I understand the general idea but that doesn't really answer my question. Hoping
@DesertDoesIt can weigh in on their design decisions and provide some detail on why rear lift blocks weren't necessary or provided no benefit over tipping the front of the seat higher.
TLDR warning; I feel like an overthinking nerd even trying to verbalize my question.
The raising/lowering of the front and rear of the seat is already provided by the stock seat adjustments correct? It can be uncomfortable putting the seat bottom at a steep angle without also kicking the seat back backwards. Using a front lift block only (tilting the seat surface) would provide an inch of height and subtract an inch of lower range, because the starting point is tipped up an inch, correct? Let's say you like your seat back to be an exact 45 degree angle from the ground. The front lift blocks tilts the seat an inch upwards and the seat back an inch backwards. You would now have to raise your seat back an inch more to maintain the 45 degree relationship to the ground, which compresses the angle of the seat surface to the seat back. If you used front and back risers together, you would gain some thigh support without compressing the angle of travel of the seat back. As an exaggerated example, picture the riser blocks being 6" tall; that would severely change that angle and cause a much larger change of the seat back. But if you had identical front and rear risers, even at 6 inches, that angle does not change and you maintain the factory range of usable seat back adjustment. Obviously we are only talking an inch, so maybe my perceived benefit of raising the seat rails in a level fashion isn't noticeable or it's only an incremental improvement.
