula SAE (college open wheeled race car design fsae.com), but I didn't actually work on the shock setup so I don't know much about it. One issue would be fading if you did any sort of fast bumps for very long. I dont have much to add, just thought I'd give you a couple other places to look.

EDIT: There are issues with shock travel and wheel travel linearity because of the bellcrank. It was something that was studied on the SAE car, and it only had 1" of wheel travel. Designing a suspension like that basically involves learning machine design (movement of rigid linkages), and then applying it to the shock setup. Here is the book we used: Uicker, Pennock, Shigley, Theory
of Machines and Mechanisms, 3rd ed, Oxford Univ Press, 2003

Ha, I've been working on modeling a cant. lever setting for the rear of my XJ. I've gotten some information from "The Shock Handbook" and Carroll Smith's "Tune to Win". I've been reading quite a bit one it an I'm still fuzzy on the details, but think I've got a hnadle on how to figurout the rate, rising/failing, etc.

I'm just running the shocks on this system and sticking with leaves in the rear.

Also check out Eng-tip forums.

Weasel, I am trying to do the same thing, but I'm thinking of 4 link and coilovers or possibly just shocks as well. Were the books worth purchasing or should I just go to the national library?

I've been toying with the idea in Solidworks for a while now, so no real world experience here, just observation and theory...

I've noticed a few things while working with it:
To get the best (most useful) rising rate, the shock must be tangent to the the arc of the cantilever arm at full bump (up-travel). Also, it works best if at full droop (down-travel), the shock is perpendicular to the arc of the cantilever arm.
My observation is that the shock attempts to collapse faster at full bump and slower at full droop with this setup, making the rising rate totally obtainable. Soft for the little bumps, stiff for the big hits.
I'm still playing with the cantilever pivot vs. the tie rod(cantilever arm -> axle) mount on the axle vs length of tie rod.

Islanderxj, are you using a 1:1 or a greater ratio lever? Would this have any effect on your findings? I don't imagine so, but that's off of work in my head.

Islanderxj, are you using a 1:1 or a greater ratio lever? Would this have any effect on your findings? I don't imagine so, but that's off of work in my head.
The axle side (12") has a slight advantage over the shock side (10") of the Cantilever, but it appears to not matter one way or the other. It looks like personal preference and packaging at that point.

I was working with a 16" fox coilover dimensions for reference...

The Shock Absorber Handbook by John Dixon covers just about everything you would ever want to know about shock design and theories.

The Carroll Smith books I find excellent resources for everything race and material related. Tune to win is about setting up road race cars but the theories apply. Engineering to Win in one other one of his books that is excellent. I've actually lost copies of a couple and will probably buy the whole set just to have for reference.

His books run about 20.00 apiece, the set is ~100.00.

So in short just for this topic I would stick with the Shock Handbook, but it just deals with the shocks, not so much the springs. Carroll's books are great for all around reference.

and its cantilever...

I've been toying with the idea in Solidworks for a while now, so no real world experience here, just observation and theory...

I've noticed a few things while working with it:
To get the best (most useful) rising rate, the shock must be tangent to the the arc of the cantilever arm at full bump (up-travel). Also, it works best if at full droop (down-travel), the shock is perpendicular to the arc of the cantilever arm.
My observation is that the shock attempts to collapse faster at full bump and slower at full droop with this setup, making the rising rate totally obtainable. Soft for the little bumps, stiff for the big hits.
I'm still playing with the cantilever pivot vs. the tie rod(cantilever arm -> axle) mount on the axle vs length of tie rod.

This is what I have noticed as well. This is with a 2:1 ratio, 8" shock.

By changing the length of the lever arm, you can get alot of travel out of a short shock so its a hell of a lot cheaper than buying an 18" coilover and the springs to go with it. Then there's the easier packaging, lots of folks have trouble getting a shock between the tire and frame with out the shock rubbing something through its range of travel. And finally, on full bodied rigs using a short shock and bellcrank arrangement you dont end up with coilovers going through the body taking up cargo room inside or holes in the floor that let dirt/mud/ice/water through.


Just my thoughts while looking at the pic. I saw that heep at a WEROCK comp last year and thought it was a pretty good idea.

Good point on the packaging and everything, but I'm not buying the cost part. Once you add up bearings, rod ends, material and everything to build a lever arm I doubt it ends up being cheaper than 2 more springs at $55 each and the extra cost in shocks. Also, the shocks will have to be valved a lot stiffer since the dampening will also not have as much of an effect on the suspension travel

This is what I have noticed as well. This is with a 2:1 ratio, 8" shock.

Just throwing it out there, but wouldn't you have to use the shock the other way around in that specific set up? Or if you did, you'd have to change the valving stack up to swap the rebound and compression.

Just throwing it out there, but wouldn't you have to use the shock the other way around in that specific set up? Or if you did, you'd have to change the valving stack up to swap the rebound and compression.

Yes you would, but not a big deal imo. I am messing around with the positions a bit so nothing is final yet. Mine won't be mounted fore to aft but left to right.

You guys seem to think using a Cantilever is more complicated then any other (thought out) coilover setup. Calculating the right spring rate is the same as if it were on a front control arm... Check out Billavista's Coilover Bible (http://pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/coilovers/Part_1/), specifically the parts about Leverage Theory (http://pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/coilovers/Part_1/#LeverageTheory), The Angle Factor (http://pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/coilovers/Part_1/#TheAngleFactor) , and Installation Ratio (http://pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/coilovers/Part_1/#InstallationRatio).

Bust out your Graphing Calculators and have at it!

Thanks again Billavista for making it look easy...

Yes you would, but not a big deal imo. I am messing around with the positions a bit so nothing is final yet. Mine won't be mounted fore to aft but left to right.

Thanks... as I was looking at the pic thinking "that's not right"

I just sent this link to a Naval Engineer friend of mine that knows another who is real into 4x4 and the such, I'll post up what he has to say about it when I hear back. ..Not that I think any of you are dumb (I suppose that's not entirely true,) but I'm expecting an impressive educated response that should be helpful to those who can understand it.

PS, heya Doug, look around the site a bunch so you can design my CJ for me, hah..

A few things to keep in mind.

If you are interested in "getting it" in the desert, keep the ratio 1:1 or as close as you can, otherwise your shocks will fade quick. If you are only going slow, not as critical.

Keep the shock to "lever arm" relationship 90 deg to each other at full bump.

Use the longest "lever arm" possible to keep increase or decrease of rate to a minimum.

Chassis Engineering by Herb Adams is a great book.

A few things to keep in mind.

If you are interested in "getting it" in the desert, keep the ratio 1:1 or as close as you can, otherwise your shocks will fade quick. If you are only going slow, not as critical.

Keep the shock to "lever arm" relationship 90 deg to each other at full bump.

Use the longest "lever arm" possible to keep increase or decrease of rate to a minimum.

Chassis Engineering by Herb Adams is a great book.

Having a less than 1:1 ratio would make your shocks run cooler, although you would have to run longer shocks. Or you could run a 1:1 or greater ratio and just run fatter shocks(2.0s vs 2.5s vs 3.0s etc.)...

Yep...

Rising rate would be an advantage...

Doesn't Herb Adams specialize in on road handling with Trans Am's and the like, albeit solid rear axles?
I haven't read the book, but I have a feeling it doesn't mention 24" of travel and 100mph through the desert (or anything like it)....

You guys seem to think using a Cantilever is more complicated then any other (thought out) coilover setup. Calculating the right spring rate is the same as if it were on a front control arm... Check out Billavista's Coilover Bible (http://pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/coilovers/Part_1/), specifically the parts about Leverage Theory (http://pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/coilovers/Part_1/#LeverageTheory), The Angle Factor (http://pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/coilovers/Part_1/#TheAngleFactor) , and Installation Ratio (http://pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/coilovers/Part_1/#InstallationRatio).

Bust out your Graphing Calculators and have at it!

Thanks again Billavista for making it look easy...

yea the spring rate is easy as hell to figure out. what ya gonna do about the shock valving

yea the spring rate is easy as hell to figure out. what ya gonna do about the shock valving
I would think it would be the same process if you weren't using a cantilever I would think. Start with something close, then test and retest till you like it. It is something I haven't ever observed or tested so it's a grey area for me. It should be nearly the same as valving a mainstream shock setup, with the added benefit of the shock valving (effectively) ramp up and down at the top and bottom of the travel, respectively.

I would think it would be the same process if you weren't using a cantilever I would think. Start with something close, then test and retest till you like it. It is something I haven't ever observed or tested so it's a grey area for me. It should be nearly the same as valving a mainstream shock setup, with the added benefit of the shock valving (effectively) ramp up and down at the top and bottom of the travel, respectively.

how do you factor the increase in shock piston speed?

except for the fact if you are running a 2:1 ratio to use an 8" shock to get 16" travel, you have to double the spring rate, and do what with the valving? Im no expert in valving, but I honestly wouldnt want to fawk with testing and retesting building the shock with new valving. If you have a 2:1 ratio and use the same valving as a normal setup, you wont have but half the dampening and it will be bouncy as hell

I don't claim to be anything near an expert here and I know very little about shock valving, its just my opinion from observation & endless web wheeling :flipoff2:

except for the fact if you are running a 2:1 ratio to use an 8" shock to get 16" travel, you have to double the spring rate, and do what with the valving? Im no expert in valving, but I honestly wouldnt want to fawk with testing and retesting building the shock with new valving. If you have a 2:1 ratio and use the same valving as a normal setup, you wont have but half the dampening and it will be bouncy as hell

I didn't mean, run the same valving, just that it would be the same process. If you mounted you shock halfway up your front control arm, it would be the same process... I think... :confused:

You guys seem to think using a Cantilever is more complicated then any other (thought out) coilover setup. Calculating the right spring rate is the same as if it were on a front control arm... Check out Billavista's Coilover Bible (http://pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/coilovers/Part_1/), specifically the parts about Leverage Theory (http://pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/coilovers/Part_1/#LeverageTheory), The Angle Factor (http://pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/coilovers/Part_1/#TheAngleFactor) , and Installation Ratio (http://pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/coilovers/Part_1/#InstallationRatio).

Bust out your Graphing Calculators and have at it!

Thanks again Billavista for making it look easy...


Sorry. this is not at all accurate. On a cantilever setup, the angle changes throughout the range of motion, and that means that the spring rate at the axle does as well. It is very easy to get it completely wrong if you don't understand what is going on with the system.

You could accidentally create a suspension with a falling spring rate, which would be catastrophic in a high speed application such as a desert racer. On the flip side, you could create a rising rate, which would stiffen the suspension as it compresses. I little bit of that would be ok, but overdo it and you will not be getting full compression of the shocks/springs, and the ride would be unnecessarily harsh. You need to know the basics if you expect to bet the full benefits of this type of suspension.

Not saying that a bright person couldn't make one work, but it isn't as simple as you make it seem.

I agree with you, it is easily fubared into a pointless/useless/hindering suspension design.

But the shock mounted in the middle of a control arm isn't different other than the angles and numbers are different. The spring also changes on A-Arms, 4-links, Beams, etc. but the length of those levers vs there pivot position in relation to the shock is on the other end of the spectrum, usually.

Think about it like a 12 inch A-arm that starts out with the shock perpendicular to the arm, then is drops out almost 90*, making the shock almost parallel to the A-arm.

If you follow the tangent/bump & perpendicular/droop idea I mentioned, it would appear to be difficult to not get a rising rate suspension.

The reason I linked Billavista's Article was to show that it is at the least that involved, and his article would help you figure it out real quick(er).

Having a less than 1:1 ratio would make your shocks run cooler, although you would have to run longer shocks. Or you could run a 1:1 or greater ratio and just run fatter shocks(2.0s vs 2.5s vs 3.0s etc.)...

Yep...

Rising rate would be an advantage...

Doesn't Herb Adams specialize in on road handling with Trans Am's and the like, albeit solid rear axles?
I haven't read the book, but I have a feeling it doesn't mention 24" of travel and 100mph through the desert (or anything like it)....

Good luck trying to tune a "go fast" suspension with 24" of travel and a 12" shock. :shaking:

You are 100% correct it does not tell you how to build a Throphy Truck, but it does give you good general knowledge of suspension design and geometry. Maybe you should read it!!

Good luck trying to tune a "go fast" suspension with 24" of travel and a 12" shock. :shaking:

You are 100% correct it does not tell you how to build a Throphy Truck, but it does give you good general knowledge of suspension design and geometry. Maybe you should read it!!
:laughing:

Who said anything about 24" of travel with a 12" shock? But it could be done with a big enough shock or a well designed cooling system for the fluid. It would probably be really touchy to tune... :flipoff2:

I'll pass on the book though, even though I have no doubt about the authors knowledge on the subject or general rear suspension design and being an expert on road/drag car suspension.

You read your book, I'll look at $100,000+ Trophy Trucks and Comp Buggies. :flipoff2:

Sorry. this is not at all accurate. On a cantilever setup, the angle changes throughout the range of motion, and that means that the spring rate at the axle does as well. It is very easy to get it completely wrong if you don't understand what is going on with the system.
It is 100% accurate. Just as your angles on the pushrod and the shock change with a bellcrank it is NO different than the angle of your shock changing with respect to the control arm it's mounted to during suspension travel. It needs to be handled differently but the concept and fundamental idea is exactly the same for tuning them.


You could accidentally create a suspension with a falling spring rate, which would be catastrophic in a high speed application such as a desert racer.
Would it? I hear this a lot, but i speculate it was created via lots of hearsay. I contend a falling wheel rate on a desert truck is far from catastrophic.


Not saying that a bright person couldn't make one work, but it isn't as simple as you make it seem.
All the theory and equations needed to figure out the bulk of this is in the coilover bible. That is why we laid it out as we did. Those fundamentals can be applied to cover ALL possible shock and spring mounting geometrical configurations. How detailed you want to get with your analysis is up to you and the tools you have available.

yea the spring rate is easy as hell to figure out. what ya gonna do about the shock valving
You handle the spring's rate and the shock's damping coefficient in exactly the same way by use of your installation ratio. Just as the installation ratio tells you the force and displacement relationship between the wheel and spring it also tells you the force and velocity relationship between the wheel and shock.

Springs create force from displacement. k's units are lbs/in
Shocks create force from velocity. c's units are lbs/in/s or lbs*s/in

As you go from 1:1 to a <1:1 installation ratio the spring rate and damping coefficient need to increase in proportionality to wheelrate by the square of the installation ratio.

Granted the shocks we use do not have a constant damping coefficient in either high or low speed damping but this problem is there no matter the suspension setup. We can compare shock setups we need with damping ratios, shim charts, and shock plots to ballpark what characteristics we will start with and then test from there just like a 'normal' setup.

Take a look at the Mantis sand car that FST built a few years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PSCrru5U_I&feature=related


Torry and Jeff designed it after playing with their Revo RC cars a bit too much. I haven't seen it in person, but it look like it works pretty good. Torry says it is a blast to run at speed.

Here are a bunch more pics of the Mantis: http://www.fstmotorsports.com/mantis.htm

http://www.fstmotorsports.com/buggy2/pivots.jpg

http://www.fstmotorsports.com/buggy2/front_left.jpg

http://www.fstmotorsports.com/buggy2/front_suspension2.jpg

except for the fact if you are running a 2:1 ratio to use an 8" shock to get 16" travel, you have to double the spring rate, and do what with the valving?

You don't double the spring rate. You quadruple it.
2:1 motion ratio = 0.5 installation ratio
0.5^2=.25
kw/.25=ks
kw=ks/4

With a 1:1 motion ratio kw=ks. So as we go to 2:1 you see the spring rate needs to increase by a factor of 4 to maintain the wheel rate.

The exact same thing happens with your shocks.

If you have a 2:1 ratio and use the same valving as a normal setup, you wont have but half the dampening and it will be bouncy as hell

Theoretically you'll have about 1/4 of the damping! :flipoff2:

how much travel does this thing have?
http://www.fstmotorsports.com/buggy2/front_left.jpg

Its been a couple years, so I don't remember how much Torry had told me, but it is a ton, in the 20"+ range. iirc maybe 26" or 28"s.

Here is a bunch more pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/20425586@N06/sets/72157603120340510/ (mantis/photos)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2056/1991151458_390fc8daba.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2306/1991153282_0885bd0dba.jpg?v=0

http://resengdev.com/images/BUGGY.jpg

Thanks for the input Bigger Valves, sheds some light on the answers I was getting when running the numbers.

Its been a couple years, so I don't remember how much Torry had told me, but it is a ton, in the 20"+ range. iirc maybe 26" or 28"s.

Here is a bunch more pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/20425586@N06/sets/72157603120340510/ (mantis/photos)


http://resengdev.com/images/BUGGY.jpg

Suspension travel = BUTT-TON! Possibly METRIC-ASS-TON!

That thing looks like so much fun!:D

Sept 2008 Petersen's 4-Wheel & Offroad had an article on this subject. Off Road Evolution makes a cantilever kit for JK's. Check out www.offroadevolution.com.

more on the JK bolt on kit here:

http://www.4wheeloffroad.com/techarticles/suspension/131_0809_jeep_wrangler_jk_evo_lever_coilover_suspe nsion_kit/index.html

http://www.offroadevolution.com/store/proddetail.php?prod=EVO-LEVER

more on the JK bolt on kit here:

http://www.4wheeloffroad.com/techarticles/suspension/131_0809_jeep_wrangler_jk_evo_lever_coilover_suspe nsion_kit/index.html

http://www.offroadevolution.com/store/proddetail.php?prod=EVO-LEVER

Thats disgusting how simple and ingenious it is :smokin:

Look into what Baja SAE teams have done... No real budget, lots of smart people, and all the testing equipment you could ask for. If you take what they have done and scale it up you should get some good info.

Formula SAE is good to look at too, the last few years our team has ran a cantilever suspintion with bike (bicycle that is) coilovers.

Take a look at the Mantis sand car that FST built a few years ago.

YouTube - Mantis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PSCrru5U_I&feature=related)


Torry and Jeff designed it after playing with their Revo RC cars a bit too much. I haven't seen it in person, but it look like it works pretty good. Torry says it is a blast to run at speed.

i like how the white helmet comes out of the cage when hitting bumps super safe?

i like how the white helmet comes out of the cage when hitting bumps super safe?


That thing is so low slung if I sat in it, my whole head would stick up out that cage... :laughing: