Set the aero objective before you trim the car
Generated from
content/lms/race-aerodynamics/01-model-aero-as-speed-dependent-load/05-set-an-aero-objective-for-the-circuit.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/race-aerodynamics/01-model-aero-as-speed-dependent-load/05-set-an-aero-objective-for-the-circuit.md
Course: Engineer downforce you can actually use
Module: Model aero as speed-dependent load
Estimated duration: 50 minutes
The rule of this lesson is simple: decide what you want the aero package to accomplish on this circuit before you adjust it. Do not start with the wing angle, splitter height, wicker, blanking, diffuser rake, or cooling exit. Start with the circuit problem you are trying to solve.
An aero objective is not a setup change. It is the reason a setup change earns the right to stay on the car. For this module, think of it as a short decision rule you write before the session: on this circuit, this car needs more help in a defined speed range or track sector, and you will accept or reject aero trim by the evidence from those places. Without that rule, every aero test becomes a debate. One driver remembers a better feel in a fast bend. Someone else sees a lower speed at the end of the straight. The lap time may move, but you cannot tell whether it moved because the car was better, the driver adapted, the tires changed, or the conditions drifted.
The reason this matters is that aerodynamic changes usually trade benefits against costs. More downforce can help the car in faster corners, but the same package can add drag and reduce straight-line speed. Less trim can help the car accelerate and reach a higher terminal speed, but it can also reduce the confidence and load you need in a high-speed corner. A configuration can be faster in one sector and slower in another. The useful question is not whether a part made more or less aero effect in the abstract. The useful question is whether that effect helped the sections of this circuit that matter most for lap time, stability, and the driver’s ability to repeat the lap.
The bonded material supports a very practical way to work. Use the tools you can afford, use them carefully, and compare configuration changes against a baseline. The professional world may use computational fluid dynamics and wind tunnels to model and validate many configurations, but the amateur racer still has useful tools: lap times, sector times, high-speed corner entry speed, apex speed, exit speed, straight-line speed, driver feedback, basic data logging, and trackside flow visualization. The point is not to imitate a Formula 1 aero department. The point is to remove enough guesswork that the next trim decision is based on evidence instead of hope.
For an intermediate driver, the biggest mental shift is this: stop treating aero as a global fast button. Aero is speed dependent, circuit dependent, and balance dependent. That does not mean it is mysterious. It means you must ask where on the lap you expect the configuration to matter. McBeath’s practical testing discussion points toward the useful signals: lap times, sector times, higher-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds, straight-line speeds, and driver feedback on aero handling balance. That is the menu you build your objective from.
A poor objective says the car should have more grip. A better objective says the car should carry more speed through the two fastest corners without giving away enough straight-line speed to lose the sector. A poor objective says the rear wing felt safer. A better objective says the rear wing change is only successful if the high-speed corner minimum speeds and exit speeds improve over repeated laps, and the return-to-baseline run confirms the change was not just tire or weather drift. A poor objective says the car was understeering so you added front aero. A better objective asks whether that understeer occurred in a speed range where aero load is a major part of the tire’s available grip, or whether you are trying to cure a slow-corner mechanical or driving problem with a high-speed tool.
The mechanism: aero load adds to mechanical grip, but it does not replace the basic car. Carroll Smith’s suspension discussion in the bonded corpus is blunt about this point. The tires are the only contact patches that transmit acceleration, braking, cornering, and driver inputs to the track. The driver also receives most of the useful sensory information through the tires. Aero-generated grip may be important, but mechanical grip and a linear car remain the basis of cornering power and balance. Smith also notes that the apex speed of the average racing corner is less than 80 mph, a speed where aerodynamic download is secondary to mechanical grip. That matters directly to objective-setting. If the lap problem is mainly a slow apex, poor rotation, rough brake release, or the driver slowing too much early in the corner, you should be cautious about making an aero trim change the primary answer.
That does not make aero unimportant. The same Smith passage says aerodynamic download is additive to mechanical grip. Once the car is moving fast enough for the aero package to matter, the downforce can add load to the tires and change what the car will tolerate. McBeath’s track-testing guidance points specifically toward higher-speed corners, with entry, apex, and exit speeds above roughly 60 mph or 100 km/h being useful places to look, depending on the downforce level of the car. That threshold is not a magic rule for every car; it is a practical reminder that aero evidence is more visible where speed is high enough for the package to work.
So your first job is to separate the lap into places where aero is likely to be decisive and places where it is probably a supporting actor. Long straights show drag cost or drag relief. Faster bends show downforce and aero balance. Braking zones after high-speed straights can show whether the car gives the driver enough stability to arrive at the brake point consistently, though this lesson stays focused on the aero objective rather than braking technique. Slow corners and hairpins may still be affected by the aero package indirectly through entry speed, confidence, and how the car arrived there, but the slow apex itself is usually a weak place to judge whether a trim change worked.
This is why the objective comes before the adjustment. If you change trim first, your attention follows the part. If you write the objective first, the part has to answer to the lap. You may discover that the best change is not the one that gives the strongest sensation. A high-downforce setting can feel calmer and still be slower if the circuit rewards straight-line speed more than the added corner load. A trimmed-out setting can look attractive at the end of the straight and still be a poor choice if it makes the driver lift or wait in a fast corner. The correct target is the one that improves the lap in the sections you identified before the test.
Start with the baseline. A baseline is not just the current setup. It is the current setup documented well enough that you can return to it and know what changed. McBeath’s account of practical wing comparison testing follows a disciplined pattern: run one configuration for a fixed number of laps, change only the wing configuration, record averages, discard abnormally high or low times, and periodically return to the baseline because weather, track condition, and tire deterioration can move under you. This is the difference between testing and just circulating.
Before you trim the car, write down four things. First, write the circuit problem in track language. For example, the car is secure in slow corners but gives up speed in the fastest bend and loses time through that sector. Second, write the expected aero mechanism. For example, more total load or a more useful aero balance should let you carry speed through that bend, while the drag penalty will show up on the following straight. Third, write the evidence you will use. For example, compare sector time, fast-corner entry speed, minimum speed, exit speed, and straight-line speed. Fourth, write the rejection rule. For example, if the fast-corner gain does not repeat across clean laps or the straight-line loss overwhelms the sector, the change does not meet the objective.
Keep the objective short enough to use in the paddock. If it takes a page to explain, it will not survive the next hot session. Good objectives are plain. They state the circuit section, the desired effect, the evidence, and the tradeoff you are willing to watch. You are not trying to predict the entire aerodynamic map of the car. You are trying to make one trim decision without lying to yourself.
There are five common objective types you can use without overcomplicating the day.
The first is a high-speed corner objective. Use this when the lap is being limited by confidence, stability, or minimum speed in corners fast enough for aero load to matter. The acceptance evidence is repeated improvement in entry, apex, or exit speed in those corners, plus the sector time. The rejection evidence is a gain that appears only once, disappears when you return to baseline, or costs too much on the next straight.
The second is a straight-line speed objective. Use this when the car is losing too much on long full-throttle sections and the fast corners are already acceptable. The evidence is speed at the end of the straight and the sector that contains the straight. The caution is that straight speed alone is not lap time. You must check whether the trimmed setting makes you lift, wait, or add steering correction in the next fast corner.
The third is an aero balance objective. This lesson does not teach center of pressure location in detail because the sibling lessons handle that skill. Here, the objective is simpler: decide whether the car needs more usable front or rear support in the fast sections, then judge the change by the handling balance in those sections. The evidence is not just the driver saying it felt different. It is the driver’s feedback tied to fast-corner speed, sector time, and repeatability.
The fourth is an efficiency objective. Use this when you suspect one configuration produces useful load with less penalty than another. McBeath includes performance simulation as one tool for comparing downforce, drag, and lap time, and also emphasizes that tools range from simple and affordable to complex and exotic. In a club setting, your efficiency objective may be basic: keep the high-speed corner benefit while recovering straight-line speed, or keep the straight speed while losing less confidence in the fast bend. You are still comparing the same two axes: downforce benefit and drag cost.
The fifth is a diagnostic objective. Use this when you do not yet trust what the air is doing around the car. McBeath’s discussion of flow visualization is useful here. Seeing the air around wings, spoilers, diffusers, cooling intakes, and outlets can help you understand what is happening and point toward development areas. A diagnostic objective is not yet a final race trim decision. It asks a smaller question: is the flow staying attached where you expect, is a cooling outlet disturbing an area you care about, or is a diffuser or wing behaving differently than your assumptions?
The objective also protects you from changing the wrong system. Bentley’s driver-adjustment overview says understanding chassis and suspension adjustments is a critical part of the driver’s job. Smith’s chassis discussion says the linear mechanical car remains the basis of balance. Those two ideas matter when you are tempted to solve every handling complaint with aero. If the car will not turn in a slow corner, if the driver is releasing the brake inconsistently, if the tires are not in a useful window, or if the car is mechanically nonlinear, an aero trim change may give you a more comfortable story without solving the real problem. Your objective should name the speed range and section so you can catch that mistake early.
Build the objective from the track map. Walk through the lap and mark the places where an aero trim decision can plausibly pay. Do not start by ranking corners by drama. Start by asking where the car is fast enough, where the time loss is measurable, and where a change in load, drag, or balance would produce a clear signal. A fast corner that leads onto a long straight is often more important than it first appears, because exit speed can carry down the straight. A straight that follows a fast bend may expose the drag cost of the configuration that helped the bend. A slow corner may dominate driver emotion because it feels clumsy, but it may be the wrong place to evaluate aero.
Then choose the minimum set of measurements. You do not need every possible channel to make a better decision. A basic logger, if installed and calibrated well enough to produce useful results, can give lap time, sector time, speeds, and comparisons across laps. The data logging material in the corpus stresses buying, installing, and calibrating systems so they produce useful results, then extracting information that helps mechanics, engineers, and drivers. If your logger cannot be trusted, simplify the test. Use consistent lap timing, consistent notes, and a disciplined A-B-A structure. A simple test performed honestly is better than a complicated test that cannot be interpreted.
Driver feedback belongs in the objective, but it must be disciplined. Feedback should be tied to named sections and speed ranges. Useful feedback sounds like this in plain form: the car let you stay committed through the fast right, the rear no longer made you wait before throttle, or the nose washed wide only in the faster loaded section. Less useful feedback is global mood: better, worse, planted, nervous. Those words can start the conversation, but they do not finish the decision. Bryan Herta’s prompt in the bonded corpus is useful because it pushes the driver to ask whether something different needs to be done with the car or with the approach to the corner. That question prevents you from blaming setup before you have checked the driving.
Now turn the objective into a test. The cleanest club-level structure is baseline, changed configuration, return to baseline. Run enough clean laps to average out driver noise. The bonded example from McBeath, citing Carroll Smith, used five laps per configuration in a wing comparison, with abnormal highs or lows discarded. It also changed only the wing configuration. That one-variable discipline is essential. If you change wing angle, tire pressure, ride height, and brake bias together, the data may tell you the car changed, but it cannot tell you why.
When conditions drift, the return-to-baseline run is not optional. Track temperature, wind, traffic, and tire condition can all move the reference. McBeath specifically calls out tire deterioration as a variable that can change the baseline. If the changed configuration runs later on older tires and looks worse, you may reject a good aero change. If it runs with a cleaner track and looks better, you may accept a weak one. Returning to baseline does not make the test perfect, but it gives you a way to see whether the world moved while you were testing.
Use averages and repeated patterns, not single heroic laps. A lap that is abnormally high or low can be discarded in the Smith-style approach described by McBeath. The deeper reason is that aero trim is supposed to make the car faster or more repeatable in a way you can rely on. If the change only wins on one lap and disappears in the average, it may be driver adaptation, traffic, tire state, or a mistake somewhere else. If the change improves the same section repeatedly and the return to baseline brings the old behavior back, you have a much stronger case.
When you review the data, do it in the order of the objective. If the objective was high-speed corner speed, do not start by staring at overall lap time. Start with the named high-speed corners. Did entry speed change? Did minimum speed change? Did exit speed change? Did the driver lift less, correct less, or get to throttle with less waiting? Then look at the sector. Then look at the straight-line cost. Then look at the whole lap. If you start with the lap time, you may miss that the aero change did exactly what you asked but lost time somewhere else, or that it won the lap only because the driver improved a slow-corner approach unrelated to the aero package.
If the objective was straight-line speed, reverse the emphasis. Start with the full-throttle sections. Did terminal speed increase? Did the sector improve? Then check whether the next fast corner suffered. If the driver had to brake earlier, lift, or accept more instability, the trim may have won the drag contest and lost the lap-time contest. The best objective is not anti-downforce or pro-downforce. It is pro-evidence.
If the objective was balance, compare driver feedback to the speed traces and sector behavior. A car can feel more stable because it is slower. That may still be useful for a novice in a learning context, but this is an intermediate race-aero lesson. You are learning to separate comfort from performance. Stability that lets you carry more speed in the fast section is valuable. Stability that comes only because you trimmed the driver’s commitment down is not the same thing.
Flow visualization fits when the numbers are unclear or when you are developing the car rather than just trimming it. McBeath describes being able to see what the air is doing around wings, spoilers, diffusers, cooling intakes, and outlets as a way to understand and develop a more aerodynamically efficient vehicle. Use that kind of diagnostic when the car refuses to respond as expected. If a wing angle change does not produce the expected high-speed behavior, the issue may not be the target. It may be that the flow reaching the device is disturbed, separated, or interacting with another part of the car. The objective keeps this diagnostic focused: you are not decorating the car with visualization fluid; you are trying to answer why the chosen circuit problem did or did not respond.
A useful objective has limits. It does not tell you the perfect setup for every condition. It does not replace detailed aero mapping, wind-tunnel validation, or a full simulation. It does not make driver technique irrelevant. It does not remove the need to understand chassis and suspension. It simply gives you a defensible way to decide whether the next trim change serves the lap you are actually driving.
The sub-skills are small but important.
The first sub-skill is naming the speed range. Say whether the problem is slow, medium, high-speed, or straight-line. This prevents you from using aero load as the answer to a corner where mechanical grip and driver inputs dominate.
The second sub-skill is naming the section. A car is not good or bad everywhere in a way that helps you test. It is losing time in specific places. Your objective should mention the fast bend, the sector, the straight, the entry to a corner after a high-speed approach, or the sequence where the configuration should matter.
The third sub-skill is choosing evidence before the session. If you decide after the run which channel matters, you will tend to choose the channel that flatters the change. Pick the evidence first: lap time, sector time, high-speed corner entry speed, apex speed, exit speed, straight-line speed, and driver feedback.
The fourth sub-skill is holding variables still. Change only the aero configuration you are testing. Keep the mechanical setup, driving plan, and run structure as consistent as you can. If you must change something else for safety or reliability, treat the test as contaminated and do not overclaim.
The fifth sub-skill is returning to baseline. This is the move that separates a disciplined test from a one-way experiment. It helps expose condition drift and tire deterioration.
The sixth sub-skill is asking why. The data-for-drivers material in the corpus encourages keeping the work simple, focusing on basics, and asking why. That attitude is exactly right for aero objective-setting. If the data does not match the feel, ask why. If the lap time improves but the target section does not, ask why. If a part change produces no signal, ask why before adding another change.
Calibration is what improvement looks like from the seat, the notebook, and the data. From the seat, you should feel less need to wait in the section the objective named. In a high-speed objective, the car may accept the same steering and throttle commitment with less correction, or it may let you arrive at the apex and exit without the small survival lift that used to appear. In a straight-line objective, the car may feel less loaded in fast corners, so the calibration cue is not just speed at the end of the straight; it is whether you can still drive the next section without giving the gain back.
In the data, improvement should show up where you predicted. A high-speed corner objective should move entry, apex, or exit speed in that corner, and the sector should respond. A straight-line objective should move straight speed, but the following corner and sector must be checked. A balance objective should connect driver feedback with repeatable speed or time changes in the fast sections. A diagnostic objective should produce a clearer next question, even if it does not immediately produce a faster lap.
An instructor would be looking for cleaner cause and effect. The question would not be whether you liked the change. The question would be whether you can say what the change was supposed to do, where it was supposed to do it, what evidence you collected, and whether the baseline came back when you returned to it. If you can answer those questions, you are doing aero development rather than guessing.
The final habit is to make the decision in writing. After the test, write one sentence: keep, reject, or retest. Then write the reason in terms of the original objective. Keep the trim because it repeatedly improved the fast-corner sector and the straight-line loss did not erase the gain. Reject the trim because it improved terminal speed but made the driver lift in the fast corner and lost the sector. Retest because conditions changed and the baseline did not repeat. That written sentence is valuable because it prevents the paddock conversation from drifting into memory, preference, or part loyalty.
When you trim without an objective, the car teaches you slowly and ambiguously. When you set the objective first, every lap has a job. The aero package still may surprise you, and the test still may need to be repeated, but you will know what question you asked. That is the beginning of useful aero work.
Worked example: the five-lap wing comparison
Imagine you arrive at a test day with two rear wing settings available. The easy but weak plan is to try the larger angle, ask whether the car feels better, and look at the best lap from the session. The stronger plan starts before the spanners come out.
Your objective is high-speed sector performance with a watched drag cost. You identify the circuit’s fastest corner or fastest corner sequence as the place where the wing should help. You also identify the longest following straight as the place where the wing may hurt. The evidence is the fast-corner entry speed, minimum speed, exit speed, the sector containing that corner, the straight-line speed, and the driver’s notes about balance and commitment.
Run the baseline for five clean laps. Record the lap times and the relevant speeds. If one lap is clearly abnormal because of traffic or a mistake, set it aside rather than letting it drive the average. Change only the wing configuration. Do not also change tire pressure, ride height, shock settings, or driving objective. Run five clean laps again. Then, if the session and schedule allow, return to the baseline and run another comparison block.
Now decide by the original objective. If the higher wing setting improves the fast-corner speeds repeatedly and the sector improves even after the straight-line cost, it met the objective. If it gives the driver a calmer sensation but the fast-corner speeds do not improve, or the sector loses because the straight is too costly, it did not meet the objective. If the second baseline does not resemble the first baseline, the day moved under you; retest before making a confident call.
The key teaching point is not that more wing is right or wrong. The point is that the same data can mean different things depending on the objective. A straight-speed loss is acceptable only if the target section gain earns it back. A better feel is useful only if it connects to repeated speed or time in the sections you named before the test.
Worked example: the Formula Dodge slow-corner trap
One bonded chunk describes a racecar approaching a 35 mph corner at 110 mph in a Formula Dodge context. That situation is useful because it tempts you to confuse entry drama with aero objective.
At 110 mph on approach, aero load may be meaningful. By the 35 mph apex, the car is in a speed range where mechanical grip, braking, release, rotation, and driver approach are far more likely to dominate. Smith’s discussion in the corpus reinforces the warning: average racing-corner apex speed is below 80 mph, where aerodynamic download is secondary to mechanical grip. So if your complaint is that the car is poor at the 35 mph apex, do not automatically write an aero objective around that apex.
A better objective separates the phases. If the car is unstable in the high-speed approach or the initial braking phase, you may have an aero stability objective tied to the approach speed and the driver’s ability to arrive at the brake point consistently. If the car is fine on approach but misses the slow apex, the first question is more likely car control, braking and entering, or mechanical setup. Herta’s driver-mindset prompt in the corpus supports that split: ask whether something different needs to be done with the car or with the approach to the corner.
The trap is using a wing change to hide a slow-corner driving or mechanical issue. The car may feel calmer because the driver enters more conservatively, but that is not proof that the aero package solved the problem. Your objective should force the distinction. Name the high-speed approach if that is the target. Name the slow apex as a non-aero primary problem if that is what the evidence shows.
Worked example: when flow visualization belongs in the objective
Suppose the data from a wing or diffuser change refuses to make sense. The driver reports a different feel, but the fast-corner speeds do not move consistently. Straight-line speed changes, but not in the pattern you expected. At that point, adding another trim change may only create a larger pile of uncertainty.
A diagnostic aero objective is appropriate here. The objective is not immediate lap time. The objective is to see whether the air is behaving around the relevant devices in a way that makes the next lap-time test meaningful. McBeath’s material supports using trackside methods to see what is happening around wings, spoilers, diffusers, cooling intakes, and outlets. That can help you understand the car and point toward more efficient development.
For this diagnostic, choose one area and one question. For example, check whether the flow near a wing or spoiler is staying attached enough for the trim change to matter, or whether a cooling outlet is disturbing an area that should be feeding another device. Do not treat the visualization as decoration or proof by itself. Use it to decide the next clean A-B-A performance test.
The discipline is the same as the performance objective. Write the question first, change as little as possible, collect the observation, and then decide what test it justifies. Flow visualization is valuable because it can show you that the problem is not the adjustment you were arguing about. The problem may be the air the part is receiving.
Common mistakes
The vague target mistake is trying to make the car better everywhere. Good looks like a written target for a named section, speed range, and evidence set. If the objective does not tell you where to look in the data, it is not yet an objective.
The single-lap hero mistake is accepting a change because one lap was quick. Good looks like repeated patterns across clean laps, averages that make sense, and abnormal laps set aside when there is a clear reason.
The moving-baseline mistake is forgetting that tires, weather, track condition, and traffic can change while you test. Good looks like a return-to-baseline run whenever conditions may have moved, especially later in the session when tire deterioration can matter.
The slow-corner aero mistake is using downforce trim to solve a problem that lives at a low-speed apex. Good looks like separating high-speed entry and approach behavior from the slow apex itself, then deciding whether the primary issue is aero, mechanical grip, or driver technique.
The multiple-change mistake is adjusting wing, ride height, tire pressure, and driving line in the same comparison. Good looks like changing one aero configuration at a time and recording anything else that changed so you do not overclaim.
The feel-only mistake is accepting the driver’s comfort as proof. Good looks like tying driver feedback to fast-corner speed, sector time, straight-line speed, and repeatability. Comfort can be useful, but in this lesson it must answer to the objective.
The drag-blind mistake is adding load for a fast corner and ignoring what happened on the straight. Good looks like checking the section where the benefit should appear and the section where the cost is likely to appear.
The tool-worship mistake is assuming a simulation, logger, or visualization automatically produces the answer. Good looks like using the tool carefully, with common sense, and with a clear question written before the run.
Drill: the aero objective card and A-B-A test
Do this drill at your next test day or practice event only if the event rules, traffic, and safety conditions allow setup testing. The drill is not about finding a perfect setup. It is about learning to set and defend an aero objective.
Before the first session, spend 15 to 20 minutes building a one-card objective. Choose one target section where aero should matter, such as a fast corner or a straight. Choose one possible cost section, such as the following straight or following fast bend. Choose three evidence points from the bonded testing menu: sector time, high-speed corner entry speed, apex speed, exit speed, straight-line speed, and driver feedback. Write the objective in one sentence.
Session one is baseline. Run five clean laps if traffic allows. Do not chase a lap time with changing technique. Drive the planned laps consistently and record the evidence. Immediately after the run, write two or three section-specific feedback notes, not global impressions.
Make one aero configuration change. Session two is the changed configuration. Run the same five-lap plan, using the same evidence. If one lap is ruined by traffic or a clear mistake, mark it as abnormal rather than letting it decide the test.
If time and safety allow, return to the baseline for session three. Run the same plan again. This is the part many drivers skip, and it is the part that teaches the most. If the original baseline behavior returns, your comparison is stronger. If it does not, conditions, tires, or driving changed enough that the result needs caution.
Success criterion: by the end of the drill, you can write one of three decisions. Keep the change because it met the objective in the target section and the cost was acceptable. Reject the change because it failed the target or lost more than it gained. Retest because the baseline moved or the data was contaminated. You pass the drill even if you reject the part. The skill is disciplined objective-setting, not forcing the car to confirm your first guess.
Cross-references to related skills
Use the sibling lessons on separating drag from downforce when you need to decide whether a straight-line speed change is drag, power, driver, or conditions. Use the lessons on dynamic pressure as the aero speed dial when you need a deeper explanation of why the same part matters more at higher speed than lower speed. Use the center of pressure lessons when the objective is not just more or less total load, but a balance shift between front and rear. Use the handling-read lesson when the main evidence is what the car does in fast sections rather than a direct aero measurement.
This lesson sits before all of those decisions. It teaches the target-setting step. The other skills help you interpret the evidence once the target exists.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 4adf8cb4-89c7-1b45-bd4d-9bb03634ecf3 | 345 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Racing Chassis and Suspension Design Carroll Smith | 148524fa-62af-201e-6dff-3b729c84477a | 8 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 6edca499-2988-7702-ccc8-3d17b516edff | 385 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 9f0edfc1-9e8c-3a96-a48d-b0d658513db3 | 385 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 576d96a1-00b7-66dd-f5b1-e33666cc457f | 334 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 10acd525-ae45-7603-2847-9b1b9db65585 | 9 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 9e3001fd-e626-5565-9b11-bc3cab151d27 | 281 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 4b5e1aa7-14cf-aacf-908a-c47094ea7ba5 | 504 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 9 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | b80dc634-a0a7-d6de-d470-353aed47e2a6 | 17 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 10 | Speed Secrets Professional Race Driving Techniques Ross Bentley | 26bc8e35-76a6-4f72-ea86-df10ba43a636 | 14 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 11 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | f2410e4f-42d0-24db-af78-3d9940ff312d | 75 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 12 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | b2c44205-8e7a-2622-d998-a8b843b3229a | 92 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 13 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 4285b990-c3e7-880e-5596-99af145b469c | 300 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |