Decide when precision tooling earns its place
Generated from
content/lms/fabrication-and-composites/03-make-tools-that-control-shape/05-decide-when-precision-tooling-is-worth-it.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/fabrication-and-composites/03-make-tools-that-control-shape/05-decide-when-precision-tooling-is-worth-it.md
Course: Fabricate composite race-car parts with workshop discipline
Module: Make tooling that controls the finished part
Estimated duration: 55 minutes
Lesson aim
You are not trying to make every composite tool as accurate, expensive, or polished as possible. You are trying to decide where accuracy actually controls the part. A simple flat pattern may be enough for a one-sided panel. A carefully drawn and surfaced pattern may be enough for a body panel. A matched mould may be worth the extra work when you need thickness control, consolidation, a good finish on both faces, or pressure to push stiff carbon fabric into tight curvature. A machined aluminium tool may be justified when the shape itself is the product and repeatability matters more than the savings from a hand-made tool.
The working rule is simple: choose the simplest tool that positively controls the feature you cannot correct after cure. If the feature can be marked, trimmed, sanded, or finished later without damaging the part or changing its function, the tool does not need to carry that precision. If the feature will be locked into the cured laminate, repeated on every moulding, hidden under the back face, trapped in a tight corner, or used by the vacuum bag or pressure mould to consolidate the laminate, the tool must control it before resin is mixed.
That is the difference between eye accuracy and tool accuracy. Your eye can judge a rough edge before trimming. It cannot reliably fix a laminate that cured too thick to fit over a neighbouring component. It cannot press carbon fibre into a tight radius after the resin has gelled. It cannot rescue a mould that will not release because the pattern had an undercut or parallel deep sides. It cannot make the tenth wing match the first if each one is folded or shaped from scratch.
Principle: the part inherits the tool
In wet lay-up contact moulding, the pattern material itself is not usually the hard part of the decision. McBeath points out that ambient-cure contact moulding does not place many special demands on pattern materials, but the finish you need does influence the choice. That is the first clue. Tooling accuracy is not a moral standard. It is a response to the part requirement.
The pattern and mould decide the cured surface, the trim reference, the ability to release, the space allowed for laminate thickness, and the shape that will be repeated later. When the part is a flat sheet with one good face, a flat pattern or mould can be enough. When the part must have two good faces, controlled thickness, and a consolidated laminate, a male mould pressing into a female mould becomes worth considering. When the part is an aerofoil profile that should come out the same each time, the pattern stations, baseboard, and mould surface become more important than the builder's eye on the day.
This is why the decision starts before you touch foam, chipboard, aluminium, filler, wax, or release film. It starts with the part's job. Ask what shape must be true, what surface must be good, what thickness must be allowed for, how the part will be removed, how many copies you expect to make, and what process will be used to cure or consolidate it. The tool is worth making more accurate wherever one of those answers says the part will otherwise fail, fit badly, look unacceptable, trap air, or vary from copy to copy.
The first sub-skill: draw before you build
For an intermediate fabricator, drawing is not a paperwork ritual. It is the first tooling operation. The drawing can be a practical sketch rather than a scale engineering print, but the act of drawing forces you to see features that are easy to miss when you build directly from a mental picture. The sketch should show the part shape, the trim edge, the support base, any flanges, the intended split line if the shape cannot release from a one-piece mould, and the final laminate thickness where the part fits tightly over something else.
This is also where you decide whether the tool must control the edge or merely provide a trim reference. For a flat aerofoil end plate or a basic instrument panel, McBeath describes cutting a plastic-faced chipboard pattern to the exact dimensions of the required moulding, or leaving a margin and scribing a shallow trim line. The second option is often the smarter one. You let the tool carry the accurate trim reference while allowing extra material around the part. The cured moulding then gives you a raised guide for trimming, instead of requiring the raw laminate edge to be perfect as moulded.
Drawing also forces the release question. If the pattern has an undercut, a one-piece mould may lock onto it. If the shape has deep sides, even without a true undercut, the mould can still be difficult to remove. McBeath's practical answer is to build in slight convergence in the direction of removal. The angle can be about a degree, small enough that it may not be visible in the finished product, but enough to save grief when the mould comes off the pattern and when the moulding comes out of the mould. That is precision tooling doing quiet work: the part does not look more complicated, but the process becomes controllable.
The second sub-skill: decide which face matters
A composite part often has one face that matters more than the other. A flat sheet, end plate, or panel may need one visible surface and a trimmed outline. In that case the tool can be a good flat surface, and the back face can be less refined. If the back face will be bonded later, peel ply may be more important than cosmetic finish. If the back face will be visible, fitted, sealed, or used as an aerodynamic or sliding surface, a rough open-mould back may not be good enough.
Pressure moulding changes that decision. A male mould pressing the laminate against the female mould can give more consistent laminate thickness, better consolidation, and a good finish on both faces if required. The cost is the obvious one: you must make another mould half, spend more time and material at the tooling stage, and design the pair so they separate cleanly. This is not automatically the right answer. It is right when the part requirement pays back the effort.
The face decision also affects release and surface preparation. If the pattern is not already a well-finished plastic surface or a good existing component, it needs a final surface coating that seals porous materials such as wood, plaster, or filler. That coating must be compatible with the pattern materials and the mould-making resin. McBeath is blunt about the practical consequence: make a small test sample, apply the intended paint or surface, add release, brush on the chosen resin, and cure it. If the paint wrinkles or the resin refuses to cure properly next to the surface, you want to learn that on the sample, not on the shiny pattern.
The third sub-skill: build release into the shape
Tooling precision is wasted if the mould cannot leave the pattern or the part cannot leave the mould. This lesson does not replace the release-agent lesson in this module, but it does give you the design-side responsibility: a release problem often starts as a shape problem.
Split lines are for geometry that would trap the mould. Flanges are for joining, clamping, sealing, and handling. Slight draft is for deep sides that would otherwise grip. A baseboard is for stabilising the pattern and giving the mould-making process something predictable to work from. If you wait until the part is laminated to think about release, you are gambling with cured material.
Release is also a process requirement for vacuum consolidation. Before lamination, the mould must be free from sharp corners or stray reinforcing fibres that could puncture the vacuum bag. The bag must be able to conform on the laminate side and the reverse side. Wide flanges are useful because sealant tape and bag film need somewhere to stick. If the mould lacks flanges, the bag has to become an envelope around the whole job. That is a tooling decision, not a bagging afterthought.
Release film adds another shape constraint. It is thin and flexible, but it does not stretch. It can follow single curvatures, but not complex ones as one continuous sheet. On more complex shapes you need overlapping pieces, with the film pushed into tight corners and no bridging. If the mould shape makes that impossible, the tool is not ready for the process you plan to use.
The fourth sub-skill: decide whether repeatability matters
One part can sometimes be made by eye well enough. Ten parts expose every shortcut. McBeath's aerofoil example is the key teaching case. You could make a wing from aluminium sheet, but aluminium dents, dents disturb airflow, and it is hard to replicate the same shape each time from folded metal. It is also hard to form small-radius curves and folds in sheet metal, especially at the leading edge. Moulded composite wings avoid those problems because the mould repeats the shape.
That repeatability has to be earned in the pattern. For an aerofoil pattern, the templates must match the drawn profile and match one another. The baseboard must be rigid and stable so it does not distort or move during the following processes. The templates must be fastened carefully at their stations. If the stations are uneven, the mould faithfully repeats the error. If the baseboard twists, the tool records that twist. If the leading edge is guessed by eye, every wing inherits the guess.
This is where precision tooling is usually worth more than it feels like during the build. You may spend hours getting templates identical, stiffening a baseboard, and polishing a surface before any laminate exists. That time feels slow. But once the tool is right, each part comes out from the same controlled shape instead of from a fresh act of handwork.
The fifth sub-skill: separate cosmetic finish from functional finish
A good finish can be cosmetic, functional, or both. A visible dashboard panel wants to look clean. A wing surface also affects airflow. A mould face that carries a bonding surface or a sliding fit may need a finish for fit and future work, not just appearance. Do not treat finish as decoration until you have asked what that surface does.
The pattern finish also decides how much finishing the mould and parts will need later. A purpose-made pattern material or well-finished coating can give a smoother, less porous surface. A poor coating can contaminate the mould-making process or fail to cure against the resin. A rough male pressure mould will print its roughness onto the back face of the laminate, unless the process includes a separator such as PVA, polythene, or specialist release film and unless that finish is acceptable for the part.
