Suspension Dynamics Analysis Assistant
Analyze suspension kinematics and dynamics to optimize handling and ride comfort
What You Can Do
You can extract and validate suspension geometry parameters from vehicle designs, map compliance characteristics across load ranges, predict handling responses to suspension changes, and identify root causes of ride, handling, or durability issues. Claude helps you interpret multi-dimensional test data, analyze force paths under specific drive conditions, and generate actionable design recommendations backed by engineering principles.
Features
Extract camber, caster, toe, roll center, and instant center parameters to understand suspension behavior across travel range
Characterize bushing rates, mounting point deflection, and load-deflection curves to predict NVH and handling sensitivity
Model understeer/oversteer bias, roll stiffness distribution, and transient response to suspension geometry or stiffness changes
Predict component stresses and force flows under cornering, braking, acceleration, and bump inputs
Analyze slalom, lane change, skidpad, and compliance test results to validate suspension performance against targets
Evaluate MacPherson, double-wishbone, multi-link, and independent suspension designs for specific vehicle segments
Diagnose unexpected handling behavior, NVH issues, or durability concerns by tracing symptoms to suspension parameters
Prepare technical reports and cross-functional summaries of suspension changes and performance impacts
Example Output
Example 1: Camber Loss Analysis Input: Front camber angle vs. suspension travel data and handling feedback from test driver. Output: Quantified camber loss rate (°/mm), impact on lateral load transfer (0.3° loss = 2% roll stiffness reduction), and recommendation to adjust upper control arm geometry by 15 mm to reduce compliance sensitivity.
Example 2: Understeer Diagnosis Input: Skidpad test results showing 1.2g lateral acceleration at understeer threshold with stock suspension. Output: Root cause identified as insufficient front roll stiffness (front:rear ratio 1.1:1 vs. target 1.3:1). Recommendation: increase front spring rate 8% or reduce rear bar stiffness 6% to achieve balanced handling.
Example 3: Compliance Mapping Report Input: Bushing test data showing nonlinear load-deflection curves across temperature and load conditions. Output: Compliance matrix showing lateral stiffness (450 N/mm at 25°C, 380 N/mm at 60°C), longitudinal stiffness (620 N/mm), and mounting point deflection under 1g cornering load (±2.1 mm). Identifies resonance risk at 8.3 Hz if damping insufficient.
What's Included
- SKILL.md instruction file: Complete suspension analysis framework with geometry, compliance, and dynamics workflows
- Kinematics Analysis Template: Structured worksheet for extracting and validating suspension geometry (camber, caster, toe, roll center, scrub radius)
- Compliance Mapping Checklist: Step-by-step guide to characterize bushing stiffness, mounting point deflection, and load-deflection curves
- Test Data Interpretation Framework: Methodology for analyzing slalom, lane change, skidpad, and compliance test results
- Handling Prediction Worksheet: Structured approach to predict understeer/oversteer bias and transient response to suspension changes
Who It's For
- Suspension engineers — Analyzing kinematics, optimizing geometry, and troubleshooting handling or durability issues
- Vehicle dynamics engineers — Predicting handling behavior, load paths, and compliance sensitivity across drive conditions
- NVH engineers — Diagnosing suspension-related vibration and noise through compliance analysis and resonance mapping
- Test engineers — Interpreting vehicle dynamics test data (slalom, lane change, skidpad) and correlating results to suspension design
- Design engineers — Evaluating suspension architectures and generating technical documentation for cross-functional teams
Best For
- Diagnosing understeer/oversteer bias and handling imbalances
- Evaluating the impact of suspension geometry changes on ride and handling
- Analyzing compliance characteristics and predicting NVH sensitivity
- Predicting load paths and component stresses under cornering and braking
- Comparing suspension architectures (MacPherson vs. double-wishbone vs. multi-link) for specific vehicle segments
- Troubleshooting ride comfort or durability issues traced to suspension compliance or resonance
You might also like
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.
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 decode SAE J2012 standard CAN diagnostic trouble codes (P, B, C, and U codes) with manufacturer-specific extensions, analyze multi-frame fault sequences and temporal patterns across multiple modules, and generate structured diagnostic hypotheses that differentiate between electrical, communication, and algorithmic failures. This skill transforms raw DTC data into actionable investigation vectors, reducing diagnostic analysis cycles from hours to minutes while improving root cause accuracy.
You can quantify sensor fusion performance across object detection, classification, tracking, and localization using standardized metrics. The framework helps you identify systematic failure modes in diverse environmental conditions, document safety-critical gaps, and generate structured evidence packages for ISO 26262 and SOTIF compliance. This enables you to benchmark sensor configurations, define perception KPIs, and support regulatory submissions with rigorous performance documentation.
You can systematically investigate NVH complaints, conduct root cause analysis using transfer path analysis methodologies, plan and interpret diagnostic testing data, and develop evidence-based solutions across the full vehicle lifecycle. This framework guides you through multidisciplinary analysis—covering acoustics, mechanical dynamics, materials, and manufacturing variability—enabling faster problem resolution and more effective cross-functional communication with design, manufacturing, and supplier teams.
You can create multi-phase OTA rollout campaigns tailored to automotive safety constraints, hardware heterogeneity, and regulatory requirements. This skill helps you design canary deployments (2%, 5%, 20%, 100% increments), establish automated rollback thresholds, coordinate dependencies across ECUs, and communicate deployment risks to cross-functional stakeholders—transforming reactive firefighting into proactive, data-driven fleet management.
This skill systematically validates your OTA update architecture across five critical dimensions: partition and storage allocation for A/B slots and recovery images, safety and rollback mechanisms including atomic commit strategies, delta compression efficiency for cellular bandwidth optimization, regulatory compliance mapping against ISO 26262 and UN R156, and deployment risk identification including version conflicts and single points of failure. You identify architectural gaps before they cause field failures or fleet immobilization.
You can transform raw accelerometer data, sound pressure measurements, and frequency spectra into structured diagnostic insights. Claude helps you organize test data, interpret Campbell diagrams and waterfall plots, quantify source contributions through transfer path analysis, and correlate physical measurements with customer complaints. This systematic approach replaces intuitive troubleshooting with hypothesis-driven test plans and targeted solutions.