Suspension Geometry Simulator
More than a good stance.
Move the suspension. Change the setup. See why the details underneath a vehicle matter.
Follow the wheel through its travel.
Front view of one side of a double-wishbone suspension. The chassis stays fixed.
Equal, parallel arms
0.00° camberAdjustable upper mounts
0.00° camberNegative camber = top of tire leans toward the vehicle. Wheel angle is shown at actual scale.
More negative camber is not automatically better. The goal depends on body roll, tire behavior, suspension travel and intended use. This view shows geometry relative to a fixed chassis—not grip or cornering performance.
Same spring. Different leverage.
Move the coilover mounts, then cycle the suspension to see what changes.
Uses your upper-arm geometry from the first tab. Mount dimensions describe this example, not a recommended installation.
Supported by the springs
The chassis, body and chassis-mounted components. They stay fixed in this movement demonstration.
Moving with the wheel
The wheel, tire, hub and upright. More unsprung mass needs more force for the same acceleration; this demonstration does not simulate that bump response.
Parts that connect the two
Control arms and coilover components contribute according to how they move. They are not all entirely sprung or entirely unsprung.
Mount position changes leverage, not the physical mass of the parts. It can change their effective contribution to wheel motion. The displayed rate uses the local motion ratio squared; it is an approximation, not a complete loaded suspension rate.
Less roll doesn’t mean no load transfer.
A separate, simplified whole-vehicle example on a level road.
Front-view illustration. Load values combine the front and rear tires on each side; they are not individual wheel loads. Tire angles are illustrative.
The cornering demonstration is independent of the geometry and coilover views. Geometry changes in the first view do not feed a roll-center or tire-grip model here. Real suspension geometry also affects how forces and load transfer are shared between axles.
What this demonstration models—and what it leaves out
Suspension geometry
A rigid, two-dimensional four-bar linkage with a 440 mm lower arm and 250 mm upright. Both setups start at zero camber. The solver preserves arm and upright lengths as the lower ball joint moves. It omits steering, caster, compliance, chassis roll and tire deformation. The tire and coilover dimensions are illustrations, not component-clearance or available-stroke checks.
Coilover leverage
The coilover connects a fixed chassis point to a point on the lower arm. Motion ratio means shock compression divided by vertical wheel-center movement, evaluated locally using the solved linkage. This includes both the lower-arm lever and the shock angle; no extra cosine correction is applied. Approximate wheel rate = 500 lb/in × motion ratio². Wheel-to-shock force leverage = 1 ÷ motion ratio, neglecting friction and other loads.
The rate approximation omits the spring-force × change-in-motion-ratio term, preload, tire stiffness and bump stops. It does not predict damping, ride height or ride frequency. Shock travel is the change from the zero-travel reference for the selected mounts. No shock length, spring free length, stroke limit or coil-bind specification is validated. Sprung/unsprung labels describe component roles; no mass-response calculation is performed.
Reference: Penske on motion ratio and wheel rate
Cornering
A steady-state, 1,800 kg vehicle on a level road, with equal static left/right load and equal front/rear track widths. Load shifted from inside to outside = vehicle weight × lateral acceleration in g × CG height ÷ track width. Outside-minus-inside load is twice that shifted amount.
Body roll uses a separate linear illustration: roll moment ÷ effective roll stiffness, with a fixed roll axis 0.15 m above the road. It ignores CG movement due to roll, unsprung mass detail, transient damping, front/rear stiffness distribution and tire grip limits. Changing stiffness does not change total transfer under these assumptions. No rollover threshold or safe driving speed is predicted.
Educational examples—not vehicle-specific design, alignment or safety recommendations.
Reference reading: MathWorks: double-wishbone linkage · UT Austin / Longhorn Racing: lateral load transfer
