0% found this document useful (0 votes)
14 views7 pages

MountainBikeSuspensions Design-Opt

The document discusses the optimization of rear-suspension mountain bicycles using a dynamic model and genetic algorithms to minimize chain-suspension interactions. It outlines the constraints for maintaining wheelbase and avoiding collapsed suspension designs while achieving manufacturable results. The study demonstrates that the optimized design aligns well with both experimental and complex dynamic model results.

Uploaded by

fadul.pablo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
14 views7 pages

MountainBikeSuspensions Design-Opt

The document discusses the optimization of rear-suspension mountain bicycles using a dynamic model and genetic algorithms to minimize chain-suspension interactions. It outlines the constraints for maintaining wheelbase and avoiding collapsed suspension designs while achieving manufacturable results. The study demonstrates that the optimized design aligns well with both experimental and complex dynamic model results.

Uploaded by

fadul.pablo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

Dynamics of mountain bicycles with rear suspensions:

design optimization
Craig Good and John McPhee
Systems Design and Mechanical Engineering, Unive rsity of \ Vaterloo, Canada

Abstract
Using a dynamic model of a rear-suspension mountain bicycle, numerical methods are
emp loyed to optimize the geometric variables associated with the suspension design. In
particular, a genetic algorithm is used to minimi ze the maximum value of the frame's
rotation, in order to minimize the chain-suspension interactions felt by a rider. Two sets
of constraint equations are included in the optimization problem. The first set
constrains the wheelbase to be constant for all designs , thereby ensuring equivalent
hand ling properties between designs. The second set is required to avoid infeasible
designs associated with a co ll apsed suspension. Resu lts using four geometric parameters
as design variables are in good agreement with those obtained using a more complex
dynamic model, and with those obtained experimentally. Our optimal design is
manufacturable, since the locations of pivots and suspension members are such that no
interference will occur between moving parts .

Keywords: design optimi zation, genetic algorithm, mo untain bicycle, rear suspe nsion

the rider peda ll ing and is not generated by any


Introduction
interactions with the terrain.
In a previous paper by the authors (Good & To illustrate, consider a bicycle with a swing arm
McPhee 1999), a four-body model of a rear- type rear suspension as shown in Fig. 1. As the
suspension mountain bicycle was d eveloped. It rider pushes on the pedal , th e tension in the chain
was shown that this dynamic model is a simp le rotates the rear suspension components causing the
and effective tool for predicting chain-suspension bike frame to rise. Since the rider peda ls with two
peda ll ing interactions. Using this dynamic model , legs (in a simplified view of pedalling, one leg
an optimization ana lysis was performed to mini- pushes down on a pedal while the other rests) , the
mize chain-suspension interactions for a particu lar bicycle wi ll rise twice for each revolution of the
design. crank. The result is a bicycle that feels like it is
Chain-suspension peda ll ing interactions occur inch-worming down the trail as it is peda lled . This
when th e peda ll ing of the rider causes unwanted feeling is both alarming and unpleasant for most
motion (compression or extension) o f the rear rid ers. The behaviour is exaggera ted in high-load
suspension. The suspension motion is so lely due to situations such as climbing or sprinting.
The most relevant analytica l research in the
literature concerning chain-suspension interactions
Correspo11de11ce addre;:r: was that reported by Wang & Hull (1997) , in which
Professo r]. .\lcPhee, Systems Des ign Engineering, U nivers ity
th ey minimi zed the energy loss from the damper in
of \ Vaterloo, \ \larerloo , Ontario, Canada N2 L 3G I.
Te l.: +I 519 888 4 567, ext. SHI. Fax: +I 5 19 7-+6 -+ 79 1. a rear suspension system. Using a dynamic mod el
E-ma il: mcph ee@ rea l.uwaterloo.ca of a rear suspension bicycl e climbing a smooth 6%

© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd • Sports Engineering (2000) 3, 49-55 49


Mountain bicycle suspension • C. Good and J. McPhee

Rotation of Frame this fitness functi on requires th e integration of the


equati ons o f moti on for th e four-body bicycle
model. The o bj ective fun cti on was minimi zed
usin g a genetic algorithm sea rch routine MECI IAGEN
implemented by Baum al (1997) . The results of our
optimi za tion analyses are presented here, consid -
erin g the fo ur-body bicycle model with fo ur
geometri c des ign va ri ab les.

Genetic algorithm

Chain Force A geneti c algorithm (GA) is a sea rch or optimi za -


Figure 1 Chain-s uspension interactions. ti on techniqu e that is modell ed after natural and
physical processes. Fo r li vin g crea tures, it is theor-
ized that indi vidu als with th e best features to
grad e (\Vang & Hull 1996), they calculated the compete for sca rce resources (food, shelter, mates)
power di ss ipated by the sp rin g-clamper for various in any given environm ent have a greater probabili ty
pivot point locatio ns. A grid sea rch was perform ed of survivin g to reprodu ce. Less-suited individuals
to determine the optimal locatio n of the suspension die ou t and va ni sh, while fit indi viduals thrive.
pivot po int with respect to the bicycle frame. Wang It is th e features or characteri stics of a strong
and Hull co nclud ed that the o ptimal pi vot point is individual th at give it th e ca pacity to prosper.
located 10- 12 cm above the bottom bracket on the T hese fea tures are determined and carri ed by the
seat tube. They also investi gated th e dependence individu al's gen etic stru cture. When indi vidu als
of the optim al pi vot point location on the rider's reproduce, th eir genetic material is passed on to
pedallin g mechani cs, th e sprin g constant and the future generati ons. This process results in an
clamping coefficient. T he optimal pi vot point was o rd ered yet random exchange o f genetic inform a-
fo und to be insensitive to all three factors. tion th at prod uces stronger indi viduals.
Needl e & Hull (l 997) conducted a similar Us ing id eas from the natural process described
in vestiga ti on experim entally. An off-road bi cycle above, H o ll and (1975) fo rm ali zed a stochastic
was co nstructed with an adjusta bl e pi vot point. T he sea rch algorithm ca ll ed the Simple Genetic A lgo-
pi vo t point was adjustab le in that it could be moved rithm (SGA) which ha s beco me widely used for
up and clown the sea t tube. P osition data vs. tim e optimi zation probl ems. The SGA o r GA is a
was then co ll ected fo r the sprin g-clamp er durin g simul ation o f the nani ra l process described above.
pedalling on a treadmill inclined to represent a 6% Consider a mechani ca l system for which one
grade. At the conclu sio n of the ex perim ent, the desires to maxi mi ze o r minim.i ze a certa in perform-
pi vot point locatio n where th e sprin g cl amper ance chara cteristic. T he design vm·iables are those
absorbed th e least amo unt of energy was reported math emati ca l properti es of th e system th at ca n
to be 8.4 cm above the bo ttom bracket. be vari ed to achi eve this goa l. A set of specifi c
In o ur app roach to o ptimi zi ng th e design of a va lues for all design va ri ables define an individual
mo untain bi cycle rear suspension, we have chosen design. A m ath emati ca l express ion that defin es the
an objecti ve (o r 'fitness') function that is quite relati ve merit of o ne individual over anoth er is
different from that used in these previous in vesti- for mulated and ca ll ed the fitness or objective
ga ti o ns. Specifically, we have chosen to minimi ze function. The fitness or objective fun cti on va lu e
the pitching motion of th e rider and frame during is the quantity that o ne seeks to maximi ze o r
climbing. T his objective function is a fun cti on of minimize with the best design. The GA will breed
geo metric design variables, and each eva lu ation of a population of indi vid uals to find an individual

50 Sports Eng ineering (2000) 3, 49-55 • © 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd


C. Good and J. McPhee • Mountain bicycle suspension

with best fitn ess. T he design associ ated with thi s In additi o n, by o nly co nsiderin g th e spring-
indi vidu al is taken as th e so luti o n to th e o ptimi- damper, o ne has no id ea ho w changes in th e design
za tion pro bl em. variabl es affect the actu al moti o n o f the rid er.
The geneti c al gorithm is well suited fo r o pti- A susp ensio n th at minimi zes the energy absorbed
mi zing multibody systems. A G A does no t require by th e sprin g-d amper m ay no t minimi ze th e degree
gradi ent in fo rm ati o n fo r th e o bjecti ve fun cti on o r o f chain-s uspension interactio ns th e ri der actu all y
its con straints. Thi s ca n be important sin ce th e fee ls.
o bj ective fun cti o n in a multibody sys tem often C o nsid ering these facto rs, an altern ative o bj ec-
invo lves th e computati o nally exp ensive procedure ti ve fun ctio n f was pro posed and used for th e
o f integratin g th e equati o ns o f m o ti o n. Also, th e o ptimi za ti o n of th e rea r suspensio n:
probabili ty o f findin g des ig ns at o r near the glo bal
o ptimum with a geneti c algo rithm is hi g her th an f = [m ax03(t)- min 03( t)JI;~ + '+'n (1)
fo r mos t no nlin ea r p rogrammin g techniqu es (Aro ra where 03 is th e angle of rotati o n of the frame and
et al. 199 5). rid er, des ig nated as Body 3 in th e fo ur- body bi cycl e
Th ere are, however, a few di sa dva ntages to usin g model shown in F ig. 2. By using fas an o bj ecti ve
GAs for thi s type o f pro bl em. Sin ce th e algorithm is fun cti o n , o ne seeks to minimi ze th e oscill ati o n
probabili sti c, th ere is no rea l proof th at th e des ig ns amplitud e o f 0 3 durin g stea dy-state pedalling,
found converge to the o ptimum . In ad diti o n , a th ereby minimi zin g th e pitchin g motio n of th e
mu ch larger number o f o bj ecti ve fun cti o n eva lu- fram e and rid er.
ati o ns are required than for o th er o ptimi za ti o n To ca lcul ate the fitn ess fun cti o n va lu e, the
m eth ods. equati o ns o f m otio n fo r th e fo ur-body bi cycl e were
Th e description o f th e techniqu es used in a integrated usin g a specifi c set o f des ign va riabl es.
geneti c algo ri thm prese nted here is intend ed as an T he minimum and maximum va lu es fo r 03 we re
ove rvi ew. Fo r more detail s th e reader is enco uraged determin ed fro m th e coordin ate res po nse over
to consult Srini vas & P atnaik (1994), Go ldb erg th e tim e interva l t i ::::; t ::::; t 1 , where t i and t 1 arc
(1989) and Baum al (1997). ca refull y selected to ensure th at th e va lu es extra cted
Baumal impl em ented th e simpl e ge neti c algo - are fro m th e stea dy-state regime. T he difference
rithm , fo rm ali zed by Go ldberg, in a so ftware pack- betwee n th e maximum and minimum va lu e o f 03
age call ed 1VlEc 1IAGEN, ava il abl e fro m th e Moti o n represents the amplitud e of oscill ati o n o f the
Research G roup at th e U ni versity ofWaterl oo . T hi s coo rdin ate over th e spec ifi ed interva l.
packa ge was used to o ptimi ze th e geo m etry o f
th e rear suspensio n for th e fo ur-body bike m odel.

Fitness function

In two previ o us o pt imi za ti o n studi es (Needle &


Hull 1997; Wang & Hull 1997), th e energy
absorbed by th e sprin g-d amper was minimi zed . In
o ur opini o n, thi s is no t th e mos t id ea l o bj ecti ve
functi o n . In a ridin g situ ati o n, it is poss ibl e th at
a suspensio n exhibitin g large-amplitud e, low-
frequency oscillati o ns could abso rb th e sa m e
am ount o f energy as a suspensio n exhibiting
small-amplitud e hi g h-frequ ency oscillati o ns. Yet, Body 1 Body 4
Rear Wheel Front Wheel
a suspensio n with large-amplitud e oscill ati o ns
wo uld cl ea rl y be mo re ann oyin g to th e rider. Fig ure 2 Four- bod v bi cvcle m odel (G ood & ,\.1cPhee 1999).

© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd • Sports Eng ineering (2000) 3, 49-55 51


Mountain bicycle suspens ion • C. Good and J. McPhee

T he fi tness fu nctio n also in clud es a penal ty te rm


lf' 11 th at is used to penali ze the fi tness fun ctio n fo r
vio latio ns o f any in equ ality co nstraints. T he fo rm
and use of the penalty term is di scussed in the next
sectio n .
Body 2

Design optimization

O nce the fra mework fo r the optimi zatio n analys is


was in pl ace, an optimi za tio n of fo ur des ign
va ri ab les was per fo rm ed. In un de rtakin g t hi s ana-
lys is, o nl y se lected geo m etric param eters o f the rea r
suspensio n were chose n as des ign vari ab les. T he
sprin g and dampin g coeffi cients were held co nstant Figure 3 Jn feasib le co l lapsed suspen sion .

fo r all analyses. In thi s way, the o ptimi za ti o n


co ncentra tes o nl y o n the suspensio n geometry. impos in g thi s co nstraint, th e four-b ody bike mo del
It was also des irabl e to ho ld th e static whee lbase co ul d no t co ll apse.
(•vb) of the bicycle co nsta nt, ind epend ent o f the \ \Then usin g co nstraints with a geneti c algo-
des ig n va ri abl es . T he wheelbase is a paramete r th at rithm , it is comm o n practi ce to add a penalty to
s ubsta ntia ll y affects the steerin g dynami cs of th e th e fitn ess fun cti o n to en fo rce co nstraint vio lati o ns
bicycl e. By keepin g the wh eelbase co nstant, gene ra- (Go ldberg 1989). In thi s way, des ig ns t hat vio late
tio ns of des igns we re ex pected to ex hibi t simil ar the constraints will pro bably di sappear fro m the
hand lin g pro perties. To ho ld th e whee lbase co n- des ig n po pu latio n after a few generation s. T o
sta nt, th e di sta nce fro m th e suspensio n pi vo t po in t en fo rce th e co nstraint in equa lity (2), we have
to th e rea r hub was adju sted to sati sfy thi s inco rpo rated th e pena lty functi o n given by:
co nstraint fo r every des ign .
lf' 11 = - lOOmin [O. min ((h (t ))] (3 )
AJ I o th er fou r- body m ode l param eters we re co n-
sid e red co nstants , and exc itatio n was prov id ed by in to th e fitn ess fun cti o n o f eq n (1). As with o ther
ri d in g th e bi cycle up a 6 % g rade usin g th e pedallin g parameters fo r th e geneti c algo rithm , the pena lty
m odel develo ped in Good & McPh ee (1 999). fun cti on was fo und thro ugh tria l and erro r.

Penalty function Optimization results


\ \'h en th e o ptimi zatio n analys is was run fo r the Fo r th e o ptimi za ti o n analysis, four ind epend ent
fi rst tim e, it re n1rn ed unfeasibl e des igns. T he geom etri c param eters were se lected from th e four-
des igns were unacceptab le in th at the suspensio n body bike model as design variables. Th e fou r
sys tem co ll apsed, all o \\'in g th e fra me to hit the parameters we re (p".,py) and ((f.n q_J, the local
gro un d wh en the peda l loa ds were appli ed, as co mpo nents o f th e vecto rs p and q shown in Fi g. 4.
shown in Fig. 3. T he compo nents p". and Py de fi ne the loca l (X, Y)
To remedy thi s situatio n, a co nstraint was pos iti o n o f th e sprin g-cl amp er attachm ent po int o n
im posed on poss ible va lu es o f the pos iti o n coo rd i- the rea r triangle (Body 2). T h is correspo nds to the
nate O]: local pos iti o n of node e with respect to the centre o f
mass d of th e rear tri angle, as shown in F ig. -+. Th e
(2)
compo nents q_,. and (/y defin e the loca l (X, Y)
where O] is the angle of rotatio n of the rear pl acement o f th e pi vot po int with respect to th e
s uspension, denoted as Body 2 in F igs 2 and 3. By centre o f ma ss j o f Bo dy 3, the frame and rid er.

52 Sp o rt s Eng in eerin g (2000) 3, 49-55 • © 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd


C Good and J. McPhee • Mountain bicycle sus pensio n

Rear Suspension
Body 2
4 Variable Ana lysis
'y/ody3 Frame & Rider

~\"~, """ Co nn ected by


Spring-Damper

4 Variable Analysis
Design Space · Node h

Figure 4 D es ign va ri abl e space. Connected by Pivot

This corresponds to the loca l pos1t1on of nod e h. Tab le 1 Bounds on design l'ariab lcs

It sho uld be noted that th e vecto rs p and q


Variable Upper bound Lower bound
correspond to edges 1·6 and 1·9 in th e syste m graph
Px (m) 0.200 - 0200
that wa s used by Good & McPhee (1999; Fig. 5) to Py (m) 0300 0.000
generate th e equ ation s of motion. qx (m) - 0.467 - 0.267
Upper and lower bounds on th e design variab les qy (m) - 0.816 - 0.416

were specifi ed as shown in Table I. These design


variable spaces are depicted by dash ed boxes in Fig. 4. The upper and lower bounds were se lected
to ensure that reaso nabl e, manufa crnrabl e designs
would be found by the optimization proced ure.
At present, th ere are no consistent, uniform
m ethods available for selectin g the man y param-
eters for th e geneti c algorithm optimization . Thus,
these param ete rs were se lected through trial , error,
and ex perim entation. Results for four different runs
o f MECI tAGEN linked with the fitness function for
th e four-body bi cycl e mod el are show n in Table 2.
For eac h run , 1\1EC:l IAGEN's rand o m numb er gen-
Original Configuration
erato r was seeded with a different va lu e. A sc he-
matic of th e o ptimal design is shown in Fig. 5.

Discussion of results
From th e simulation of the original fou r-body
bi cycle model given in Good & McPhee (1999), the
va lue of the fitness function was ca lcul ated to be
10.3 mrad o r 0.6°.
By runnin g the opti mi zatio n process, the fi tness
functi o n wa s substantiall y red uced. In the four
va riabl e ana lys is, three of the fo ur runs reduced
Optimized Des ign
the fitn ess to less than 0.01 mn1d . This 1s a
Figure 5 Optimi zed s u s pen~ion. sig nificant improve m ent (red ucti o n o f 99%) ove r

© 2000 Bl ackwel l Science Ltd • Sports Engineering (2000) 3, 49-55 53


Mountain bicycle suspension • C. Good and J. McPhee

Tab le 2 Optimi zation res ults was located 11.6 cm above the bottom bracket and
2.7 cm reanvards when minimizing the pitching
Variable Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4
motion of the rider. Considering the differences in
Px (m) 0.0667 0040 0.0667 - 0.0933
modelling and differences in the objective func-
Py (m) 0.220 0.200 0.280 0.120
qx (m) - 0.414 - 0.414 - 0.307 - 0.414 tions, this is reasonable agreement. In future work,
qy (m ) - 0.700 - 0.700 - 0.725 - 0.700 the clamper energy could be used as the fitness
CPU time (s) 716 861 751 986
function, to allow direct comparison of the results
Fitness evaluations 180 253 237 313
Generations 14 14 12 26 with those of Wang and Hull.
Minimum fitness (mrad) 0.00* 0.00* 0.06 0.00* It is important to consider that the results
* M echagen cannot output res ults beyond 5 decimal pla ces presented here are specific to the bike topology
(in rad). and geometry as given in Good & McPhee (1999).
In the bicycle market, there are many different
suspension designs available in many different si zes.
the original design. Runs 1, 2 and 4 converge to an The techniques developed here are general and can
optimal solution where 1x = -0.414 m and fj y = be extended to the design optimization of any type
0.700 m. In contrast, the results found for Px ~nd of suspension of any size.
Py do not correspond to specific optimum values, Finally, we note that our optimal design is
but instead fit into a narrow band of possible manufacturable. The locations of the pivots and
values. From this, we concluded that a design with suspension members are such that no interference
minimum fitness is not as sensitive to the variables will occur between parts. The pivots and springs
Px and Py as it is to 1x and 1T The optimal pivot can be successfully located in the proper positions
point corresponds to a point which is located without getting in the way of other moving parts.
1 1.6 cm above the bottom bracket and 2. 7 cm
behind the seat tube as shown in Fig. 5.
Conclusions
It is difficult to explain with certainty why
particular design variables are found by the opti- Using a four-body dynamic model of a mountain
mization process, due to the probabilistic nature of bicycle with a rear suspension, we have employed
the genetic algorithm. Run 3 found a much numerical methods to optimize the geometric
different solution whose fitness is less optimal than variables associated with the suspension design. In
runs 1, 2 or 4. Convergence of the algorithm is not particular, we have used a genetic algorithm to
a proof that the result is an optimum. In future minimize the maximum value of the frame's rota-
work, this result could be used as a starting point tion , which we equate to minimizing the chain-
for a SQP (Sequential Quadratic Programming) suspension interactions felt by a rider. This was
opt1m1 zation algorithm, which will converge accomplished while satisfying constraints that
quickly to a local optimum. ensured a constant wheelbase for all designs (to
Data from the optimization is directly compar- ensure equivalent handling properties between
able to optimi zation results found by Wang & Hull designs) and avoided infeasible designs associated
(1997) and Needle & Hull (1997). Wang and Hull with a collapsed suspension. Results using four
found the optimum pivot point to lie 10-12 cm geometric parameters as design variables were in
above the bottom bracket, and Needle and Hull good agreement with those obtained using a more
found the optimum pivot point to be 8.4 cm above complex dynamic model (Wang & Hull 1997) and
the bottom bracket. Both attempts minimized with those obtained experimentally (Needle & Hull
energy lost in the spring-clamper. It is important 1997), even though we have used a significantly
to note that these previous attempts did not allow different objective function.
the pivot to move fore and aft of the seat tube. It was found that the correct placement of the
Using our optimization criteria , the optimal pivot pivot point, with respect to the frame, was the

54 Sports Engineering (2000) 3, 49-55 • © 2000 Blackwell Science ltd


C. Good and J. McPhee • Mountain bicycle suspension

most signifi ca nt geometric suspension variab le behaviour. :\1aste r's Thesis, U ni ve rsity of \ \laterloo,
that cou ld be used to reduce chain-suspension \ \'aterloo, Ontario, Canada.
interactions. These interactions we re not as sen- Go ldberg, D .E . ( 1989) Genetic Algorith711s in Search,
Opti711i:,ation and J\!lachi11e Leaming. Add iso n-\ Vesley
sitive to other geometri c suspensio n parameters.
Publishing Compan)·, Readi ng, .VIA, USA.
This agrees with earli er results found by \!Van g Good , C. & NlcPhee, J. (1999) D ynami cs of mou ntain
and Hull. bi cycles with rear suspensions: mode lling and simul ati o n.
Spom Engineering, 2, 129- 1-J.3.
H o lland , ].H. ( 197 5) Adaptation in .Vatum/ rmd r l 11ificial
Acknowledgements
Syste711s. U niversity of Michigan Press. Ann Arb o r, :\U,
Financia l support of thi s resea rch by th e Natura l U.S.A.
l\'eedl e, S.A. & Hull , i\'l.L. ( 1997) An off- road bicycle with
Sciences and E ngin eerin g Resea rch Council o f
ad justa bl e suspensio n kinematics. J ouma/ of ,Hechm1iwl
Canada is gratefu ll y acknowledged.
Des1~~'11, 119, 3 70-3 75.
Srini vas, NI. & Patnaik, L. .Vl. ( 199-J.) Ge netic algo rithms:
a survey. Co111p11ter, June, 17-26.
References
\ Vang, E.L. & ll ull, ,\LL . ( 1996) ,.\ model for determining
Arora, ].S. , E lwakeil, 0.A. & Chahandc, A.l. ( 1995) Globa l rider induced energy losses in bicycle suspe nsion
o ptimi za ti o n methods for engin ee rin g app li cations: systems. Vehide Syste711 Dy11a711ics, 25 , 223 -2 -J.6.
a review. Srmctuml Opti711i:,ation, 9, 137- 15 9. \Vang, E.L. & IIull , Nl.L. ( 1997) 1Vlinimi za ti o n of
Bau mal , A.E. ( 1997) Automated design of mechan ica l peda ling indu ced energy losses in off-road bi cycle rea r
sys tems through num eri ca l o ptimi za tion of dynam ic suspe nsio n systems. Vehide System Dy11m11ics, 28, 29 1-3 06.

© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd • Sports En gineering (2000) 3. 49-55 ))

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy