something new and improved! front and rear cantillever system,inboard shocks.fuel tanks under front and rear seats for a combined 60 gal. of fuel,4 wheel a-arm,sway bars front and rear,37" tall tires,etc,etc. -just need to finish mounting front shocks and tie-rod on spindle and the front is done-we used the longest shocks possible with our cantilever system to get our desired motion ratio(1.63 to 1),so the shocks dampen more effectively.ride height is adjusted via the rod in the normal place of the shocks.we have less unsprung weight (lighter suspension parts) and more sprung weight(indoard shocks,rocker assembly's,center mounted tanks),which equals more chassis control-should be fun!

Looks pretty beefy but also very heavy..

so far the weight is same as our normal cars(2600 lbs.)-we have just moved it around!the suspension arms and spindles were made out of lighter material since the force of 2 shocks acting directly on them was eliminated,the rocker assemblys are light as well-the heaviest additional parts are the 2" spindle snouts they pivot on!-its time for something new!(even though im not the first to try this!) we call this the JBMS-Jason Baldwin Memorial Series!

why?

I like it, innovation is key to advancing the technology

In theory I like the idea of cantilever setups...but I'm guessing there's something that keeps them from working well in our applications since even though they've been around for years they never seem to catch on.

Just off the top of my head....

Sand Rocket - has used cantilevered rear shocks since at least 1999
Monte Crawford - Had a car that was in SS a few years back and in the SSSS that had cantilever shocks, it was bright green (IIRC it was almost but not quite "outback^h^h^h^hfront green") I know it used them up front but I can't remember if it also had them in the rear...I think it was either 2001 or 2002 so I'd have to dig in my archives for the old articles.

There have also been 3 or 4 homebuilt cars in SS the past few years that had them. I'd like to see it work out....just not sure what it will take.

I love seeing the new designs. Even though the idea is not new, the design is.

Will It be at the show?

Exactly

I think its cool, but not new. A couple of years ago at the SSSS was that one that everybody talked about. The fabricator (I dont remember who) had answered the same question "why?" his answer was "cause I can".............................. To each his own, but I like to stick to what you know works. But thats just me.

+1 ... Cool looking but I don't see any benefits for sand use.

The only benefit is when you are real tight on space and looking for decent travel (under a truck bed), but I agree, I dont see any advantage on a sandcar other then the being different factor.

My personal belief on this one is that it has not caught on because of the difficulty of designing and building one. Most guys have no idea what a motion ratio is, let alone know how to get the right number. Having a progressive shock/spring setup be more progressive via the cantilever has nothing but benifits. I think this looks great and I like the front swaybar

1 negative: extra weight added for the beefy cantaliever component, as well as needing extra bracing to the frame where the cantiliver attaches as the loads will be extreme on that point. (this negative is not so bad in my opinion, it can be worked out, and the weight minimilized, so the negative in itself is not something that would discourage me from using it)

Positives (that far outweight the negative) Lighter lower arm since you can now mount the shock closer to the wheel which eleminates some of the bracing required to have a shock mounted farther in, this cuts both weight, time and money to build.

Perfectly setup shock angle for the best progressive rate possible, you would be surprised at how many cars have extreme angles on the shocks under compression, they work, just not as effeciantly as a shock that is say 90 degrees to the lower a-arm under full compression.

And on to the most important thing this does. It switched a huge chunk of the unsprung weight into sprung weight. The lighter, unsprung weight, will get the wheel back to the surface to follow the ground better. He's not adding weight to the rail by switching the unsprung to sprung, simply moving it to the center of the rail which is a better placement for ther weight if it has to be there.

The unsprung weight is lightened in 2 ways. A lighter lower arm, since bracing, that is no longer needed, has been removed, as well as the weight of the shocks. I don't know the exact numbers, but i'm gonna guess a dual shock setup on one of moosbilts cars (with coils) weighs around 50 pounds per side? So, half that weight (25 pounds per side) has now been lightened off the suspension, which is a huge difference, and 50 pounds of weight has just been added to the center of the car, which will make it soak stuff up better. The tubes he has placed on the a-arms in place of the shocks maybe weight about 6 pounds each, so in actuality, he is dropping 25 pounds off each wheel, adding 6 back (making a 19 pound loss per side) and adding the weight of the cantilever component to the sprung weight of the car. Also to be subtracted is the weight shaved off the lower a-arm from bracing, so it will easily be over 20 pounds shaved each side..


Something else that may or may not be important to people is the fact that there is less wind resistance by having the shocks inboard. I would also think this could be a negative, as shocks heat up as they are being used, and airflow helps to cool them down, but if a scoop, or direct line of air was able to run down the lengths of the shocks, I think this "negative" could be avoided. I know heat effect airshocks, not sure about coils, but i'm prett ysure they will effect the bypass shock, if there is one in use on the setup.

I think it has lots of positives with a negative that isn't so bad...IMO

The reason it isn't done more often (IMO) is the time required to design the system properly, and the extra labor required to build the system. Indy cars spare no expense to build their cars, a cantiliver system is a no brainer for preformance. Less wind resistance, lighter unspring weight, more centeralized sprung weight, very little weight addition.

It's just easier for builders to be simple, 1 shock, 4 tabs, and your done. The common way works great, is simple and cheap to build, and is more than acceptable in the market, so most people don't feel the need to make it better if what id being used is fine..


Oh yeah, great looking setup man, I never get tired of watching your builds, or admiring the detailed pics posted of your vehicles, especially your suspension components....

I would think this is much more of a desert car than sand- I give high marks for the innovation- Jess

so what are you guys planning on bringing to the sand sports show??????

hey mosebillt, just noticed 2 things. 1 is the antisway bar on the lower a-arms, didn't catch that before..


Also, if those straps stretch or break, the cantilever setup could spin back just far enough the other way to try and rotate the housing the opposite way as it compresses, prob. destroying the shocks. Was curious if you though about just running a rubber bumpstop off the frame below the cantilever so it can't rotate any farther. It would be pretty easy and cheap to build, and I know those straps for the front are $50.00 plus the hardware, so it would be cheaper to just get rid of them. It would be a fail safe, and you would never have to adjust the straps.

I think the perfect location would be behind the top of the tube that connects the a-arm to the cantilever, just behind the heim at the base of the cantilever....


Or you could leave the strap and run the stop as a fail safe, anytiime you saw the cantilever setup touching the bumpstop, you knew it was time to adjust it a little..

Just a suggestion..

Hey yooshi. Its MOSEBILLT. Not moosebilt.

lol, I actually knew that, it was a typo...

i know mosebilt

patrick gets so mad at me when i try to say it


i have to say it to myself before it comes out

Looks great. For the people that asked "why?" Yoshi's post summed it up pretty good, better , more progressive shock movement, more sprung weight, and less unsprung weight are the BIG pluses. Great execution, too Mosebuilt.

Hey Noodnaard, it's Mosebillt, not mosebuilt...

lol


and I know how to spell, it but I have no idea how to pronounce it... Moss-bill-T?

Haha, Yochi...I think it's pronounced moe's built ???

I always thought it was moose bullet whatever that means.

Not moesbilt Its moosebroke ?

I hope somebody gets creative filling the hole in the front firewall where the rocker passes thru.

That was good ...

stop it,you are hurting my feelings!

Test it to see if the results outweigh the added complexity.
If it does, great if it doesn't, Start Over....