Map front and rear aero sensitivity at speed
Generated from
content/lms/race-aerodynamics/04-control-the-aero-platform/02-track-front-and-rear-sensitivity.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/race-aerodynamics/04-control-the-aero-platform/02-track-front-and-rear-sensitivity.md
Course: Engineer downforce you can actually use
Module: Control the aero platform
Estimated duration: 65 minutes
Your job in this lesson is not to decide whether the car needs more downforce in the abstract. Your job is to find out how sensitive the car is to front aero changes, how sensitive it is to rear aero changes, and which front and rear combinations keep the car balanced at the speeds where aero is actually working.
That sounds like setup work, but for the driver it is a driving skill. You are the sensor that feels whether the car has gained stability, lost rotation, picked up high-speed entry confidence, or traded too much straight-line speed for corner speed. A basic logger can show lap time, sector time, corner speed, and straight speed, but the driver has to make the run repeatable enough that those numbers mean something. A setup sheet cannot tell you what the car did while braking into a fast corner, rolling through yaw, riding the curb, and accelerating away with pitch and ride height moving the whole time.
The central principle is this: aero balance is not a static number. It changes as speed changes, as the car pitches under braking and acceleration, as ride height changes, as yaw changes in the corner, and as the airflow around the car becomes unsteady. A car that looks balanced in a static measurement, a CFD image, or a tunnel condition may not feel balanced when it goes from straight running to braking, then cornering, then accelerating. That is why you track front and rear sensitivity on the circuit instead of treating a front-wing angle or rear-wing angle as a magic answer.
Front aero sensitivity means the amount and direction of handling change you get when you alter the front aerodynamic contribution. Rear aero sensitivity means the same thing at the rear. You are looking for more than lap time. You want to know whether a rear change creates more high-speed understeer, whether the matching front change brings balance back, whether the added downforce costs straight-line speed, whether the car is faster in the sectors that matter, and whether the combination still works when the baseline is repeated later in the day.
This lesson sits after the lessons on running ride height and the setup sheet at speed for a reason. Do not use this as a substitute for knowing the car's running attitude. If you have not measured the car at speed, you are guessing about the aerodynamic platform. Here, you are learning how to connect that platform to the driver's balance report and the stopwatch.
Principle: balance moves with the car
The first trap is thinking of aero balance as one fixed front percentage or one setup-sheet row. On track, the car is constantly changing its attitude. Pitch changes rake. Ride height changes the relationship between the car and the ground. Yaw changes the way the air sees the body. Mechanical and aerodynamic loads are changing together. The airflow itself is unsteady even before the driver adds brake, steer, throttle, curb, and traffic.
So the useful question is not whether a setting is balanced in the paddock. The useful question is whether the setting is balanced through the important phases of the lap. A rear setting may feel secure in a straight line and then push the front wide in a fast corner because the rear gained more useful load than the front. A front setting may make an understeering car point better at high speed, but you still have to decide whether the rear has enough stability margin. A setup can be quick in one sector and slow on the following straight if the drag cost is too high.
You control this complexity by testing in a disciplined way. You do not try to solve every variable at once. You isolate front and rear changes, run repeatable laps, compare the sections of the circuit where aero matters, and return to the baseline often enough to know whether the car or the day has changed under you.
Aero speed is part of the method. McBeath's track-testing guidance points to higher-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds as useful records, with the note that speeds above roughly 60 mph or 100 km/h are the kind of area where aero effects become more visible, depending on the car's downforce level. That does not mean nothing aero-related happens below that number. It means you should not judge a front or rear aero change primarily by a hairpin where mechanical grip, brake release, line, and differential behavior dominate the driver's impression.
The correct test venue has both low-speed and higher-speed corners if you can get it. The low-speed corner helps you notice whether a problem is mainly mechanical. The higher-speed corner helps you notice whether the aero platform is changing the balance. If the car understeers everywhere, including slow corners, do not blame only the rear wing. If the car is fine in slow corners but pushes more as speed rises, your aero balance table just learned something important.
Technique: test one thing at a time
The discipline is simple and hard: change one aerodynamic configuration at a time, run enough laps to average out noise, record the driver feedback and the data, then return to the baseline often enough to protect the comparison.
A good practical model is the Carroll Smith style wing comparison described in the corpus. Two configurations were compared. Each configuration was run for five laps. Only the wing configuration changed. The lap times were averaged, and abnormal high or low times were discarded. That is not a complete professional statistics program, but it is a sound track-day method because it protects the test from the most common driver error: making a change, running one emotional lap, and declaring a conclusion.
For your own work, set up the run sheet before the session. Each row needs the aerodynamic setting, the lap count, the tire state as best you can observe it, the track condition, the driver's balance notes, lap time average, sector times if available, high-speed corner entry/apex/exit speeds if logged, and straight-line speed. If you have ride-height data, add front and rear running ride-height notes. If you do not, at least make sure the static setup and known adjustments are recorded clearly enough that you can restore the car.
The driver notes must be specific. Do not write better or worse. Write where the balance changed. Examples: fast entry understeer increased, mid-corner balance improved in the high-speed right, car gave up straight speed, car more settled in the fast bend, low-speed corner unchanged, high-speed exit understeer worse. The wording can be plain. The point is to separate the places where aero load should matter from the places where mechanical behavior may be masking the result.
Return to the baseline during the session. Weather and track conditions can move. Tires deteriorate. The driver can learn the corner. Fuel load can change. If you only run baseline at the start and the final configuration at the end, you may be comparing fresh tires and a cooler track to used tires and a hotter track, then giving the wing credit or blame for a change it did not cause. Baseline repeats are not wasted laps. They are how you keep the test honest.
Technique: build balanced rows, not isolated settings
Aero sensitivity is easier to understand if you build a table of balanced front and rear combinations from low downforce to high downforce. The method in the corpus starts by using the rear device, then matching the front.
Begin at a known balanced low-downforce setting. Run it and record the time, sector behavior, straight speed, high-speed corner speeds, and driver notes. This is your first row. Then increase rear wing or rear spoiler setting. Run the car again. The expected driver cue in McBeath's method is that the car will move toward understeer, because the rear has gained relative support and the front is now short of the rear. Do not instantly call that setting bad. The rear change may be useful. It may simply need the front to be brought back into balance.
Next, adjust the front wing or spoiler until the car is balanced again. Run the same disciplined test and record that row. You now have another balanced combination, with more total downforce than the first row. Repeat the process until you reach the maximum rear downforce setting you can practically achieve, each time matching the front enough to restore balance and recording the performance.
This gives you a reference table. It is not just a list of wing angles. It is a map of the car's front-rear sensitivity. It tells you how much front change was needed to match each rear change. It tells you where the extra downforce helped the lap and where it cost speed. It also gives you a practical shortcut later. If you return to the same track in the rain and want the highest practical downforce level, you can choose the rear setting and look up the matching front setting instead of spending scarce practice time searching for balance.
The key is that a balanced table is more useful than a fastest-straight setting. Many drivers get pulled toward the highest top speed because it is easy to notice and easy to brag about. The corpus is blunt that the aero setup with the highest top speed rarely coincides with the best lap time. Your job is to measure the trade. Straight speed matters, but only as part of the lap. If a higher-downforce row gives away a little top speed and gains more in high-speed entries, apexes, and exits, the stopwatch may prefer it. If it gives away straight speed without producing a useful corner gain, the table will show that too.
Sub-skill: separate mechanical balance from aero balance
You cannot perfectly separate mechanical and aerodynamic balance during a normal track session, but you can make the problem less muddy. Use the circuit layout. Low-speed corners are your mechanical-control reference. Higher-speed corners are your aero-sensitivity reference. If a configuration change only changes the car in fast corners while the slow-corner behavior stays similar, that is a strong clue that the aero balance moved. If the car changes everywhere, you may be seeing tire state, driver line, brake release, or another non-aero variable.
This is also why a racecar should have a reasonably optimized mechanical setup before you use track testing to evaluate aerodynamic configurations. If the car is mechanically confused, every aero change will be judged through that confusion. You can still learn something, but the lesson will be expensive and noisy. A car that is already consistent mechanically lets you see what the front and rear aero devices are doing.
When you feel understeer after adding rear aero, ask where it appeared. If it appears mainly in high-speed corners and the slow corners are similar, that fits the rear-first balance method. If it appears under trail braking at low speed, or while trying to put power down from a slow corner, do not over-interpret the wing. The right response may be to pause the aero sweep and fix the repeatability of the driving or the mechanical setup before continuing.
Sub-skill: use ride height as evidence, not as the whole verdict
Ride height is one of your best practical clues because downforce and lift show up as changes in the car's attitude at speed. The road-and-track testing chunk recommends measuring front and rear ride height while evaluating aero changes, and experimenting with front and rear ride heights until lift is reduced or downforce increased. For stability, it notes that you typically want less rear lift than front lift, or more rear downforce than front downforce. That is a stability statement, not a universal demand that every car be rear-biased in every circumstance.
The front-wheel-drive exception in the corpus is important. An understeering front-wheel-drive car can benefit strongly from increased front downforce. The principle is still balance. You are not adding front downforce because front is always good. You are adding it because that car's existing behavior and drivetrain layout may make front support especially valuable. The table should show whether the added front support improves the high-speed corners without taking away too much stability or straight speed.
Ride-height measurement can also help with rear-wing work. The corpus recommends using pitot tube testing to find whether the wing is placed high enough to reach freestream airflow, then optimizing wing angle by measuring rear ride height. That matters because a wing operating in poor air or a stalled condition may not be giving the downforce behavior you think it is giving. Many people run wings in a stalled condition, where they act more like large spoilers. If you only look at the wing angle and never verify airflow, ride height, drag, or tufts, you may be tuning a device that is not operating as intended.
Do not make ride height the only judge. Track balance, sector speed, straight speed, and lap time still matter. A ride-height trace can tell you that the rear is being pushed down more. It cannot, by itself, tell you whether the car is faster around the lap or whether the driver can use the balance in the critical corner. That is why this lesson keeps returning to correlation: ride-height clues, driver feedback, and on-track performance have to agree well enough to support a decision.
Sub-skill: read speed data without being fooled
The easiest numbers to collect are not always the most important. Top speed is clean and tempting. Lap time is emotionally powerful but can hide where the gain or loss came from. Sector time is better. High-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds are better still when the question is aero sensitivity. Straight-line speed is essential because every downforce increase may carry a drag consequence.
A clean aero-sensitivity read asks four questions. First, did high-speed corner speed improve, and in which phase? Entry confidence, apex minimum speed, and exit speed do not mean the same thing. Second, did the straight-line speed drop, and by how much relative to the corner gain? Third, did the lap or segment average improve across a five-lap run, not just one lap? Fourth, did the driver feedback match the data? If the driver says the car has more high-speed understeer and the fast-corner apex speed falls while the straight speed also falls, that row is probably not a winner. If the driver says the car is calmer and the fast-corner speed rises while the lap average improves despite a small straight-speed loss, that row deserves attention.
Discard abnormal high or low laps when computing the average, as in the Smith-style method described by McBeath. The point is not to hide bad data. The point is to avoid letting traffic, a missed shift, a mistake, or one unusually clean lap distort the configuration comparison. You should still write down why a lap was abnormal if you know. A disciplined test is not just numbers. It is numbers with context.
Sub-skill: control the straight-line test attitude
Straight-line testing can help you measure drag and downforce effects without needing a racetrack, provided you have a long, straight, flat, smooth road and the appropriate safety and permissions. Drag is commonly measured by coastdown methods, although total drag includes mechanical resistance as well as aerodynamic drag. Downforce increments can sometimes be detected and quantified if the increments are larger than the repeatability noise, which the corpus treats as being on the order of a few percent.
For front and rear sensitivity, straight-line downforce work becomes useful when you correlate it with track behavior at aero speeds. A straight-line measurement may help you map body-generated downforce options from low to high, but the car still has to be driven through corners to learn whether the balance is useful. The straight road can say that a configuration changed the load. The circuit tells you whether the driver can use it.
The Somerset guidance in the corpus adds a driver-control warning that matters. At 100 mph or 120 mph, minor throttle changes can alter the attitude of the car. If the driver is trying to hold speed with small throttle corrections, the pitch and ride height may be changing during the very measurement that is supposed to evaluate aero load. A fixed engine-speed method can help the driver maintain constant car attitude. The driver lesson is simple: do not contaminate an aero test with throttle wiggles, steering corrections, or inconsistent speed. If the attitude is moving because of your inputs, the aero result is moving too.
Sub-skill: keep the old setup alive
Experimentation is necessary. Copying another car's successful setting may save time, but it will not tell you whether your car, driver, tires, ride height, and circuit want the same answer. The corpus encourages actually trying ideas on the particular car because that is how you find what works and what does not. It also warns not to burn bridges. Most motorsport experiments do not turn into the obvious winning path. You need the humility and recordkeeping to revert.
That is not a philosophical point. It is a practical requirement of front-rear sensitivity work. If you add rear aero, chase front balance, and lose the original settings, you have no anchor. If a later row is worse, you need to go back. If weather changes, you need to return to baseline. If the car is faster at the test venue but worse at a different circuit, you need the earlier low-drag row. The table is useful because it preserves options.
The final output of a good test day is not one setting. It is a family of settings. Minimum downforce balanced row. Medium downforce balanced row. Maximum practical downforce balanced row. Notes on where each was faster or slower. Notes on driver feel. Data on high-speed corners and straight-line speed. A known baseline you can repeat.
Worked example: rear-wing sweep at a two-speed venue
Imagine a racecar with a stable mechanical setup and a venue that has one slow corner and one higher-speed corner. The exact track name does not matter here because the corpus gives the situation rather than a named corner. You start with a low-downforce row that the car already likes. You run five laps. The slow corner is consistent. The fast corner has neutral balance with a small confidence margin. Straight speed is recorded. The driver notes are specific enough to use later.
Now you increase the rear wing or spoiler. On the next run, the slow corner is mostly unchanged, but the fast corner develops understeer from entry to apex. This is the expected cue in the rear-first method: the rear has gained relative support and the front is now short of the rear. You do not reject the rear setting yet. You adjust the front wing or spoiler until the fast-corner balance returns.
Run the matched front setting for five laps. If the high-speed corner speed improves and the lap average improves while straight speed falls only slightly, the new balanced row may be better for this venue. If the high-speed corner does not improve enough to pay for the straight-speed loss, the lower row may be better. If the slow corner changed at the same time, you flag the result as contaminated and look for mechanical, tire, or driving variation before trusting the aero conclusion.
The lesson in this example is that rear sensitivity is not simply good or bad. The rear change exposed the car's need for a matching front change. The table tells you how much front was needed, what it cost, and whether the whole lap improved.
Worked example: the Honda rear-wing and underbody test
The road-and-track testing chunk shows a silver Honda sports car used in aero testing with a prominent rear wing, diffuser area, and visible testing context. The text around it describes several practical checks. Use pitot tube testing to find whether the wing is high enough to be in freestream airflow. Optimize wing angle by measuring rear ride height. Check whether the wing is stalled with tufting or throttle-stop drag testing. For underbody work, the chunk describes longitudinal strakes beside a diffuser that worked when made as deep plywood pieces but were impractically deep; shorter rubber replacements avoided scraping but did not reduce pressures as much. It also describes a box cavity extension that increased rear panel pressures only a little.
For you as the driver, the important point is not the exact Honda part. It is the sensitivity mindset. A device that works in principle still has a practical operating window. Deep strakes may create a stronger pressure effect but fail the real road because they scrape. Shorter parts may survive but produce less effect. A rear wing may be placed or angled in a way that adds drag without the intended downforce. A body extension may move pressure only a little. You should expect aero testing to reveal both useful gains and weak changes.
On track, this means you do not assume that a visible part equals useful rear load. You ask whether rear ride height changes, whether straight speed changes, whether high-speed balance changes, and whether the car's fast sectors improve. If the car gains drag but not usable balance, the device may be operating poorly or simply not producing enough useful change for that setup.
Worked example: straight-line downforce correlation before the circuit
A team maps several body-generated downforce options with straight-line testing. Because the repeatability is only within a few percent, they do not claim victory for tiny changes. They keep the increments that are large enough to see and map a few balanced options from low to high downforce. Then they take those options to the circuit and compare them at aero speeds.
During the straight-line work, the driver has one job: hold the car's attitude steady. If the target speed is near 100 mph or 120 mph, small throttle corrections can pitch the car enough to alter the attitude and pollute the measurement. A method that maintains fixed engine speed can help. If that is not available, the driver needs to be smooth, consistent, and honest about runs that were not steady.
When the car goes to the circuit, the straight-line map is not treated as final truth. It is correlated against high-speed handling. A configuration that measures more downforce but creates the wrong balance in fast corners is not the answer. A configuration that is slightly less impressive in a straight-line number but produces the best high-speed sector and lap average may be the race setup.
Drill: the three-row aero balance map
Use this drill at a test day or practice day where you can make setup changes safely and consistently. The drill has three rows: baseline, rear increase, and matched front. The count is fixed: five laps per row, with abnormal laps discarded from the average only when you can explain the abnormality. The success criterion is not that you find the perfect setup. The success criterion is that you can describe how the car's balance, high-speed corner speeds, straight speed, and lap or sector average changed from row to row, and you can restore the baseline.
Before the session, write down the baseline front and rear settings. Mark the tire set and basic conditions. Choose one higher-speed corner or sector as your primary aero read and one lower-speed corner as your mechanical reference. If you have data logging, decide which speeds and sectors you will compare before you drive. If you do not have logging, commit to very specific driver notes.
Row one is the baseline. Run five laps. Record the lap average, sector behavior, straight speed if available, high-speed corner entry/apex/exit if available, and driver notes. Row two is the rear increase. Add rear wing or spoiler setting and change nothing else. Run five laps. Look for high-speed understeer or stability change, and record the straight-speed cost. Row three is the matched front. Adjust the front wing or spoiler to restore balance. Run five laps. Compare the matched row to the baseline, not just to the rear-only row.
If conditions are changing, run the baseline again before declaring a result. If the repeated baseline no longer matches the first baseline, the day moved. That does not make the drill a failure. It tells you the test needs another anchor before you trust the difference.
A clean completion gives you one useful table row beyond the baseline: a higher-downforce balanced combination, with evidence. A strong completion gives you enough confidence to repeat the process toward a medium and maximum practical downforce table. A failed completion is also useful if it tells you that the chosen corner was too slow, the driver was inconsistent, the tires moved too much, or the change was smaller than the noise.
Common mistakes
The top-speed trophy is the mistake of choosing the setup with the biggest straight-line number. Good looks like judging the complete lap: high-speed corner speed, segment time, lap average, and straight speed together. The setup that wins the straight may not win the lap.
The two-change mystery is the mistake of changing front and rear together, or changing aero and mechanical setup together, then trying to explain the result. Good looks like one configuration change at a time, five-lap runs, and written notes. If you changed two things, you bought a mystery.
The low-speed verdict is the mistake of judging an aero change by the slowest corner on the track. Good looks like using low-speed corners as a mechanical reference and higher-speed corners as the aero read. If the slow corner is unchanged but the fast corner moves, that is useful. If everything moves, slow down the conclusion.
Baseline amnesia is the mistake of running configuration after configuration without returning to the original setup. Good looks like periodic baseline repeats, especially when weather, track condition, tire state, or driver learning may have changed. A baseline repeat is how you tell a real aero change from a moving day.
The stalled-wing assumption is the mistake of believing wing angle alone tells you rear downforce. Good looks like checking airflow placement with pitot tube testing where possible, using rear ride height as a clue, and using tufting or drag testing when the wing may be stalled. A wing can act more like a spoiler than the efficient device you imagined.
The attitude-contaminated straight test is the mistake of holding speed with little throttle changes that pitch the car. Good looks like constant speed, constant gear, and as constant an attitude as you can manage, with fixed engine-speed control if your setup provides it. If your input changed the platform, the data changed with it.
The absolute-number trap is the mistake of treating tunnel or straight-line numbers as universal truth. Good looks like percent improvements from a repeated baseline and correlation back to full-scale track behavior. Tunnel scale factors can vary, and small measured differences can be smaller than the repeatability of the method.
When this principle breaks down
The method breaks down when the test change is too small for the noise. If the expected downforce increment is within the repeatability of your measurement, do not pretend you quantified it. You may still record driver feel, but you should label the result as weak.
It breaks down when the driver cannot repeat the corner. A five-lap average helps, but it does not fix a test where every lap has a different brake point, turn-in, throttle pickup, or traffic situation. The more subtle the aero change, the more disciplined the driving has to be.
It breaks down when the car's mechanical balance is not stable enough to see aero behavior. If the car is inconsistent in slow corners, you may be reading tires, dampers, alignment, brakes, or driver inputs more than aerodynamic balance. Use the low-speed reference corner to catch this.
It breaks down when conditions move faster than the test. Weather, track state, and tire deterioration can change the baseline. That is why the baseline repeat is not optional in a serious test. If you cannot repeat the baseline, do not overstate the conclusion.
It breaks down when you cannot restore old settings. Aero development has blind alleys. A poor idea is survivable if you recorded the old setup and can go back. It becomes expensive when you lose the known-good row.
Cross-references
Use the running ride-height lessons before this one when you do not yet know how the car sits at speed. Use the floor honesty lesson when the underbody may be outside its effective ride-height window. Use the setup-sheet-at-speed lesson when static settings and running behavior disagree. Use the downforce-window lesson when you are tempted to chase more load before defining the range in which the car actually works.
End state
After a good test, you should be able to say three things with evidence. First, when rear aero was increased, the car moved this way in the high-speed corners and cost this much straight speed. Second, this front change restored balance and produced this lap or sector result. Third, the baseline was repeated closely enough that the comparison is believable, or it was not repeated closely enough and the result remains provisional.
That is what tracking front and rear aero sensitivity means. You are not hunting for a single clever setting. You are building a map of how your car responds as the front and rear platform change, and you are doing it with enough discipline that the map can be used the next time you roll into the paddock with limited practice time.
Worked example: rear-wing sweep at a two-speed venue
A useful test venue has a slow corner for mechanical reference and a higher-speed corner for aero response. Start from a balanced low-downforce row, run five laps, then add rear wing or spoiler only. If the fast corner moves toward understeer while the slow corner stays similar, match the front wing or spoiler and run the five-lap comparison again. The useful result is the balanced row, not the rear-only run.
Worked example: Honda rear-wing and underbody sensitivity
The Honda testing example shows why visible aero parts still need proof. Pitot tube testing can show whether a rear wing is in freestream airflow, rear ride height can help optimize wing angle, and tufting or throttle-stop drag testing can reveal a stalled wing. The diffuser-strake and box-cavity examples show that practical fit and measured pressure change matter as much as the idea itself.
Worked example: straight-line downforce correlation
Straight-line testing can map low-to-high downforce options, but only if the driver holds speed and attitude consistently enough that small throttle corrections do not contaminate the platform. Treat straight-line results as candidates. Correlate them with high-speed corner behavior, segment times, lap averages, and straight-line speed before choosing the race setup.
Common mistakes
The major errors are chasing highest top speed, changing two variables at once, judging aero in low-speed corners, forgetting to repeat the baseline, assuming wing angle proves downforce, contaminating straight-line tests with throttle inputs, and trusting absolute numbers instead of repeated baseline percentage changes. Good practice is disciplined comparison, specific driver notes, and correlation between feel, speed, and time.
Drill: three-row aero balance map
Run a baseline row for five laps, a rear-increase row for five laps, and a matched-front row for five laps. Discard abnormal laps only when the reason is clear. Success means you can explain the balance movement, high-speed corner response, straight-speed cost, and average lap or sector result for each row, and you can restore the baseline if conditions move.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 80bde176-e318-b515-e3d5-5de74a7cd507 | 476 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 4adf8cb4-89c7-1b45-bd4d-9bb03634ecf3 | 345 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | da0eb061-4403-af2d-783d-5b7d9ae16326 | 476 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | uio julian edgar car aero testing | 237ab1cc-b3cd-b239-83e4-b9ffcef75fdf | 91 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 7197a5d7-51e7-0910-f8f4-f220a50d7995 | 353 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 2906380a-d6a2-4a39-6854-497422b7105b | 380 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | c87c89fe-58c4-8968-6248-4a307e39f9e2 | 346 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | c0cd0f54-6d9c-7f08-e9af-37c31b3421d3 | 345 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |