Chassis Suspension Analysis & Optimization Workflow
Analyze suspension geometry and optimize chassis performance against engineering constraints
What You Can Do
You can systematically analyze suspension geometry, load paths, and component interactions to validate design decisions and identify optimization opportunities. Claude acts as your collaborative design partner to map force distributions, explore how geometry changes affect performance characteristics, compare suspension architectures, and reconcile conflicting engineering constraints in independent double-wishbone, multi-link, and other suspension systems.
Features
Calculate roll centers, instant centers, wheel rates, and anti-squat/lift characteristics from suspension geometry inputs
Map force routing through suspension linkages to understand stress distribution and identify critical load paths
Analyze how changes to mounting points, link lengths, and angles affect camber curves, toe curves, and performance targets
Identify incompatible engineering requirements and brainstorm design strategies to reconcile packaging, NVH, durability, and performance constraints
Systematically evaluate competing suspension concepts or competitor architectures using structured trade-off analysis
Create structured design justifications and technical presentations for cross-functional teams
Rapidly generate multiple design alternatives and evaluate feasibility against your specific constraints
Example Output
Example 1: Load Path Analysis
Input: Double-wishbone suspension with upper/lower arm mounting points and specific link dimensions
Output:
- Primary load path: Wheel vertical load → upper ball joint → upper arm structure → frame attachment
- Secondary path: Lower arm carries lateral loads from tire contact patch
- Critical stress concentration: Upper arm inner attachment (56% of vertical load)
- Bending moment distribution through each link element
Example 2: Geometry Trade-Off Exploration
Input: Target camber range -2° to +0.5°, packaging constraint on upper mount height
Output:
- Current geometry produces -2.2° to +0.3° (meets target)
- Moving upper mount 15mm inboard increases toe-out on jounce by 0.4°
- Lengthening upper arm by 20mm shifts roll center 8mm outboard, reducing body roll by 3%
- Recommendation: Extend upper arm; retune bumpsteer with toe link geometry
Example 3: Constraint Conflict Identification
Input: NVH requirement for low suspension stiffness, durability requirement for stiffness against bushing wear
Output:
- Conflict identified: Lower bushing stiffness improves NVH but increases compliance-induced toe change
- Resolution options with trade-off analysis for each
What's Included
- SKILL.md instruction file: Core workflow and structured analysis methodology
- Suspension Geometry Input Template: Standardized format for providing mounting points, link dimensions, and constraints
- Load Path Analysis Checklist: Step-by-step verification framework for force routing validation
- Constraint Mapping Worksheet: Table format for documenting conflicting requirements and resolution strategies
- Design Trade-Off Framework: Structured comparison matrix for evaluating suspension architecture alternatives
Who It's For
- Chassis engineers — Validating suspension geometry and optimizing kinematic performance
- Suspension design specialists — Exploring architecture alternatives and load path optimization
- Vehicle dynamics engineers — Analyzing how suspension geometry affects handling and NVH
- Design teams — Documenting design rationale and presenting constraint trade-offs to stakeholders
- Manufacturing engineers — Identifying packaging and buildability constraints early in suspension design
Best For
- Kinematic analysis and roll center calculations for independent and multi-link suspensions
- Load path verification and stress distribution mapping through suspension linkages
- Geometry optimization to meet camber, toe, and anti-squat/lift targets
- Identifying and resolving conflicting engineering constraints (packaging vs. performance, NVH vs. stiffness)
- Rapid iteration and comparison of competing suspension design concepts
- Cross-functional design documentation and technical justification for suspension decisions
You might also like
You can validate AUTOSAR software architectures across multiple compliance dimensions—layer separation, component interfaces, port definitions, service interfaces, and communication semantics. The skill identifies structural violations, missing documentation artifacts, and compliance gaps early in the design phase, helping you catch issues before formal gates and functional safety audits. It generates architecture compliance reports and documentation needed for ISO 26262 functional safety reviews.
You can design complete AUTOSAR 4.x system architectures by automating component allocation across abstraction layers, modeling port interactions and service interfaces, and validating compliance with AUTOSAR standards. Claude helps you create standardized architecture documentation, detect circular dependencies and interface mismatches, and generate port interaction matrices—accelerating ECU architecture development while ensuring standards adherence.
You can analyze FEA thermal simulation data to identify motor hotspots, calculate heat generation from motor losses across operating points, evaluate competing cooling solutions quantitatively, and troubleshoot excessive temperature rise during dyno testing. The skill helps you validate thermal management design margins, assess motor lifetime degradation risk, and optimize cooling loop efficiency—enabling data-driven thermal design decisions before building prototypes.
You can efficiently diagnose complex NVH concerns by working through a structured framework that correlates customer symptoms with potential powertrain failures. This skill helps you narrow diagnostic possibilities, recommend targeted testing sequences, distinguish between component failures and tuning issues, and substantiate warranty claims with technical evidence.
This skill helps you systematically analyze suspension systems, structural loads, and dynamic behavior before running expensive simulations. You can translate performance requirements into actionable suspension geometry targets, predict stress concentration points and load paths, diagnose NVH failures using structured failure mode analysis, and validate damping strategies against durability constraints. It accelerates the planning phase, interprets simulation results, and builds defensible engineering rationale for design decisions.
by openclaw
You can evaluate simulation scenarios against functional safety and SOTIF requirements, identify untested edge cases and high-risk operational design domains, map failure modes to root causes, and generate traceability matrices linking requirements to validation results. This skill transforms raw simulation data into defensible technical documentation that demonstrates test completeness and readiness for real-world deployment.
You can pinpoint the exact source of sensor fusion failures—whether they stem from misaligned camera/LiDAR/radar extrinsic calibration, timestamp desynchronization, data validation gaps, or algorithmic issues. This skill decomposes multi-modal perception errors into sensor-specific contributions and generates quantifiable diagnostic reports that directly guide calibration and testing teams toward fixes rather than blind troubleshooting.
You can analyze multi-dimensional steering system performance including torque characteristics, self-alignment torque, steering angle feedback, road feel transmission, and torque vectoring effects. Extract actionable insights from simulation and test data to identify root causes of steering feel issues, then develop tuning recommendations for steering gear ratios, EPS algorithms, suspension geometry effects, and torque vectoring control strategies.