CNC-machined aluminium moulds sit at the high end of this finish-and-shape ladder. McBeath's aerofoil mould example uses expensive solid aluminium blocks, a CAD-drawn aerofoil profile, a three-axis mill, a tool path program, and hand polishing. That path can achieve high precision and, with much effort, a mirror finish. It is not a default workshop answer. It is a justified answer when the profile and surface are important enough to pay for direct precision.
The sixth sub-skill: match tooling to consolidation
Open moulding leaves the laminate to conform under hand pressure, roller work, gravity, and whatever consolidation method follows. That can be enough for simple shapes and less demanding fabrics. It becomes less convincing when the fabric is stiff, the curvature is tight, the thickness must be consistent, or the back face needs to be controlled.
Matched mould pressure addresses those needs by adding a second mould half and applying weight or clamps for even pressure. It is most appropriate for simple, not too deep shapes where the mould halves can be separated easily. Aerofoil top and bottom halves, cycle-type mudguards, dash panels, and similar components are named examples in the corpus. The deciding factors are not pride or perfectionism. They are thickness control, consolidation, inside-and-out finish, production quantity, and whether stiff fibres need help conforming to tight curvature.
Carbon fibre is the special warning. Because carbon fabric is stiffer than other fabric types, it may resist tight curves that glass would accept more easily. A male mould pressing the back of the laminate can push those fibres into tighter curvature and help avoid air bubble voids between the first fabric layer and the outer surface or within the laminate. If the part is carbon and the shape has tight radii, your eye may tell you the cloth looks down, but the tool may be the only reliable way to keep it down through cure.
A practical decision ladder
Use this ladder before you choose a tool grade. First, define the controlled surfaces. Which face will be seen, fitted, bonded, or exposed to airflow? If only one face matters and the part is simple, open moulding may be enough. If both faces matter, move toward pressure moulding or another back-face control method.
Second, define the controlled edges. If the edge can be trimmed later, build in a reliable trim reference rather than demanding a perfect moulded edge. A scribed trim line on a flat pattern is a good example. If the edge is part of the moulded fit and cannot be corrected without changing function, the tool must control it.
Third, define release. Look for undercuts, deep sides, parallel walls, and tight returns. Add split lines, flanges, draft, or a different mould strategy before mould-making starts. A mould that traps the pattern is not precise; it is just accurate in the wrong direction.
Fourth, define thickness and consolidation. If the part fits tightly over another component, allow for final laminate thickness in the pattern plan. If thickness must be consistent, or if the laminate must be well consolidated in tight curvature, consider matched mould pressure or vacuum consolidation support. If the process needs a bag, design flanges and remove sharp bag hazards.
Fifth, define quantity. For one low-risk part, a simpler tool may be the best engineering choice. For repeated parts, shape repeatability becomes a requirement. The extra time in templates, baseboards, durable moulds, and finishing starts to pay back with every moulding.
Sixth, define the risk of discovering the defect late. If a surface incompatibility, release failure, or void would only appear after cure, test and tool more carefully before cure. Composite moulding hides some truths until release. Good tooling decisions move those truths earlier, where they are cheaper to deal with.
What improvement feels like in the workshop
As you improve, your tooling choices become less emotional. You stop asking whether you can probably make it work and start asking which feature the tool must control. Your sketches become more useful. They include trim references, flanges, split lines, draft direction, thickness allowances, and process notes. You begin to see vacuum bagging and pressure moulding requirements before lamination starts.
The physical cues improve too. Templates for an aerofoil station stack and match instead of being near relatives. A baseboard stays rigid while you fasten stations and build the surface. A painted or coated pattern passes a sample resin test before the mould is risked. A simple flat pattern produces a clean raised trim guide where you expected it. A moulding releases cleanly rather than making you wonder whether the crack came from release or laminate damage. Trim cuts from the gel coat side leave clean edges instead of chipped gel.
On more advanced tools, the cues are different. A matched mould closes without forcing fabric out of place. The back face has the finish you planned, not the accidental texture of whatever separator happened to be used. Carbon fabric stays down in tighter curvature. The vacuum bag conforms without bridging, puncturing, or running out of flange area for sealant tape. Release film reaches into tight corners in overlapping pieces rather than spanning across them. Those are not cosmetic victories. They are signs that the tool is controlling the manufacturing problem you chose it for.
Where this lesson stops
This lesson helps you decide when precision tooling is worth the extra work. It does not replace the sibling lessons on turning the part shape into a pattern plan, choosing open-mold simplicity or matched-mold control, applying release without contaminating the layup, or proving the tool before curing the part. Use this lesson as the gatekeeper. Once the decision says the tool must control a feature, those sibling lessons teach the detailed execution.
The core habit is to spend precision only where it buys control. If a feature can be safely trimmed, file-finished, or left rough because it does not matter, do not build a monument to it. If a feature determines release, fit, repeated aerodynamic shape, laminate thickness, both-face finish, carbon conformity, or vacuum-bag success, do not trust your eye to fix it later. Make the tool more accurate than your eye at that feature, and make it simple everywhere else.
Worked example: flat aerofoil end plate or instrument panel
A flat aerofoil end plate or a basic instrument panel is the cleanest example of not over-tooling. The part is essentially two-dimensional, and the corpus supports a plastic-faced chipboard pattern as a cheap, readily available material that can be cut with hand or powered saws. The accuracy decision is not whether chipboard sounds professional. The decision is whether the part's important features can be controlled by a flat face, an outline, and a trim reference.
If the final outline must be exact but the raw moulded edge does not matter, leave a margin around the pattern and scribe a shallow trim line into the surface. That line appears as a raised guide on the moulding, so you are not asking the wet lay-up edge to be perfect. You are asking the tool to show you where to trim. That is a good use of precision: the tool controls the line, while the extra laminate gives you working room.
After release, trimming becomes part of the accuracy system. McBeath recommends marking cut lines on masking tape applied to the gel coat side and cutting from the gel coat side to reduce the risk of chipping. A small handsaw is slower than a powered jigsaw, but on thin laminates it reduces the risk of the blade grabbing and causing damage. This matters because a simple tool is only successful if the remaining operations are also controlled. If you choose a simple flat pattern and then attack the cured laminate in a way that chips the finish, you moved the error from tooling into trimming.
The decision result for this example is simple. A precision CNC mould would usually be wasteful for a one-face flat panel. A flat pattern with a sealed surface, release wax, and a deliberate trim strategy is enough when the face, trim line, and later cutting method control the part's real requirements.
Worked example: template-built aerofoil pattern
An aerofoil wing pattern is the opposite lesson. Here the tool must be more accurate than your eye because the wing's shape is the point of the part. The corpus contrasts a moulded composite wing with an aluminium wing made from folded metal. Aluminium can be dented, and dents can hurt the airflow around the wing. It is also harder to replicate the same shape every time in folded sheet metal, and harder to make small-radius curves and folds at the leading edge.
That is the moment precision tooling earns its place. You are not adding accuracy because the job feels important. You are adding it because the part's aerodynamic profile, leading edge, and repeatability depend on it. The pattern has to create the mould, and the mould has to repeat the wing.
The practical control points are the templates and the baseboard. McBeath describes cutting two sets of templates for upper and lower wing surfaces. The templates may be plywood or MDF, but they need enough thickness to accept screws driven through the baseboard, with about 9 to 10mm minimum given as a practical value. They must match the drawn profile, and they must be identical to each other. If you are not very good at cutting wood shapes, the extra time goes into finishing the templates until they match.
The baseboard is just as important. It must be rigid and stable so it does not distort or move during the following processes. This is easy to underrate because a baseboard does not look like the final wing. But a flexible baseboard turns every careful station into a moving target. If it twists while the pattern is being built, the mould records that twist.
The decision result is that the eye can help inspect the shape, but it should not be the main control system. The profile comes from the drawing, the station templates, their equality, their placement, and the stable baseboard. If you skip that and sculpt the wing until it looks close, you may produce one attractive object, but you have not produced a repeatable wing tool.
Worked example: matched mould for carbon fibre in tight curvature
Matched mould pressure is worth considering when the part needs controlled thickness, good consolidation, a good finish on both faces, or pressure on stiff fibres. The corpus is careful about its limits. This is not a universal upgrade for every composite part. It suits simple, not too deep shapes where the mould halves can be separated easily. Named examples include aerofoil top and bottom halves, cycle-type mudguards, dash panels, and similar parts.
The simplest pressure-moulding idea is a male mould pressing the laminate in the original female mould, with weights or clamps providing even pressure. The benefits are consistent laminate thickness, better consolidation, and the possibility of good finish on both faces. The cost is more time and material because you have to make the male mould as well as the female.
Carbon fibre changes the value calculation. McBeath notes that carbon fibre fabric is stiffer than other fabric types, and that a male mould can help press stiff fibres fully into tighter curvature. The practical failure it prevents is not just ugliness. Air bubble voids between the first fabric layer and the outer surface, or voids within the laminate, can be structurally deficient as well as unsightly.
The decision result is that matched mould pressure is justified even for one main reason: when the fibre and curvature combination is likely to defeat hand lay-up pressure. If you are making a simple carbon mudguard or aerofoil half with tight curves and you can separate the mould halves cleanly, the second tool half may be cheaper than a cured part with hidden voids or a poor back face. If the shape is deep, complex, or hard to separate, the same method becomes a trap and you need a different tooling strategy.
Worked example: direct moulds, NACA ducts, and CNC aluminium aerofoil tools
The normal pattern-to-mould sequence is not always the simplest path. The corpus gives two direct-mould alternatives at very different levels of precision.
A NACA duct is essentially a female shape, so making a male mould directly can be simpler than first building a full pattern and then taking a mould from it. The cited example uses Formica over chipboard templates and polyurethane foam block, with the edges finished using body filler. This is not high-end machining. It is precision placed where the shape calls for it: the direct male mould creates the duct form without an unnecessary extra generation.
At the other end, the aerofoil moulds machined from solid aluminium blocks show when direct precision becomes a major investment. A CAD drawing of the aerofoil profile is electronically extruded into a three-dimensional shape. A tool-path program drives a large computer-controlled three-axis mill, slowly cutting the shape out of the metal without direct human intervention. After hand polishing, the moulds are ready for use. McBeath notes that high precision is possible and a mirror finish can be achieved with much effort.
The decision result is not that CNC is best. The decision is that direct mould-making can be right when it removes an unnecessary pattern stage or when the profile, finish, durability, and repeatability justify the cost. A one-off hidden bracket does not need a machined aluminium mould. A repeated aerofoil profile that must be precise and polished may.
Common mistakes: what wrong looks like and what good looks like
The first mistake is over-tooling a simple one-face part. Wrong looks like spending major time on a matched or machined tool for a flat panel whose good face and trim line could have been controlled by a flat pattern. Good looks like a sealed flat surface, a deliberate trim margin or exact outline, enough release wax for the pattern material, and a trimming method that protects the gel coat.
The second mistake is under-tooling a repeated aerodynamic shape. Wrong looks like shaping each wing or aerofoil part by eye, accepting small differences because the first one looked acceptable. Good looks like a drawn profile, matching templates, a stable baseboard, and a mould that repeats the same profile every time.
The third mistake is forgetting laminate thickness during pattern planning. Wrong looks like a part that has the right outer shape but fits badly because no allowance was made where the cured laminate sits tightly over another component. Good looks like thickness considered during the drawing stage, before the pattern locks in the wrong size.
The fourth mistake is designing a shape that cannot release. Wrong looks like undercuts, deep parallel sides, or no planned split line, followed by a fight to remove the mould from the pattern or the part from the mould. Good looks like split lines where geometry requires them, slight draft on deep sides, and flanges or removable sections planned before mould-making.
The fifth mistake is treating finish as only cosmetic. Wrong looks like choosing a surface coating because it looks shiny, then discovering that it wrinkles or prevents resin from curing properly against it. Good looks like a small compatibility sample with the intended paint or coating, release agent, and chosen resin before the main pattern is risked.
The sixth mistake is using matched mould pressure on the wrong shape. Wrong looks like building male and female halves for a deep or complex component that cannot separate easily. Good looks like reserving matched mould pressure for simple, not too deep shapes where thickness, consolidation, both-face finish, production quantity, or carbon fibre conformity actually justify the second mould half.
The seventh mistake is forgetting that vacuum bagging needs tool geometry. Wrong looks like starting lamination with no wide flange for sealant tape, sharp fibre spikes that can puncture the bag, and a reverse side the bag cannot conform to. Good looks like a mould cleaned of bag hazards, flanges or an envelope-bag plan, release film cut into overlapping pieces for complex curvature, and no bridging in tight corners.
The eighth mistake is buying precision in the wrong place. Wrong looks like polishing or machining features that will be trimmed away while leaving release, thickness, or consolidation uncontrolled. Good looks like spending accuracy where the cured part inherits it and keeping the rest of the tool simple.
Drill: the three-grade tooling decision walkdown
Use this drill before your next composite fabrication job. Pick one planned part and force yourself to choose between three tooling grades before you start: the simplest flat or hand-shaped pattern that could work, the more controlled pattern-and-mould approach, and the highest-control option such as matched mould pressure, vacuum-ready tooling, direct male tooling, or machined tooling.
Pass one takes 20 minutes. Draw the part, even if the sketch is rough. Mark the good face, any back face that matters, the intended trim edge, where laminate thickness affects fit, the release direction, possible split lines, and any flange or baseboard features. The success criterion is that another fabricator could point to the sketch and explain how the mould leaves the pattern and how the part leaves the mould.
Pass two takes 20 minutes. Walk through the manufacturing process without resin. Ask which feature each tooling grade controls. The simple tool may control the front face and trim line. The middle tool may control release, surface finish, and repeatability. The highest-control tool may control thickness, back-face finish, carbon conformity, or vacuum-bag sealing. The success criterion is that you can name one real defect each higher grade prevents. If you cannot name the defect, you are probably over-tooling.
Pass three is a proof step. Make the smallest sample that tests the riskiest tooling assumption. For a surface coating, make the compatibility sample with the intended coating, release, resin, and cure. For an aerofoil-style pattern, cut two small template stations and check whether you can make them match the drawn profile and each other. For vacuum bagging, dry-fit the bagging stack and release film around the tightest corner, checking that the film reaches the corner without bridging and that the bag has a sealing plan. For matched mould pressure, dry-close the male and female concept over representative fabric thickness and ask whether the halves can separate cleanly.
The drill is successful when you can write one sentence in this form: I am choosing this tooling grade because it controls this specific feature, and I am rejecting the next higher grade because it only improves features that this part does not need. If you cannot write that sentence, keep the drawing and proof step open. The uncertainty is telling you where the tool decision is still being guessed.
When precision tooling breaks down as the answer
Precision tooling is not automatically safer. It can become the wrong answer when it solves a problem the part does not have, when it creates a release problem, or when it consumes time and money that should have gone into a simpler proof.
A matched mould can be a bad answer for a deep or complex shape that will not separate easily. A machined tool can be a bad answer for a one-off part whose final edge will be trimmed and whose back face does not matter. A polished coating can be a bad answer if it has not been tested with the mould-making resin. A vacuum-ready tool can still fail if sharp corners or stray fibres puncture the bag, or if release film bridges across the tight corner you were trying to consolidate.
The practical limit is this: precision must serve the process. If the process is simple flat wet lay-up with one good face and a trim line, keep the tool simple and make the trim operation controlled. If the process is repeated aerofoil moulding, matched carbon work, vacuum consolidation, or direct moulding of a shape whose surface matters, spend the time before cure. Precision tooling earns its place when it removes a real late-stage failure, not when it merely makes the tool look more impressive on the bench.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | c8ea927b-ee2f-add5-6a09-0c2ae6daa1eb | 133 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | b0b6aa95-bae6-f58f-78aa-3010e487b00a | 133 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | bdfda0fc-8922-00fd-3471-0c3dbb4c64c1 | 65 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | dfebbbaa-7634-4ce3-894e-2d0aacf2fdb9 | 64 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | b612224b-e88e-ac25-372d-3c08b5c8146e | 67 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | a5d9e31e-0ec9-9de2-6c7b-a7487d2764be | 97 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | e493d9fa-3b52-2c3b-5bc4-8ddf5343ec5d | 144 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | ae2926ea-8856-6ddb-a428-5f46a14a62e5 | 58 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |