Use gearbox layout to answer the real test question

Generated from content/lms/engine-and-powertrain/05-engineer-gearing-and-driveline-architecture/02-use-gearbox-layout-to-match-the-test-question.md; edit the source file, not this page.

Source path: content/lms/engine-and-powertrain/05-engineer-gearing-and-driveline-architecture/02-use-gearbox-layout-to-match-the-test-question.md

Course: Engineer the torque path from engine to pavement

Module: Engineer gearing and driveline architecture

Estimated duration: 55 minutes

A gearbox layout is not a style choice. It is an answer to a test. The test may be efficiency, weight, service access, shift quality, differential choice, circuit adaptation, or reliability under racing load. If you do not know which test you are answering, you can make a technically interesting gearbox that fails the actual job.

For this lesson, layout means the physical architecture of the racing gearbox: where the input shaft enters, where the internal gear pack sits, where the drive turns through 90 degrees, where the differential sits, where the clutch sits, how the selector system moves, how the casing opens, and how many parts must come off when ratios or settings are changed. We are not choosing the actual ratios here. That belongs with acceleration demand. We are not doing the full torque walk through the differential and shafts. That belongs with driveline torque flow. We are learning how to look at a gearbox architecture question and decide which layout principle matters most.

The core rule is simple: first name the dominant test, then choose the layout whose strengths match that test, while openly naming the penalties you have accepted. A transverse layout can be attractive when the test is efficiency through the final drive, low internal-pack placement, and reduced bevel-gear torque loading. An in-line layout can be attractive when the test is simple gear-change mechanics, easy access to the internal gear pack, quick ratio changes, and low component count. Alternative placements of the differential or clutch can solve a packaging problem, but the corpus warns that they may create maintenance, wheelbase, rotating-mass, or shift-quality penalties. A good answer is not the one that says one layout is always best. A good answer says what the car, circuit, test session, and maintenance environment are asking the gearbox to do.

Start with the purpose of the gearbox. Its job is to provide drive between the engine and the road wheels, usually through selected intermediate gear ratios, while remaining efficient and reliable. In an automotive gearbox, unless the engine and gearbox are mounted transversely as a unit, the drive must change direction through a 90-degree angle somewhere in the system. In a racing gearbox, that 90-degree decision becomes one of the central layout questions because it changes what loads the bevel gears see, what the final drive can be, how the gear pack is arranged, how the casing opens, and how easy the car is to service under event pressure.

Stokes frames racing gearbox design around a set of aims that should sound familiar to anyone who has worked in a paddock: maximum efficiency in all gears, minimum possible weight for the required torque throughput, simplicity in design and assembly, minimum maintenance time and effort, minimum component removal during ratio changes, and a positive method of locking the pinion after the crown wheel and pinion have been meshed. That list is your first filter. When a prompt asks you to pick or defend a gearbox layout, do not begin with the shape of the casing. Begin with those aims and ask which aim is dominant in this particular question.

The first sub-skill is naming the event test. A gearbox for hill climbing does not face the same service and operating problem as a gearbox for endurance racing. A car for a twisty circuit does not ask the same questions as a car for a circuit with long fast straights. A flat track does not present the same ratio and load pattern as a hilly one. The supplied corpus explicitly names hill climbing, road or track racing, endurance racing, twisty circuits, long fast straights, flat circuits, and hilly circuits as variables in the design decision. Those are not decoration. They tell you that layout is judged in context.

If the test is a short event where the car must launch hard, shift cleanly, and survive shock loading, you give more attention to torque capacity, shaft and gear stressing, dog engagement, and positive gear selection. If the test is an endurance event where ratio changes, inspection, and repeated maintenance happen under time pressure, you give more attention to access, assembly simplicity, lubricant control, and reduction of mistakes. If the test is a circuit-efficiency question, you look closely at where the 90-degree turn is made and what gears carry the multiplied torque. If the test is a development-session question, you look at whether different differential types can be fitted and evaluated without turning the session into a teardown.

The second sub-skill is locating the 90-degree turn relative to the internal ratios. In the common in-line rear-engined racing-car arrangement, the transaxle is bolted to the rear face of the in-line engine. Drive comes through the clutch or input shaft, passes below the differential in many designs, connects to the intermediate shaft, goes through the selected internal gear ratio, and then drives the pinion and crown wheel to the differential and drive shafts. That arrangement has a straightforward mechanical logic and has historically been developed into a reliable, low-component unit with easy access to the internal gear pack.

The transverse alternative changes the question. With the engine at right angles to the gearbox, the input shaft drives a pair of bevel gears that turn the drive across the chassis before the internal gear ratios. The intermediate shaft and output shaft then lie across the car, in line with the road-wheel drive shafts. This means the right-angle turn happens before the internal ratios. Stokes points out the important consequence: the bevel gears are then subject only to maximum engine output torque, instead of engine torque multiplied by the lowest internal gear ratio as in an in-line layout with the bevel gears at the final drive. The transverse layout can also use a spur or helical final output gear drive, which Stokes describes as capable of higher load transmission for size, more efficient overall, and lower in thrust load than bevel gears.

That is the cleanest place to see how to match layout to test. If the test question is about reducing bevel-gear losses and loads, the transverse argument is strong. If the question is about the simplest, most positive mechanical gear-change path and the fastest internal ratio access, the transverse argument is no longer automatically strong because it brings selector and service-access problems that must be solved. The same physical feature can be an advantage in one test and a liability in another.

The third sub-skill is treating access as performance, not convenience. Racing gearboxes are maintained and ratio-changed at events, sometimes under rough conditions. Stokes repeatedly treats simplicity of design, simplicity of assembly, low maintenance time, and minimum component removal as racing aims, not workshop luxuries. When the rear cover and casing joint are designed so the internal gear pack is exposed when the rear cover is removed, the crew can change internal ratios, adjust selector mechanisms, and check gear meshing more directly. When the joint line is close to the shaft location bearings, the check and adjustment process becomes easier. When the casing arrangement lets the main casing and internal gear pack come off while leaving the front cover, differential, and axle half-shafts in place, the layout has answered a service-time question.

This is why access is not a soft concern. Poor access changes the quality of the work. Some arrangements force internal checks to be done mainly by feel. The corpus lists what that costs: internal tooth meshing and backlash may not be positively checked, tooth face-width alignment may not be easily checked visually, dog side clearances may not be centralized and visually checked with the selector forks in their operating position, and dog engagement depth may not be easily checked in the selected gears. That is not just an annoyance. It is a path to missed alignment, poor engagement, repeated labor, and preventable failures.

The fourth sub-skill is reading the gear-change system as part of the layout. A layout that looks efficient on a power-flow sketch can still lose the test if it makes the shift system complicated or vague. In the transverse layout, all gear-change movement inside the gearbox is across the car, in line with the intermediate and output shafts. Somewhere between that area and the driver’s fore-and-aft gear lever movement, the system must turn the shift motion through a right angle. Stokes says that even with careful design, a right-angle turn with push-and-pull movement will not be as positive or efficient as a gear-change system where the push-and-pull movement is in line with the lever. That is the mechanism behind the in-line layout’s shift-system advantage: fewer components, less construction complexity, fewer wear points, and fewer places for operating difficulty to develop.

You should not reduce that to driver feel alone. The selector system is the mechanism that moves the engaging dog ring into and out of mesh with the face dogs on the free-running gears. The selector forks, dog rings, selector shafts, detents, and interlocks decide whether the selected gear is held, whether neutral is located, and whether more than one gear can be selected at the same time. Spring-loaded balls or plungers locating selector-shaft grooves help prevent engaging-dog movement due to vibration or end loading. Interlock systems prevent multiple selections. The common selector-fork arrangement is also chosen partly because wear occurs in the fork, which is easier and cheaper to replace than the engaging dog ring. When you answer a layout problem, shift quality is therefore not an opinion about how the lever feels. It is a design consequence of geometry, component count, wear points, heat, and positive location.

The fifth sub-skill is deciding whether the differential is part of the test. The corpus makes two different differential points. First, the type of differential should match the vehicle application, terrain, expected performance, usage, and cost envelope. Racing and rally cars use more sophisticated differential units because the objective is maximum efficiency and tractive effort under varied running conditions. Second, for racing gearboxes it is wise to design so that different differential types can be fitted during test or practice, allowing the driver and engineer to decide which type produces the best circuit result and which the driver feels most comfortable with.

That does not mean this lesson becomes a differential tuning lesson. It means layout should not trap the team into a differential arrangement that cannot be tested or serviced when the question requires differential comparison. In the sibling lesson on torque through the differential and shafts, you follow the delivered torque. Here you ask whether the layout makes the differential reachable, stable, correctly supported, and suitable for the test program. The crown wheel and differential assembly carries high loads from the crown wheel and pinion thrust, the rotating mass, and the axle shaft connections. Bearing location, casing strength, and joint design matter because the differential is not a small add-on at the back of the answer.

The sixth sub-skill is recognizing when a packaging solution has created a new failure mode. The corpus describes alternative in-line arrangements used for specific reasons. One puts the internal gear pack behind the clutch and the crown wheel and differential assembly behind the internal gear pack. Another puts the clutch behind the in-line gearbox, driven by a long quill shaft, with the differential between the engine rear face and the internal gear pack. Both solve a layout problem, but both create consequences. A rear-mounted differential makes maintenance more difficult and requires more components to be removed for internal ratio changes, taking more time and increasing the chance of mistakes. A rear-mounted clutch creates the problem of producing a quick and positive gear-change system despite increased rotating masses.

That is a general principle you can apply every time: when a layout solves one packaging constraint, immediately ask what it does to maintenance, shift system, rotating mass, wheelbase, inspection access, and gear-mesh stability. Do not praise the cleverness of the packaging until you have named the cost.

Now put the skill into a repeatable method. When you are given a gearbox-layout prompt, do not start by writing in-line or transverse. Work through five calls.

Call one: state the race problem. Is this hill climb, road race, track race, endurance race, development test, or a packaging exercise? Is the circuit twisty, long-straight, flat, or hilly? If the prompt does not say, say what you would need to know before choosing.

Call two: state the dominant success metric. Efficiency, weight, quick ratio changes, service access, selector positivity, differential testability, minimum component count, low center of gravity, and reliability are not the same metric. If the test asks for one, do not answer another.

Call three: locate the right-angle turn and torque multiplication. If the bevel gear set is after the lowest internal gear ratio, it may have to cope with engine torque multiplied by that ratio. If the right-angle turn is before the internal ratios in a transverse layout, the bevel gears see maximum engine output torque instead. That is the layout’s strongest efficiency and load argument.

Call four: prove the service path. Identify what must be removed to change ratios, inspect mesh, adjust selectors, or check dog engagement. If the design depends on side covers, ask whether the covers weaken the casing, how bearings are carried, and whether the meshing and selector positions can be positively checked. If the design exposes the pack through a rear cover, ask whether the joint and bearing locations preserve pinion and gear-mesh stability.

Call five: prove the shift path. Follow the motion from gear lever to selector fork to engaging dog ring. Count direction changes, component count, likely wear points, and whether the system can lock one selected gear while preventing two selections. If the layout forces a right-angle change in push-pull motion, that penalty must be part of your answer.

Your recommendation should then have a consistent shape. For example: because the test prioritizes final-drive efficiency and reduced bevel-gear load on a long, fast circuit, I would consider a transverse layout, because it turns the drive before the internal ratios and can use a spur or helical final output drive. I would not treat that as a free win, because the selector system must turn the shift motion and the casing must still allow quick ratio access through side covers. Or: because the test prioritizes fast ratio changes and positive shift action during a race weekend, I would prefer the in-line layout, because it has a simpler gear-change system and established rear-cover access to the internal gear pack. I accept the final-drive bevel-gear loading penalty and would manage it through correct crown-wheel and pinion sizing, bearing location, lubrication, and pinion locking.

That kind of answer is much stronger than memorizing a layout preference because it names both the match and the compromise.

Calibration cue one: your answer begins with the test, not the hardware. If your first sentence names in-line, transverse, rear clutch, or rear differential before it names the event and metric, you are probably guessing. A mature answer starts from use case and circuit: hill climb, road or track racing, endurance racing, twisty, long straight, flat, hilly, development-session differential comparison, or quick service.

Calibration cue two: your answer follows torque through the architecture far enough to locate the expensive load. You do not need to calculate every shaft stress in this lesson, but you should know whether the bevel gears are seeing engine torque alone or engine torque multiplied by the lowest internal gear ratio. You should also be able to say that shaft and gear sizing must include maximum racing torque and shock loadings from standing starts and aggressive clutch use during gear changes.

Calibration cue three: your answer includes a service operation. A layout decision is incomplete if it cannot answer how internal ratios are changed, how mesh is checked, how selector adjustment is inspected, how the differential can be serviced or swapped, and how the pinion position stays locked while ratio changes occur. Racing service work is part of the design problem.

Calibration cue four: your answer includes a selector consequence. If you choose transverse, you mention the across-car selector motion and the right-angle conversion needed before the gear lever. If you choose in-line, you mention the simpler, straighter, lower-component gear-change system. If you discuss dog engagement, you connect it to selector forks, dog rings, location in neutral and engaged positions, and interlocks.

Calibration cue five: your answer names reliability as a primary outcome, not a final afterthought. Stokes explicitly places reliability as the overall consideration in gearbox design, and the racing chapter repeatedly ties efficiency and weight to the need to cope with torque throughput and maintain serviceability. If your answer gets lighter, lower, or more efficient by making inspection vague or the shift system fragile, it has failed the real test.

A useful mental model is to treat layout as a set of permissions and restrictions. The in-line layout permits simple shift motion and easy access to the internal gear pack, especially with rear-cover architecture designed for ratio changes and inspection. It restricts some efficiency opportunities because the final-drive bevel gears may carry multiplied low-gear torque. The transverse layout permits the right-angle turn before the internal ratios, a low internal gear pack, and a final output through spur or helical gears. It restricts service and selector simplicity unless the casing, side covers, selector forks, and shift linkage are designed carefully. Alternative differential and clutch placements permit certain packaging choices, but they restrict maintenance or shift positivity.

This also tells you how to avoid over-answering. The corpus supports layout-level reasoning, not a universal claim that one architecture is always superior. It supports saying that transverse can be more efficient because of where the right-angle turn occurs and the final gear type that can be used. It supports saying that in-line has historically offered a simpler gear-change system, easy internal-pack access, quick ratio change capability, reliability, and fewer components. It supports saying that side-cover and rear-cover choices affect casing strength and inspection. It supports saying that differential testability matters in practice sessions. It does not support inventing a specific lap-time gain, a universal endurance choice, a precise weight saving, or a named car’s proven advantage unless that data is supplied elsewhere.

Keep the sibling boundaries clean. When the question asks how clutch engagement gates delivered torque, go to the clutch lesson. When it asks how torque flows through the differential and shafts, go to the driveline-flow lesson. When it asks which ratios match acceleration demand, go to the acceleration-demand lesson. When it asks whether a claim is supported by the available evidence, go to the unsupported-detail lesson. This lesson owns the architecture question: what layout best answers the test, and what penalty does that layout create?

Worked example: the long-straight efficiency question

Imagine the prompt says the car is being designed for a circuit with long fast straights, and the engineering target is to reduce drivetrain loss while still carrying full racing torque. That is an efficiency and load-path test. You should not begin by saying that the in-line layout is traditional or that the transverse layout is modern. Begin by locating the right-angle turn.

In an in-line rear-engined transaxle where the crown wheel and pinion are effectively at the final drive end of the reduction path, the bevel gears can be exposed to torque that has already been multiplied by the lowest internal gear ratio. In a transverse arrangement where the engine drive is turned by bevel gears before the internal ratios, the bevel gears see maximum engine output torque rather than the multiplied low-gear torque. The transverse layout can then make the final output through spur or helical gears, which the corpus treats as more efficient overall and capable of higher load transmission for size, with lower thrust loads than bevel gears.

So your recommendation can favor the transverse architecture for this test. But the answer is only complete if you state the penalties. The transverse gearbox has to solve access to the internal ratios, often through side access covers. It also has to solve the gear-change system because the motion inside the gearbox is across the car while the driver’s lever movement is fore and aft. That means a right-angle turn in the shift mechanism. If the prompt values efficiency above service speed and shift-system simplicity, the transverse argument is coherent. If the prompt also says ratios must be changed repeatedly in a primitive paddock, you must either explain how the access-cover design solves that problem or change your recommendation.

Worked example: the practice-day ratio-change question

Now change the test. The prompt says the team is using a rear-engined racing car in practice sessions on varied circuits, and the main requirement is fast internal ratio changes with positive inspection of meshing and selector adjustment. That is not primarily an efficiency question. It is an access, adjustment, and mistake-reduction question.

Here the in-line layout has a strong supported argument. The corpus describes in-line racing gearbox designs in which the internal gear pack can be exposed by removing the rear cover, especially when the rear cover to main casing joint line is near the shaft location bearings. That arrangement helps quick ratio changes, accurate selector adjustment, and checking of gear meshing. Stokes also treats the in-line layout as historically simple, reliable, easy to build and maintain, and capable of quick ratio changing with a relatively simple gear-change system.

You should still show that you understand the competing option. A transverse gearbox can be arranged with access holes and covers at each side of the casing, and those covers can carry intermediate and output shaft bearings. But the corpus says accessibility needs careful assessment and close consultation with the car designer. It also says the transverse selector system has the difficulty of removing selector forks from dog grooves so the internal pack can come out through side access holes. The point of the answer is not that transverse cannot work. The point is that if the test is practice-day service speed and positive inspection, the in-line layout is easier to defend unless the transverse design has specifically solved those access and selector problems.

Worked example: the packaging and wheelbase trap

A common exam-style trap is to present a packaging constraint and invite an unusual layout. The corpus gives two useful examples. One alternative puts the internal gear pack directly behind the clutch and places the crown wheel and differential assembly behind the internal gear pack. Another mounts the clutch assembly behind the in-line gearbox, with a long quill shaft from the crankshaft and the differential between the engine rear face and the gear pack.

These were not random experiments. They were used for specific reasons. But the corpus also names the problems. With the rear-mounted differential, keeping the wheelbase within reasonable proportions was difficult, and from the racing engineer’s point of view maintenance became harder. More components had to be removed to change internal ratios, which meant more time and a greater chance of mistakes. With the rear-mounted clutch, the problem was producing a quick and positive gear-change system despite increased rotating masses.

The lesson is that packaging cannot be answered in isolation. If the prompt asks for a rear-mounted differential to satisfy wheelbase, center of mass, or component-positioning constraints, your answer should immediately audit the service cost. If the prompt asks for a rear-mounted clutch or long quill-shaft solution, your answer should immediately audit rotating mass and shift positivity. A strong layout answer does not reject unusual architecture automatically. It demands that the new problem created by the packaging solution be named and solved.

Drill: five-question layout call sheet

Use this drill the next time you are reviewing a race car, a project car, or a gearbox design exercise. It is a paper drill, not a driving drill, and it takes about 36 minutes.

Round one takes 12 minutes. Pick one event problem: a short hill climb, a twisty road course, a long-straight track, or an endurance weekend with repeated service. Write one sentence naming the event and one sentence naming the dominant metric. Then write which layout you would initially favor and why.

Round two takes 12 minutes. Draw the power path in words, not with a detailed drawing: clutch or input shaft, intermediate shaft, internal ratios, bevel turn, differential, drive shafts. Mark where the 90-degree turn happens and whether the bevel gears see engine torque before the internal ratios or multiplied torque after them. Add one sentence on how the layout affects efficiency, gear loading, or final output gear type.

Round three takes 12 minutes. Write the service and shift proof. List what must be removed to change internal ratios. State how the gear mesh, dog engagement, selector adjustment, and pinion location can be checked or protected. Then follow the gear-lever motion to the selector fork and identify whether the shift path is in line or requires a right-angle conversion.

The success criterion is specific: at the end, your recommendation must contain one supported advantage, one accepted penalty, and one verification item you would inspect in the car or design. Examples of verification items include exposed internal gear pack access, visible mesh checking, side-cover bearing support, selector-fork removal path, interlock function, pinion locking, differential accessibility, and lubricant delivery. If your answer cannot name the penalty or the verification item, you have not matched the layout to the test yet.

Common mistakes and what good looks like

Mistake one is choosing by fashion. The bad version says transverse is better because modern racing cars use it, or in-line is better because it is proven. The good version says what the test values. Transverse may answer an efficiency and bevel-load problem. In-line may answer a service, simplicity, and positive-shift problem.

Mistake two is giving a ratio answer to a layout question. The bad version starts discussing shorter or taller gears when the prompt is asking where the internal gear pack, bevel turn, differential, and selector system should sit. The good version says that ratio selection belongs to acceleration demand, while this decision is about architecture, service, load path, and shift mechanism.

Mistake three is treating access as an afterthought. The bad version assumes a crew can always change ratios or inspect mesh if they work hard enough. The good version asks how many components are removed, whether the gear pack is exposed, whether checks are visual or by feel, whether side covers weaken the loaded casing area, and whether the differential and axle half-shafts can stay in place during internal-pack work.

Mistake four is ignoring selector geometry. The bad version draws shafts and gears but never explains how the driver’s shift motion reaches the dog ring. The good version follows the lever movement to the selector fork, names right-angle conversions, component count, wear points, detents, interlocks, and whether the selected gear is positively held against vibration or end loading.

Mistake five is moving the differential without paying the maintenance bill. The bad version moves the differential to solve packaging and stops there. The good version asks whether maintenance becomes harder, whether more components must come off to change ratios, whether the wheelbase problem is truly solved, and whether the added time raises the chance of mistakes.

Mistake six is forgetting that racing load includes shock. The bad version sizes or defends the layout around smooth maximum engine torque only. The good version remembers that the corpus explicitly includes high shock loadings from racing standing starts and aggressive clutch use during gear changes when stressing the gearbox components.

Mistake seven is using reliability as a slogan. The bad version says the design is reliable without explaining why. The good version connects reliability to bearing location, casing strength, lubrication planning, pinion locking, positive gear selection, inspection access, and minimum component removal during service.

When this principle breaks down

The layout-matches-test principle is strong, but it does not mean you always have freedom to choose the theoretically best architecture. Regulations may push designers toward different formations. Existing engine orientation, chassis layout, wheelbase, axle-line requirements, production cost, and already-owned hardware may constrain the decision. In those cases, the skill shifts. You are no longer choosing the cleanest layout from a blank page; you are identifying the dominant weakness of the forced layout and deciding what must be protected.

If regulations or packaging force transverse architecture, protect access and shift positivity. Ask how side covers carry bearings, how selector forks are removed, how the right-angle shift motion is made as positive as possible, and how the internal gear pack can be changed without disturbing critical mesh settings. If history, budget, or service capability force an in-line architecture, protect efficiency, bevel-gear loading, bearing capacity, lubrication, and pinion position. If an unusual differential or clutch placement is forced, protect maintenance time, mistake reduction, rotating mass, and shift quality.

The principle also breaks down when the prompt lacks enough information. If you are not told the event type, circuit type, service expectation, engine orientation, target weight, ratio-change requirement, differential-test need, or shift-control method, do not invent them. State the missing data and provide a conditional answer. That is not weakness. It is how you keep an architecture decision from becoming unsupported detail.

Author Review

No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.

Sources

#	Document	Chunk	Pages	Score	Collection
1	Manual gearbox design Stokes	fc66ae9e-926d-f611-c3ed-de9e70312f8b	144	1	uio_books_raw_v1
2	Manual gearbox design Stokes	2c0b9948-568a-c766-58d4-507b5349ebe3	159	1	uio_books_raw_v1
3	Manual gearbox design Stokes	85de66cd-c222-d714-2a5c-67c569b0e38b	159	1	uio_books_raw_v1
4	Manual gearbox design Stokes	e8e55ea6-f322-5ada-2d35-fa637a255f58	158	1	uio_books_raw_v1
5	Manual gearbox design Stokes	f6b9b1fe-5277-3d7f-f2ed-83137ec22a2e	153	1	uio_books_raw_v1
6	Manual gearbox design Stokes	38712d7c-41a2-e0a1-ca45-7e0931f39fed	147	1	uio_books_raw_v1
7	Manual gearbox design Stokes	5ed18765-13cf-1840-c2b5-ba2c8882b6ff	152	1	uio_books_raw_v1
8	Manual gearbox design Stokes	e460a886-0bbb-9daa-8452-4437fdf4af9a	154	1	uio_books_raw_v1
9	Manual gearbox design Stokes	384f015e-3a2d-7308-9ca0-6800a71c3b6b	145	1	uio_books_raw_v1
10	Manual gearbox design Stokes	df6c8e17-24d9-4347-5142-fa7fa85bc981	7	1	uio_books_raw_v1
11	Manual gearbox design Stokes	a7058fb8-7f61-9eed-4f77-a076a3ded04b	150	1	uio_books_raw_v1
12	Manual gearbox design Stokes	f19f6adc-6963-8cb9-bcfe-7fbe9429b894	36	1	uio_books_raw_v1
13	Manual gearbox design Stokes	067df1c0-2888-2411-e2a3-cdc40f108575	160	1	uio_books_raw_v1
14	Manual gearbox design Stokes	41b2886f-b9ac-752f-f82b-132fc2126c84	41	1	uio_books_raw_v1
15	Manual gearbox design Stokes	314bf0ee-e5ed-b768-a1b0-598a72658fed	42	1	uio_books_raw_v1
16	Manual gearbox design Stokes	c8a32caf-6a21-526e-deb4-1876f3f0f411	39	1	uio_books_raw_v1
17	Manual gearbox design Stokes	a9a66580-99ad-313b-9118-afa20bb2f9ab	44	1	uio_books_raw_v1
18	Manual gearbox design Stokes	eec82742-f0f5-c133-0fd0-f8c7bb7ab48b	151	1	uio_books_raw_v1
19	Manual gearbox design Stokes	f67067e6-2089-eb55-0779-38e1c527cd7c	37	1	uio_books_raw_v1
20	Manual gearbox design Stokes	85cab0ba-75b7-1b72-360d-f96e245f8b3e	160	1	uio_books_raw_v1