Build GFRP skill before chasing carbon

Generated from content/lms/fabrication-and-composites/01-choose-safe-fabrication-targets/02-start-with-gfrp-skills.md; edit the source file, not this page.

Source path: content/lms/fabrication-and-composites/01-choose-safe-fabrication-targets/02-start-with-gfrp-skills.md

Course: Fabricate composite race-car parts with workshop discipline

Module: Choose fabrication jobs that fit your tools and risk

Estimated duration: 45 minutes

The principle is simple: your first composite upgrade is not carbon fiber. Your first composite upgrade is judgment. You learn that judgment fastest by building skill in glass fibre reinforced plastic, then moving toward carbon, aramid, sandwich structures, and advanced cure methods only when the part, the rules, the budget, and your workshop discipline justify the move.

This is not an anti-carbon lesson. The bonded material is clear that carbon and aramid fibres can be used by a do-it-yourself competitor, preparer, or constructor. It also makes the harder point that the path into those materials runs through GFRP technique. McBeath frames GFRP as part of the composite family, not as a fake composite or a lesser category. A composite is a matrix plus reinforcement working together to produce properties better than the constituents alone. Glass fibre reinforced plastic is therefore not merely practice material. It is a real composite, useful on real competition cars, and it gives you the workshop habits you need before you make the process more expensive, more regulated, more facility-dependent, or more safety-critical.

For an intermediate Tracky driver, the useful question is not whether carbon is impressive. The useful question is whether the part in front of you needs carbon now, whether your current process can reliably produce the part, and whether the consequences of getting it wrong are acceptable. The sibling lessons in this module cover defining the whole composite, matching the material to the part's job, marking the safety-critical boundary, and writing the part requirement. This lesson sits one step earlier in your hands-on sequence: choose GFRP targets that teach the craft before you chase the advanced material.

Why GFRP is the right starting material

GFRP matters because it lets you practice the core moves of composite work inside the home-workshop world described by the corpus. The McBeath material explicitly spans basic wet lay-up GFRP through elevated-temperature pre-preg carbon fibre, and it presents that range as a practical ladder for the do-it-yourself motorsport builder. The lower rungs of that ladder are where you learn whether your plan is clear, whether your hands are patient, whether your part choice is sensible, and whether your finished component actually satisfies the job you assigned it.

That sequence matters because advanced materials do not remove the need for basic process control. They raise the stakes on it. If you cannot make a GFRP duct, dashboard panel, simple body panel, or small aero shape with patience and repeatability, carbon will not rescue the project. It will mostly make the same weak decisions more expensive. The corpus gives examples of GFRP being used for body panels, spoilers, aerofoils, ducting, and dashboards. Those are exactly the kinds of parts where an intermediate builder can learn shape, fit, stiffness expectations, repairability, finish, and rule awareness without pretending to have the facilities of a professional constructor.

The mistake is to treat GFRP as disposable practice and carbon as the real destination. A better frame is this: GFRP is where you prove that you can define a part, choose a sane target, build it inside your available equipment, inspect it honestly, and decide whether it belongs on a car. Carbon is one possible later answer to a part requirement. It is not the badge that proves you understand composites.

The mechanism: composites reward the whole system, not the fiber label

The bonded material repeatedly pushes you away from single-word material thinking. McBeath defines composites through the combination of reinforcement and matrix. Van Valkenburgh adds an engineering reminder: in serious design, the optimum material can vary by location in the same part. One zone may want compression resistance, another may need tensile or impact behavior, and mixed fabrics can combine carbon, Kevlar, and glass. That should change how you think about a garage project. The name of the fiber is not the design. The design is the material system, part shape, lay-up concept, attachment, loading, rule set, budget, and available process.

That is why GFRP is such a useful teacher. It forces you to look at the composite as a complete part instead of as a label. If the part is a dashboard, a piece of ducting, a body panel, or a spoiler, your first questions are practical. What must this part do? What must it not do? How will it attach? Is it cosmetic, aerodynamic, packaging-related, or structurally loaded? Is it likely to be damaged? Is it subject to a rule? Could a failure create a safety problem for you, a corner worker, or another driver? Those questions are the actual skill. The material choice follows them.

Carbon-first thinking often hides a weak requirement. A driver says the part will be carbon because carbon sounds light, strong, and serious. But the corpus warns that regulations, budget, available tools, and application ultimately decide what composite makes sense. Some categories restrict expensive materials. Some parts do not deserve the cost. Some attachments carry more safety and rule risk than the panel itself. Some advanced processes belong closer to the professional end of the spectrum than to the first home-workshop build. Starting in GFRP keeps your attention on whether the part is defined and buildable before you spend your way into a more complicated failure.

The technique: choose a safe GFRP learning target

A good GFRP starting target has five traits. First, it is within the practical home-workshop family identified in the corpus. Body panels, ducting, dashboards, spoilers, and aerofoils are named examples, but your first attempt should sit toward the lower-consequence end of that group. Second, it has a clear job. It is not a vague upgrade. It solves a defined packaging, airflow, protection, replacement, or ergonomic problem. Third, it can be inspected without guesswork. You can see whether it fits, clears, attaches, and survives normal handling. Fourth, it respects the rules and budget of your category. Fifth, it does not ask your first composite project to carry a safety-critical load.

That last point is important. The corpus includes examples where safety, regulation, and composite or aero-related design choices collide. Rear wing mounting failures in Formula 1 were linked to vibration, heat, and flexing behavior, and the governing body responded with a static load deflection test. McBeath also uses Schumacher's 1999 British Grand Prix crash after apparent rear brake failure to emphasize that safety improvement must continue and complacency is the enemy. Those examples do not mean a track-day driver should be afraid of composites. They mean you should know which parts are learning targets and which parts are engineering responsibilities.

For this lesson, your first GFRP target should be something you can remove from the car without making the car unsafe, something that does not hold suspension, brakes, belts, seat, steering, fuel, a major aero load, or crash structure in position. A dashboard blank, a simple duct, a low-load bodywork repair or replacement panel, or a small noncritical aero surface can teach the same planning discipline without pretending that your first wet lay-up should validate a loaded mounting system.

The sub-skills you are really building

The first sub-skill is part classification. Before you touch material, classify the part by job. Is it bodywork, ducting, dashboard, spoiler, aerofoil, attachment, or structure? The corpus names several manufacturable components, but it also shows that composite work can range from simple wet lay-up to pre-preg carbon and from club-level bodywork to professional chassis and wing systems. You need to place your project on that range. If the part lives closer to bodywork or cockpit trim, it may be a sensible GFRP skill project. If it lives closer to a loaded wing mount, brake support, chassis, or other failure-critical system, it belongs outside your first-build scope.

The second sub-skill is facility matching. McBeath's home-workshop framing matters. The practical target is work that does not require expensive plant or equipment. Advanced cure methods and professional composite chassis work sit farther up the ladder. Your job is to pick a project that matches the workshop you actually have, not the workshop you imagine when you look at professional motorsport. If your plan quietly depends on equipment, measurement, heat control, or structural validation you do not have, the target is wrong for this phase.

The third sub-skill is budget honesty. Carbon and aramid may be DIY-capable, but the F750 example shows a category where low cost makes expensive fibres a poor fit. That is a powerful lesson for amateur motorsport. The cheapest material is not always the best material, but the most prestigious material is not automatically justified either. If GFRP can do the job, teach the process, fit the budget, and satisfy the rules, then GFRP is not a compromise. It is the disciplined choice.

The fourth sub-skill is regulation awareness. Rules can decide what material is legal, what deflection is allowed, and whether an aerodynamic part is treated as movable or suspect. Van Valkenburgh's discussion of moving aerodynamic devices and rule limits, along with McBeath's Formula 1 rear wing mounting discussion, should make you cautious about any part whose stiffness, flex, or mounting behavior changes the car's aerodynamic behavior. You do not need to become a professional rules lawyer for a small dashboard panel. You do need to notice when a part stops being a simple panel and starts influencing load, aero balance, or legality.

The fifth sub-skill is humility in inspection. Van Valkenburgh's broader engineering philosophy is useful here because he stresses how little anyone knows for sure and warns against people who act as if they have all the answers. Composite work rewards that humility. Your first GFRP part should be treated as evidence, not as proof of mastery. You inspect it, learn from it, compare it against the requirement, and decide what the next build should teach. You do not use one successful cosmetic part as permission to build a safety-critical carbon component.

Technique sequence for a first GFRP skill build

Start with a part requirement, but keep it narrow. For example, define a duct whose job is packaging and airflow direction, not structural support. Define a dashboard panel whose job is mounting light cockpit items and cleaning up the cockpit, not resisting crash loads. Define a bodywork panel whose job is covering or shaping an area, not carrying suspension or belt loads. This lesson does not replace the requirement-writing lesson, but it depends on it: if you cannot state the part's job plainly, you are not ready to choose material.

Next, choose GFRP unless the requirement clearly proves otherwise. This is the main behavioral change. You do not ask why you should settle for glass. You ask what evidence says glass is insufficient. If the part is in the practical home-workshop group, has low consequence, can be inspected, and fits the budget and rules, GFRP is the default training ground. If the part truly needs carbon, aramid, a sandwich structure, or elevated-temperature cure, that fact should emerge from the requirement and from the material-choice lesson, not from styling preference.

Then decide what the build is meant to teach. A first GFRP part can teach shape control, attachment planning, fit, finish, durability in normal use, repair judgment, or aero packaging. Do not try to learn every advanced technique on the same part. McBeath's range runs from basic wet lay-up GFRP to pre-preg carbon, and the existence of that range is a warning against collapsing the ladder. Learn the basic step completely enough that the next step has a foundation.

After the build, inspect against the requirement. Does the part fit the car? Does it clear moving parts? Does it stay attached under the normal conditions it was asked to handle? Does it interfere with service? Does it create an obvious rule question? Does it look like patient work or rushed work? The corpus praises excellent GFRP results achieved with patience and hard work in low-cost competition settings. That is a realistic standard. You are not trying to make the garage look like an F1 composites department. You are trying to make the part good enough that the work teaches you something trustworthy.

Finally, decide the next rung. If the GFRP part failed because the requirement was vague, your next rung is not carbon. It is better requirement writing. If it failed because the part was too safety-critical for your process, your next rung is a safer target. If it failed because the rules were unclear, your next rung is rule research. If it succeeded and the next part truly needs a different fiber or process, then you have earned a more advanced conversation.

Calibration cues: how you know you are improving

You are improving when your material decisions slow down in the right place and speed up in the right place. They slow down before the build, while you classify the part, check the rule and safety boundary, and match the project to your facility. They speed up after that because you are not reopening the carbon question every time you see a woven black cloth. You know which parts are GFRP learning targets and which are advanced engineering projects.

You are improving when your finished GFRP parts look intentional. The corpus gives the F750 Darvi Mk 6 and PC Special as evidence that skilled GFRP bodywork can be excellent in a low-cost category. The cue is not carbon appearance. The cue is whether the shape, fit, mounting plan, and part job make sense for the car and the class. If another experienced competitor can look at your work and understand why GFRP was chosen, what the part is supposed to do, and where its limits are, your judgment is improving.

You are improving when you stop using carbon as a shortcut around uncertainty. If you find yourself saying that carbon will make the part strong enough without being able to describe the load path, failure consequence, rule status, or process requirement, you have not earned carbon. If you can say that GFRP is sufficient for this part, carbon or aramid may be relevant for that part, and a mixed or location-specific laminate belongs only in a more serious design conversation, you are thinking more like the engineering sources in the corpus.

You are improving when your validation tools match the part. For aerodynamic pieces, the McBeath aerodynamics material says useful understanding can come from tools used carefully and with common sense, and the data logging material emphasizes installing and calibrating systems so they give useful results. That does not turn a first GFRP spoiler into a wind-tunnel program. It means you treat any performance claim as something that needs careful evidence. A part that looks faster is not automatically faster. A part that flexes, drags, rubs, blocks cooling, or creates a rule concern may be worse even if it is made from impressive material.

Failure modes

The first failure mode is carbon-as-proof. This is the belief that a carbon part is automatically more serious than a GFRP part. The corpus pushes against that by treating GFRP as part of the composite family and by showing real GFRP bodywork in competition. The cost of this error is money, attention, and false confidence. You spend more while learning less because the project becomes about the fiber rather than the part.

The second failure mode is professional-copy thinking. Composite technology has filtered down from top-level motorsport, and some home constructors have built impressive composite cars, but the corpus also says professionals can do things the home constructor usually cannot because they have facilities. If you copy the look of a professional carbon component while ignoring the equipment, validation, and engineering behind it, you are copying the visible surface and missing the process. The recovery is to step back to a GFRP target that your workshop can actually build and inspect.

The third failure mode is ignoring the rulebook. The corpus gives multiple reminders that regulations and budgets decide what materials and applications make sense. Carbon chassis were restricted in some categories because of cost. Rear wing behavior led to static load deflection testing. Moving aerodynamic devices can be illegal. If your first composite project changes an aero device, wing support, or regulated bodywork shape, the rule question is part of the project. The recovery is to choose a target where the legality is clear, or stop and verify the rules before building.

The fourth failure mode is confusing a part with its mount. A panel may be a sensible GFRP project while the mounting system that carries aero load is not. The wing mounting failures in the corpus are a useful warning because the visible aerofoil is only part of the system. Vibration, heat, natural frequency, flex, and rule deflection can live in the mounts. The recovery is to separate the skin, shape, and attachment problem. Build the low-consequence skin if appropriate. Do not invent a loaded mounting system because the panel build went well.

The fifth failure mode is one-material thinking. Van Valkenburgh's discussion of location-specific material choices and mixed fabrics shows that serious composite design is not a simple ranking where glass is beginner, Kevlar is tough, and carbon is best. A part can ask for different properties in different zones. If you are not prepared to analyze that, the honest answer may be to keep the first project simple rather than upgrade material blindly. The recovery is to define the job more narrowly and use GFRP where the job is within your skill and validation level.

The sixth failure mode is claiming completion without evidence. In fabrication, done should mean the part satisfies the requirement and has been inspected against the relevant constraints. The Velocity engine rule in this repository says not to claim done without evidence; the corpus says practical tools and data must be used carefully and with common sense. For a GFRP part, evidence can be simple: fit, clearance, attachment, rule check, post-session inspection, and a short note about what changed. For an aero part, evidence may include calibrated data or at least disciplined observation. The recovery is to define evidence before declaring the part successful.

When to move beyond GFRP

Move beyond GFRP when the part requirement makes GFRP the limiting factor, not when you are bored with it. The corpus supports a ladder from basic wet lay-up GFRP through pre-preg carbon, but it does not say every builder should climb that ladder immediately. Advanced materials make sense when the part's job, class rules, budget, facility, and validation plan all point in that direction.

A sensible progression looks like this. First, build GFRP parts in the home-workshop category and learn to make them patient, useful, inspectable, and rule-aware. Second, learn which parts are not appropriate first targets because they carry safety, structural, or regulated aero consequences. Third, when a part genuinely needs properties that GFRP cannot provide, study the relevant material choice and process instead of merely changing cloth. Fourth, if the design starts to require location-specific fibers, mixed materials, sandwich structures, elevated-temperature cure, or deflection validation, treat that as an engineering project, not as a weekend cosmetic upgrade.

The lesson's core decision rule

Use this rule before every composite project: if GFRP can teach the skill, satisfy the part's job, fit the workshop, respect the rules, and keep failure consequences low, start with GFRP. If any of those statements is false, do not automatically jump to carbon. Find the actual blocker. It might be part definition, safety boundary, budget, regulation, facility, validation, or material capability. Carbon is only the answer when the blocker is truly material capability and you have a process that can handle the increased seriousness.

That is how you keep fabrication aligned with driving improvement. Track-day and club-racing cars reward clear thinking. The body panel that fits, the duct that solves a packaging problem, the dashboard that cleans up the cockpit, and the simple aero piece that is rule-aware and inspectable may teach you more than a carbon part built for the wrong reason. Start with GFRP because it makes your judgment visible. Then let the next material earn its place.

Worked example: Formula 750 GFRP bodywork

The Formula 750 examples in the corpus are the cleanest proof that GFRP is not merely beginner material. McBeath describes F750 as a low-cost environment where expensive fibres are not the natural fit, then points to a Darvi Mk 6 with nicely crafted GFRP bodywork and a PC Special with skilfully moulded sidepods. For this lesson, the teaching point is not that every track-day driver should copy those exact shapes. The teaching point is that the material choice fits the class, the budget, and the part job.

Imagine you are building a replacement sidepod skin or simple bodywork piece for a club car. A carbon-first mindset says the part should be carbon because carbon feels like racing. A GFRP-skill mindset asks what the part must do. If it is bodywork, if the budget matters, if the category discourages expensive fibres, and if the part is mostly about shape, coverage, airflow management, and repairability, GFRP may be the disciplined choice. The quality bar is still high. The corpus praises patience and hard work, not rough work. Your target is not cheap-looking glass. Your target is a well-defined GFRP component that suits a low-cost competition environment.

The recovery from a poor first attempt is also clearer in GFRP. If the fit is wrong, the shape is awkward, the mounting plan is clumsy, or the finish shows rushed work, you can learn from the build without having turned the lesson into an expensive carbon mistake. The successful F750 example should raise your standards while keeping your ambition realistic: good GFRP work is real motorsport work.

Worked example: hillclimb composites and the filtering-down trap

The UK Speed Hillclimb and Sprint examples are more advanced. McBeath describes cars such as the Scott Megapin 5, the Brytec, and the OMS CF34/94 as evidence that composite technology had filtered down from upper motorsport into more available forms. That is encouraging, but it also creates a trap. The fact that professional or advanced composite methods eventually reach home constructors does not mean every home constructor should skip the learning sequence.

Use this example as a maturity check. A home-built composite special is not proof that your first project should be an all-composite structure. It is proof that methods can become accessible over time, and that serious amateurs can do ambitious work when their skills, facilities, and judgment catch up. The corpus says professional constructors can do quite a few things the home constructor usually cannot. That line should stay in your head whenever a beautiful carbon tub, wing, or body system tempts you into copying the top level.

A good intermediate choice is to borrow the patience, not the overreach. Build a GFRP duct, dashboard, body panel, or small low-consequence aero piece. Inspect it honestly. Record what the part taught you. If you later move toward carbon, aramid, sandwich structures, or more advanced cure methods, you will be moving because the work earned it, not because the image of professional motorsport pulled you past your evidence.

Worked example: rear wing mounting failures and why the mount changes the lesson

The Formula 1 rear wing mounting failures in the corpus are a warning about system thinking. The failures were associated with possible vibration, heat, natural frequency changes, and flexing behavior, and the rule response included a static load deflection test. That example is far beyond a first GFRP shop project, but it teaches a principle that applies directly to amateur fabrication: the risky part of a composite project is not always the visible surface.

A wing element, spoiler, or aerofoil can look like a panel project. The mount may be the real engineering project. If the mount carries load, changes deflection at speed, sits near heat, or influences whether the aero device is effectively movable, then you have left simple fabrication practice and entered structural, aero, and regulatory territory. A first GFRP learning target should not require you to prove that a loaded aero mounting system is safe and legal.

The practical takeaway is to split the problem. You might build a low-consequence GFRP cover, fairing, duct, or bodywork piece as a skill project. You should not treat that success as proof that you can design a loaded wing mount. The corpus uses the professional example to show why there must be no complacency. In your garage, no complacency means choosing a target whose failure does not create a major safety or rule problem.

Common mistakes and what good looks like

Carbon-as-status is the mistake of choosing carbon because it looks like the serious material. Good looks like asking whether GFRP already satisfies the job, rules, budget, and workshop reality. If GFRP is enough, the mature choice is to use it and build the part well.

The vague-part mistake is starting with a material before you can state the part's job. Good looks like a plain requirement: this part covers, directs air, supports a light cockpit item, replaces a body panel, or shapes a low-consequence surface. If you cannot say the job, you are not ready to choose carbon or glass.

The skipped-rung mistake is jumping from no composite experience to advanced carbon or aramid work because the corpus says those materials can be used by DIY methods. Good looks like respecting the ladder. DIY-capable does not mean first-project sensible. Basic wet lay-up GFRP exists in the same practical guide for a reason.

The professional-copy mistake is copying a top-level motorsport solution without the professional facilities, validation, and rule context behind it. Good looks like learning from professional direction while choosing a project that fits your actual workshop. The filtering-down of technology is encouraging, not permission to ignore process.

The mount-blind mistake is treating an aero part as only a skin. Good looks like separating the panel from the attachment. The panel may be a GFRP learning target. The loaded mount may be a safety-critical engineering problem.

The rulebook-afterward mistake is building first and checking legality later. Good looks like checking category rules and class expectations before the build, especially where cost controls, carbon restrictions, aero movement, or deflection limits may matter.

The no-evidence mistake is declaring the part successful because it exists. Good looks like fit inspection, clearance inspection, attachment review, rule review, post-session inspection, and, where the part claims performance benefit, careful use of calibrated data or disciplined observation.

Drill: the three-target GFRP ladder

Do this drill before your next fabrication project, not after you have bought material. Duration is three short planning sessions plus one shop build. The success criterion is that you can defend the first GFRP target without using carbon appearance, prestige, or vague strength language.

Session one is the target list. Walk around the car and write down three possible composite parts from the home-workshop family supported by the corpus: a dashboard piece, a ducting piece, a bodywork panel or repair, a small spoiler or aerofoil-related shape, or another similarly inspectable component. Do not include brakes, belts, seat mounts, suspension, steering, fuel containment, crash structure, or loaded aero mounts. Those are outside this first drill.

Session two is the classification pass. For each target, write the part's job, likely consequence of failure, rule concern, workshop demand, and budget fit. If the part depends on expensive plant, advanced cure control, structural proof, or unclear rule interpretation, cross it off for this drill. If the part is mostly about fit, shape, packaging, cockpit organization, or low-consequence airflow direction, keep it.

Session three is the GFRP default challenge. For the best remaining target, ask what evidence proves GFRP is insufficient. If the answer is only that carbon would be nicer, lighter-looking, or more impressive, GFRP remains the correct learning material. If the answer involves a genuine material-capability issue, you probably picked too advanced a first target. Choose the next safer target instead.

The shop build is deliberately modest. Build the chosen GFRP part as a learning project and judge it against the written requirement. After one event or one real use cycle, inspect fit, clearance, attachment, serviceability, and any rule or safety concern that appeared. The drill is successful if the part either works and teaches a clear next step, or fails in a way that gives you specific evidence without creating a safety problem. The drill fails if the only thing you learned is that carbon would have looked better.

When this principle breaks down

The principle breaks down only when the requirement genuinely outruns GFRP and you have the process maturity to know why. Some parts may need different material properties in different locations. Van Valkenburgh's discussion of carbon, Kevlar, glass, and mixed cloths shows that serious composite design can be location-specific. In that world, GFRP-first is not a permanent rule. It is a training and judgment rule.

The principle also changes when a class rule, supplier requirement, or proven design dictates a material. If your category requires a particular construction, or if a professionally engineered replacement part has a specified material and process, you do not rewrite that casually. But that still does not make carbon a beginner default. It means the project has moved outside the simple learning-target category.

Finally, the principle breaks down when you are no longer using the part to learn basic composite skill. If you are working with experienced composite builders, proper facilities, rule confirmation, and a validation plan, advanced materials may be appropriate. Until then, GFRP remains the best place to build the habits that keep later carbon work from becoming expensive guesswork.

Author Review

No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.

Sources

#	Document	Chunk	Pages	Score	Collection
1	Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath	a0cc1d08-7515-9bbc-fe01-3d5ebc6719bb	11	1	uio_books_raw_v1
2	Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath	4cd165c8-25b6-009a-f4b5-4fae9a62b8dc	12	1	uio_books_raw_v1
3	Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath	2fd26ac3-6beb-d458-378d-1ca12307931e	1	1	uio_books_raw_v1
4	Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath	5adf3e04-0dba-a3c0-fecf-8cf528889ce5	192	1	uio_books_raw_v1
5	Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath	7af9252a-4312-8d39-b7c6-15ca052d7b8c	183	1	uio_books_raw_v1
6	Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath	781f8145-6150-097b-9c36-0cf693583e67	202	1	uio_books_raw_v1
7	Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh	ca7a3241-be1f-1f6f-b111-5291d7865790	96	1	uio_books_raw_v1
8	Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath	4fdee954-380c-2b63-e16f-4220732cd443	177	1	uio_books_raw_v1
9	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	6edca499-2988-7702-ccc8-3d17b516edff	385	1	uio_books_raw_v1
10	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	cd94958f-1042-ceff-8d99-06fa06ac633b	504	1	uio_books_raw_v1
11	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	10acd525-ae45-7603-2847-9b1b9db65585	9	1	uio_books_raw_v1
12	Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh	e5206f21-0e14-e011-ffc9-aab98a884f93	4	1	uio_books_raw_v1
13	Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh	9732a285-f780-48d0-aeb0-5d8b97c0fe6a	163	1	uio_books_raw_v1