Convert the part shape into a pattern plan
Generated from
content/lms/fabrication-and-composites/03-make-tools-that-control-shape/01-turn-shape-into-a-pattern-plan.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/fabrication-and-composites/03-make-tools-that-control-shape/01-turn-shape-into-a-pattern-plan.md
Course: Fabricate composite race-car parts with workshop discipline
Module: Make tooling that controls the finished part
Estimated duration: 65 minutes
Skill aim
A part shape is not yet a pattern plan. The part shape is the outside result you want: a nosecone, spoiler, aerofoil, duct, dashboard, body panel, or other composite component. The pattern plan is the working translation of that result into controlled shop decisions: what geometry must be held, what reference lines will control it, what route will produce it, what surfaces must be finished before the tool is taken, and what checks must happen before anyone starts laminating.
That distinction matters because a composite part inherits its shape through a chain. The finished part comes from a tool. The tool is taken from a pattern. The pattern is built from a design intent, a package envelope, and a production method. If the pattern is wrong, vague, asymmetric, or built around a late change, the mistake does not stay in the pattern. It is copied into the mould and then copied again into every part made from it. The purpose of this lesson is to make that chain deliberate before you spend material, time, and patience.
At the intermediate level, you may already understand basic wet lay-up and you may have seen glass fibre, carbon, aramid, foam, filler, or core materials used on race car parts. The skill here is earlier than wetting fabric. You are learning to stop treating pattern making as carving until it looks about right. You are learning to write a plan that controls shape.
The governing principle
Finish the design logic before you begin the pattern work. That does not mean every minor hand-fairing decision must be known in advance. It means the main purpose, constraints, reference geometry, production route, and acceptance checks must be fixed enough that the pattern maker is not also inventing the component while covered in dust.
Costin and Phipps make the same point in chassis design: design is completed before materials are chosen or work begins, and the design begins as forces and lines before it becomes tubes. For a composite pattern, the equivalent is that the part begins as purpose, envelope, surface, and datum before it becomes MDF, foam, filler, paint, and finally a mould. If you reverse the sequence, the shop work starts making engineering decisions by accident.
A good pattern plan starts with the overall specification. What must this part do? Is it bodywork, a spoiler, an aerofoil, a duct, a dashboard, or a structural or semi-structural panel? What does it have to clear? What has to bolt to it? What is the relevant rule set? What weight, stiffness, or impact expectation is actually part of the job? The source material is clear that composite use in motorsport is broad, but also that regulations and budget shape what is appropriate. A beautiful pattern for a carbon part is not a successful plan if the material is banned in the class, or if the process requires equipment the builder does not have.
The second part of the principle is compromise. A race car design has to integrate conflicting elements into a balanced result. In pattern planning, those conflicts are usually not abstract. You may want a smoother shape, easier fabrication, lower cost, better symmetry, lighter construction, simpler access, and fewer hours. You rarely get all of them at full strength. The plan is where you decide which requirements are controlling and which ones are allowed to give way.
The third part is humility about process. McBeath notes that professional composite design still contains a strong empirical element, based on experience and previous knowledge, and that wet lay-up techniques are still seen in professional facilities. That is useful for the home or club-level fabricator. It means the plan does not have to imitate a Formula 1 department to be disciplined. It does have to separate design decisions from shop improvisation.
Why the pattern plan controls the part
A pattern is a shape-control object. It is not the part and it is not the mould, but it determines the mould. McBeath gives a direct example in the Mallock nosecone: the pattern was made from MDF, polyurethane foam block, and body filler; it was painted and rubbed down; then the GFRP mould was taken from it. That sequence is the whole lesson in miniature. The final race car component was downstream of the pattern surface. The tool did not invent the shape. It copied the prepared pattern.
That is why the pattern plan must be more exact than a sketch. A sketch may communicate an idea. A plan tells the builder how to preserve the idea through rough blocking, shaping, filling, finishing, and tool-making. If the final pattern will be painted and rubbed down before the mould is taken, then the plan has to include enough time and surface intention for that finishing work. If the pattern is intended to be symmetrical, the plan has to say how symmetry will be established and checked. If the component has local stiffeners, reinforcement zones, or directional material requirements, the pattern and its drawings must carry enough reference information that those later operations are not guessed.
The professional route makes the same lesson sharper. In top Formula 1 work, CAD drawings can be transferred electronically to multi-axis machining centres that carve patterns from epoxy block. The stated advantage is not glamour. It is labour reduction and control of dimensions and symmetry so the pattern matches the drawings. That tells you what the pattern plan is trying to achieve even if you do not own a machining centre. The goal is controlled translation from drawing to physical surface.
In a home workshop, you replace the machining centre with simpler controls: a defined centreline, templates, known mounting references, measured heights, written checkpoints, and a clear build sequence. You may still use MDF, polyurethane foam, and body filler, as in the nosecone example. You may still finish the pattern surface by painting and rubbing down before the mould. The difference is that every control the CNC machine would have supplied automatically must now be made visible in the plan.
The five decisions that turn shape into a plan
First, define the job of the part. Do not start with the material. Start with what the part has to be. A duct has to guide flow through a package. A dashboard has to fit a cockpit and carry or clear controls. An aerofoil or spoiler has to hold a deliberate surface. A body panel has to close an opening, clear structure, and often be removable. These are different pattern problems even if they all end in composite material. McBeath frames composites as usable for body panels, spoilers, aerofoils, ducting, and dashboards, but the planning discipline changes with the job.
Second, define the governing boundaries. Regulations come before pattern labour. McBeath warns that technical regulations may dictate permitted materials, and that it would be wasteful to build lightweight bodywork only to find a scrutineer rejects the material. The pattern plan should therefore begin with the rule check: class, material restrictions, visible shape limits, mounting constraints, and any test or deflection requirement that affects the part. You are not proving the final tool in this lesson, but you are making sure the pattern plan does not commit you to an illegal or unsuitable component.
Third, choose the controlled geometry. Not every surface deserves the same attention. The exterior surface of a nosecone, the working face of an aerofoil, or a visible body panel may need more control than a hidden inner return or a flat underside. The plan should name which surfaces are controlling, which are secondary, and which are only there to close the part. This prevents a common workshop failure: spending hours perfecting a low-value area while the mounting edge, centreline, or visible contour remains vague.
Fourth, choose the production route. McBeath describes two broad worlds: traditional pattern making in a dedicated workshop, and computer-controlled machining in a separate area. The traditional route can use ordinary materials and hand work. The professional route can start from CAD and carve epoxy block. Both are valid in their context, but they create different plans. If the route is CNC from CAD, the hard work moves into the model, the datum scheme, and the machine setup. If the route is MDF, foam, filler, paint, and rubbing down, the hard work moves into physical references, fairing stages, and finish inspection.
Fifth, decide how the pattern will carry later manufacturing information. Composite materials are not just isotropic lumps. McBeath explains that unidirectional fabric lets fibres be placed in the required orientation so loads can be fed along the fibres, and that composites can have directional properties at manufacture. Van Valkenburgh adds that the best material may vary by location in the same part, with different fibres or combinations serving different needs. A pattern plan for a simple non-structural cover may not need much laminate mapping. A pattern plan for a part with local stiffeners, directional fabric, or material changes should include reference axes and zones so the later lay-up is not detached from the design intent.
The planning sequence
Begin with the part intent. Write one plain sentence that states the part, the car context, and the function. For example, a narrow nosecone for a front aero package is a different planning problem from a replacement dashboard or a small duct. The Mallock example matters because the new narrow nose accepted front two-element aerofoils and created more tunable downforce. The pattern plan therefore had to serve a packaging and aerodynamic purpose, not just make an attractive nose.
Next, list the constraints that can stop the job. Regulations belong here. Available process belongs here. Budget belongs here. The source material repeatedly distinguishes what professional constructors can do from what a do-it-yourself competitor can usually do. Top teams may have dedicated pattern shops, multi-axis machining centres, epoxy block, CAD transfer, and large production areas. A club-level builder may have wet lay-up, common pattern materials, hand finishing, and enough patience to work accurately. A sound plan does not pretend those are the same route.
Then establish the reference geometry. At minimum, a pattern plan needs a primary centreline or base reference, the key length and width references, and any mounting or clearance features that control the part. This is the manual equivalent of the professional promise that machined patterns match the drawings in dimensions and symmetry. If you cannot say how you will know the left and right sides match, you do not yet have a pattern plan. If you cannot say which edge, surface, or point is the master reference, you are still sketching.
After that, describe the rough build. The Mallock nosecone route gives a grounded model: MDF, polyurethane foam block, body filler, paint, rubbing down, then a GFRP mould. The plan should say what material supplies the stable base, what material supplies volume, what material supplies the fairing surface, and what finishing process prepares the pattern before the mould is taken. This is not a shopping list for its own sake. It is a way of making sure each stage has a job.
The stable base keeps the pattern from wandering. The volume material gets you near the shape without wasting filler. The filler lets you fair and correct. The paint and rubbing-down stage creates the surface from which the mould will be taken. If you omit the purpose of each stage, you are likely to ask one material to do too many jobs. That usually means more weight, more labour, and more uncertainty.
Now define the stop points. A stop point is a planned moment when you inspect before continuing. It is not the same as final proof of the tool, which belongs to the sibling lesson. In this lesson, stop points keep the pattern from drifting. A useful sequence is rough envelope complete, datums visible, symmetry checked, controlled surfaces fair, mounting or clearance features confirmed, finishing coat applied, final rub-down complete, and mould-ready review. You do not need a laboratory to run those checks. You do need to decide that they exist before the shop work starts.
Finally, write the handoff. The pattern plan should be clear enough that another competent fabricator could pick it up and understand what to make, what not to change, and what must be checked. If the only person who understands the plan is the person who shaped the filler, the plan has not done its job. The handoff should include the part intent, constraints, references, rough build sequence, finish requirement, later laminate or stiffener cues, and unresolved questions.
How to keep the plan in scope
This lesson sits between design and tool making. It is easy to let it grow into every other composite topic. Keep it narrower. Do not decide open-mold versus matched-mold control here except enough to know what kind of pattern route you are preparing. Do not solve release chemistry here. Do not prove the tool here. Do not decide every laminate detail here. The pattern plan simply needs to carry enough information that those later steps are possible and consistent.
A useful rule is this: if a decision changes the physical shape or the references needed to control it, it belongs in the pattern plan. If a decision changes only the release product, curing schedule, or final validation procedure, it belongs later. If a decision changes whether the shape is legal, buildable, or compatible with the available process, it belongs before pattern work begins.
This is also where you protect yourself from professional envy. The corpus describes advanced professional tools: CAD, machining centres, epoxy block, wind tunnels, CFD, dedicated facilities, and specialised materials. Those tools can improve control, but they do not remove the planning sequence. Professionals still separate production areas and still rely on experience. The home builder should take the lesson, not imitate the equipment. The lesson is controlled translation, not expensive machinery.
Pattern planning for material direction and local features
Most beginner pattern plans stop at exterior shape. Intermediate pattern plans start to carry manufacturing intent. This matters because composites can be engineered by fibre direction and by local material choice. McBeath explains that unidirectional fabrics allow fibres to be laid in the exact orientation required, and that misuse during lamination can spread or separate fibres and reduce the desired directional strength and stiffness. Van Valkenburgh describes composite designs where carbon, Kevlar, glass, or mixed fabrics may be chosen differently in different parts of the same component.
The pattern plan does not need to become a laminate schedule unless the task requires it. But it should preserve orientation and zone information where that information affects the part. For example, if a nosecone will have local stiffeners, the plan should show where those stiffeners belong relative to the controlled shape. If an aerofoil or panel has a reference direction for fabric, the plan should not leave the fabric axis to guesswork. If a part has one area that needs toughness and another that needs stiffness, the plan should mark those areas before the mould is made.
This is not overcomplication. It is how you prevent the pattern from becoming a beautiful surface that has forgotten why the part exists. The shape, the tool, and the lay-up should be connected by reference information. That connection is easy to maintain on paper and hard to reconstruct after the pattern has been polished.
What good looks like
A good pattern plan has a short, hard spine. It names the part and purpose. It records the rule and process constraints. It defines the controlling surfaces. It establishes datums and symmetry checks. It chooses a production route that matches the available equipment. It describes the sequence from rough form to finished pattern surface. It carries any required reference information for local stiffeners, fibre orientation, or material zones. It defines stop points. It records what is still unknown.
You know the plan is working when shop questions get narrower. Early in the job, the questions should be about execution: whether the rough blank has enough material, whether the centreline is still visible, whether the surface is fair enough for the next stage, whether the finishing coat needs more rubbing down. If the questions are still about what the part is, whether it is allowed, what it mounts to, or whether the left side should match the right side, the planning stage was not finished.
You also know the plan is working when the production route feels ordinary. That does not mean easy. It means each step follows from the last one. MDF or another stable base establishes the reference. Foam provides shape volume. Filler fairs. Paint and rubbing down prepare the surface. The mould is taken only after the pattern has become the controlled object you intended. In a professional route, the same ordinary feeling comes from a clean CAD-to-machined-pattern chain with dimensions and symmetry controlled by the model and machining process.
The lap-time equivalent in fabrication is repeatability. One good-looking part made by accident is not the goal. A pattern plan is successful when the tool can make the intended shape again, not merely once. Even if you only make one part, you want the shape to be deliberate enough that you could explain where it came from and why it is trustworthy.
Failure modes and recovery
The first failure mode is building before deciding. It feels productive because dust is being made and the shape is appearing. The cost arrives later, when a mounting edge moves, a rule problem appears, or the pattern is almost finished before anyone checks symmetry. The recovery is to stop and write the missing plan. Do not keep adding filler to a decision problem.
The second failure mode is material-first thinking. A builder decides the part will be carbon, aramid, glass, or some hybrid before checking the class rules, the load requirement, or the available process. McBeath is explicit that regulations and budget influence composite applications. The recovery is to move material choice back behind function, rule compliance, and process capability. In many club-level jobs, a good GFRP pattern and mould route may be more valuable than a fashionable material choice.
The third failure mode is an unreferenced shape. It may look smooth, but there is no master centreline, no clear datum, and no reliable way to know whether the two sides are related. The professional CAD-machining route highlights the cure: dimensions and symmetry must be controlled. In the home route, that means physical references and repeated checks. The recovery is to re-establish the datum before further fairing. If the surface has to be cut back to find the truth, cut it back.
The fourth failure mode is finish without structure. The pattern is painted and shiny, but the rough build underneath was never stable enough. The shape moves, edges chip, or final rubbing-down exposes weak spots. The Mallock pattern example shows a layered route: MDF, foam block, body filler, paint, and rubbing down. The recovery is to give each layer a job and avoid asking finishing materials to solve base-structure problems.
The fifth failure mode is forgetting the later lay-up. The pattern looks correct, but stiffener positions, fibre directions, or material zones are not referenced. This is especially risky when using directional fabrics or local material choices. The recovery is to add reference marks and drawings before tooling, so the later laminate work remains tied to the design.
The sixth failure mode is copying the professional route instead of the professional discipline. A home fabricator sees epoxy block machining and concludes that accurate pattern making is unavailable without it. McBeath's examples argue against that defeatism. Professional facilities have advantages, but practical wet lay-up and traditional pattern making remain relevant. The recovery is to build a lower-tech plan with higher attention to references, sequence, and inspection.
The seventh failure mode is treating pattern planning as proof. A good plan does not prove the tool and does not guarantee the part. It merely gives the tool a fair chance of being right. The sibling lesson on proving the tool covers the next gate. In this lesson, the standard is different: you are done when the pattern plan is complete enough that pattern work can begin without hidden design decisions.
Worked example: Mallock-style narrow nosecone pattern
The Mallock nosecone example is the clearest traditional pattern route in the bonded material, so use it as your model for a club-level plan. The design change was not cosmetic. The car moved to a narrow nose configuration that accepted front two-element aerofoils, giving more and tunable downforce. That means the first line of the plan is functional: the nose shape exists to package and support an aero concept, not merely to look modern.
From there, the route is practical. The pattern was made from MDF, polyurethane foam block, and body filler. It was painted and rubbed down before the GFRP mould was taken from it. Each material has a planning role. MDF gives you a stable, workable base. Foam block gives you volume without forcing you to build the whole shape from filler. Body filler lets you fair the surface. Paint and rubbing down prepare the pattern surface for mould making.
A sound pattern plan for this nosecone would therefore include the centreline, the key width and height references, the aerofoil acceptance envelope, the rough blank layout, the fairing sequence, and the finish stage. It would also record any local stiffener positions, because the finished nosecone used glass CSM and woven carbon with local stiffeners. That does not mean the pattern plan must become the full laminate manual, but it does mean the tool-making path must not erase the information that later controls the part.
The success criterion is not that the pattern looks like a nosecone from across the shop. It is that the shape, references, and finish are controlled enough that a GFRP mould can be taken from it without last-minute design invention. If the builder is still deciding the aerofoil package while sanding the final surface, the pattern plan has failed. If the centreline, package, rough build, finish route, and stiffener references are all visible before mould making, the plan is doing its job.
Worked example: CAD-to-epoxy-block professional pattern route
The professional route described by McBeath is the same skill with different equipment. Top teams can transfer CAD drawings electronically to computer-controlled multi-axis machining centres, then carve pattern shapes from special epoxy block. The practical advantages are fewer labour-intensive hours and control of dimensions and symmetry so the physical pattern matches the drawings.
For an intermediate builder, the lesson is not that you need a machining centre. The lesson is that the route begins with a controlled digital definition and ends with a controlled physical pattern. The plan lives in the translation. If the CAD model is not settled, machining only makes the wrong thing accurately. If the model has no reference strategy, the machine will still cut a shape, but the shop may not know how to inspect or use it. If downstream lay-up zones or mounting features are not part of the definition, the carved pattern may be dimensionally impressive while still incomplete as a manufacturing object.
When you adapt this lesson to a home workshop, ask what the machine was going to guarantee. It would guarantee symmetry, dimensions, and repeatable translation from drawing to block. Your hand-built plan must replace those guarantees with physical methods: a centreline that survives the work, templates or measured sections, a base reference that does not move, and stop points where the pattern is checked before more finishing hides the error. The CNC route makes the standard visible. The hand route makes you responsible for meeting it deliberately.
Worked example: bodywork that has to mount and come apart
The Lotus Mark 8 material in the bonded corpus is not a composite pattern-making recipe, but it is a useful reminder that body shape is not isolated from installation. The car used fully aerodynamic bodywork supported by sheet alloy bulkheads. Only the front section of the bodywork was removable, while the remainder was riveted to the supporting sheet alloy. The front body mounting also incorporated radiator mountings.
For a pattern plan, the lesson is that surface shape and installation logic must be planned together. If a body panel has to be removable, that fact affects which edges are controlled and which references matter. If a front section carries or clears radiator mounting structure, the pattern cannot be planned only as an exterior skin. If the bodywork is supported by bulkheads, the pattern plan needs to know where those supports are relative to the surface.
This example also marks the boundary of the lesson. You are not designing the full chassis or body mounting system here. You are preventing the pattern from being planned as a free sculpture. A pattern plan for bodywork should state what structure supports the shape, what section must be removable, what fixed references it must meet, and which features cannot be sanded away in pursuit of a smoother surface.
Drill: the one-page pattern plan dry run
Use this drill before your next composite project, even if the project is small. Pick one part shape: a nose section, duct, dashboard panel, spoiler, aerofoil element, or body panel. Set a timer for 60 minutes. Your output is one page, not a finished drawing package. The page must be good enough that another competent fabricator can explain the intended part and rough route without asking you what you meant.
For the first 10 minutes, write the part intent and constraints. Name the part, the car area, the function, the applicable rules or class limits, and the process you realistically have available. For the next 10 minutes, mark the controlled surfaces and secondary surfaces. Decide what must be fair, what must fit, and what is allowed to be merely adequate. For the next 15 minutes, define the reference scheme: centreline, base plane or fixed edge, key widths and heights, mounting or clearance references, and symmetry checks. For the next 15 minutes, write the rough build route using the pattern materials and stages you intend to use, such as stable base, foam volume, filler fairing, paint, and rubbing down. For the final 10 minutes, add stop points and handoff notes, including any local stiffener, fibre direction, or material-zone references that later fabrication must preserve.
The success criterion is simple. Hand the page to another builder or read it aloud as if you were handing it off. They should be able to answer five questions: what the part does, what rules or process limits constrain it, how the shape is referenced, how the rough pattern becomes a finished pattern surface, and what must be checked before a mould is taken. If they cannot answer those five questions from the page, do not start shaping yet. Run the drill again.
Common mistakes
The pretty-surface trap is the mistake of judging the pattern by visual smoothness before judging it by references. A smooth but unreferenced pattern can still be asymmetric, too wide, too narrow, or wrong for the mounting package. Good looks like a surface that is fair and also tied to a centreline, dimensions, and known boundaries.
The carbon-first trap is choosing an impressive material before checking the part function, regulations, and available process. The bonded material warns that permitted materials depend on category and that composite applications are shaped by budget. Good looks like a plan that checks rules and process first, then chooses material and reinforcement strategy in context.
The professional-envy trap is assuming that because top teams use CAD, epoxy block, and multi-axis machining, a home workshop cannot make a disciplined pattern. The professional method offers better automatic control, especially for dimensions and symmetry, but the underlying discipline can be copied with simpler tools. Good looks like a home plan that makes reference control explicit.
The filler-as-design trap is using filler to invent the component rather than to fair an already planned shape. Filler is valuable in the Mallock-style route, but it is not a substitute for part intent, package boundaries, or symmetry checks. Good looks like filler used after the rough geometry is established, not before the design is understood.
The lost-laminate trap is making a pattern that forgets directional reinforcement, local material choices, or stiffener positions. This matters because composite properties can be directional and can vary by location. Good looks like a pattern plan that carries reference axes and zone information forward without trying to replace the full laminate schedule.
The rule-after-tool trap is checking legality after the pattern or mould is already made. McBeath's warning about banned materials is the practical cure. Good looks like a plan that records technical regulation checks before pattern labour begins.
Cross-references to related lessons
Use the sibling lesson on open-mold simplicity versus matched-mold control when the pattern plan has reached the point where the tooling strategy must be chosen. This lesson tells you what shape and references the pattern must control; the mold strategy lesson decides how much tool control the process needs.
Use the release lesson after the pattern and tool route are defined. Release affects whether the layup comes away cleanly, but it should not be used to patch a vague pattern plan or a poor surface-control decision.
Use the tool-proving lesson after the pattern has been turned into a tool. Pattern planning sets the target and makes the tool worth proving. Tool proof then checks whether the actual tool can make the intended part.
Use the lesson on when the tool must be more accurate than your eye when the controlled surfaces are aerodynamic, structural, symmetrical, or repeated. The present lesson helps you identify which surfaces are controlling. The accuracy lesson helps you decide how strict the inspection must be.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | b62835e2-37fe-36d0-af44-3b5152d14917 | 184 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | f661e8c3-2a14-c072-84b0-04eade784530 | 78 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | 629cf934-5b41-0aa0-eb70-cec1d94b0bbb | 171 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design Costin Micael Phipps David | b76a342e-5c16-6bd3-cb79-1b1626ca1ceb | 32 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design Costin Micael Phipps David | 8c4cec2b-f19c-73e2-3d06-47e084bbfa27 | 110 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | 4cd165c8-25b6-009a-f4b5-4fae9a62b8dc | 12 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | a0cc1d08-7515-9bbc-fe01-3d5ebc6719bb | 11 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | 33166f0f-e752-e86b-241d-4a2c998ac3c2 | 176 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 9 | Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh | ca7a3241-be1f-1f6f-b111-5291d7865790 | 96 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 10 | Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design Costin Micael Phipps David | 1d4ff083-706a-e9f3-607f-60c68e359f89 | 4 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 11 | Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design Costin Micael Phipps David | 8b0fe44d-af82-4dfc-b9f5-3dc221adb0df | 38 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 12 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | 7af9252a-4312-e26e-80c8-1dc7b6-15ca052d7b8c | 183 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 13 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | 781f8145-6150-097b-9c36-0cf693583e67 | 202 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 14 | Competition Car Composites Simon McBeath | 2b41f8db-cdd5-e584-d3e8-3cb469eea226 | 198 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |