Use ground clearance as a testable aero setting
Generated from
content/lms/race-aerodynamics/03-make-wings-and-devices-earn-their-drag/02-use-ground-clearance-as-part-of-the-setting.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/race-aerodynamics/03-make-wings-and-devices-earn-their-drag/02-use-ground-clearance-as-part-of-the-setting.md
Course: Engineer downforce you can actually use
Module: Make wings and devices earn their drag
Estimated duration: 45 minutes
The principle: ground clearance is not just clearance
Ground clearance is part of the aerodynamic setting of the car. You do not treat it as a number that simply keeps the floor off the road. You treat it as one of the conditions that lets the underbody, splitters, spoilers, diffusers, wheels, wings, and cooling openings do their work.
The reason is simple enough to understand, but not simple enough to shortcut. The air around the lower parts of the car is not acting in isolation. The floor height, the devices near the ground, the suspension stiffness used to hold the platform, the legal minimum clearance, and the mechanical grip available in slower corners all belong to the same problem. When ground-effect cars could use skirts and very low running heights, downforce levels were high enough that a consistent aerodynamic platform became a major goal. When skirts were banned and minimum ground clearance was specified, downforce levels dropped for a time, and teams looked for ways to win back the loss. That history is useful because it tells you the ground matters. It also warns you not to make the lazy conclusion that lower is always better.
For you as an intermediate driver, the useful rule is this: set ground clearance by evidence, not by fashion. A lower car may help a near-ground device. It may also require a platform that is so stiff that low-speed mechanical grip gets worse. A setting that helps one car may not help another apparently similar car. The only honest way to know is to control the variables, run the test, listen to the car, and look at the data.
This lesson stays narrow. It is not a full underbody-design lesson, and it is not the same lesson as wing incidence, stall, or front-to-rear aero balance. The skill here is learning how to use ground clearance as a deliberate aero variable: how to think about it, how to test it, how to feel when the setting is helping, and how to avoid fooling yourself.
The mechanism you need, without pretending there is a universal map
Ground clearance changes the environment in which the lower aero devices operate. The underbody, splitters, and diffusers are especially sensitive areas because they work close to the road surface. McBeath is careful about this subject: every new underbody design is different, and broad generalizations are risky. Professional teams can use computational fluid dynamics and wind tunnels to explore many configurations and then validate what they have found. Most club racers and track-day drivers do not have that luxury, so your method has to be conservative, disciplined, and based on track evidence.
That does not mean you are helpless. You can still learn a lot on track. You can record lap times, sector times, higher-speed corner entry speeds, apex speeds, exit speeds, and straight-line speeds. You can combine those numbers with driver feedback on aerodynamic handling balance. You can also use visual methods to understand what the air is doing around important areas of the car, especially wings, spoilers, diffusers, cooling intakes, and outlets. The exact tool matters less than the discipline behind it: use the tool carefully, compare like with like, and do not let one exciting lap override a repeatable pattern.
The mechanism also has a mechanical side. A consistent aero platform can be valuable, but the way you hold that platform matters. Very stiffly sprung cars may preserve aero attitude, yet the driver and the low-speed mechanical grip can suffer. That tradeoff is central to this lesson. Ground clearance is not faster because it is low. It is faster only if the total car is faster: the aero gain has to be large enough, repeatable enough, and useful enough to survive the mechanical cost.
That is why the best question is not, how low can I run it? The better question is, what ground clearance lets this car produce the best measured result over the parts of the lap where aero matters, without giving away too much where mechanical grip matters?
What you are actually setting
In the paddock, ground clearance can look like a static number. On track, it behaves like part of a moving system. You have the clearance you measure in the garage or in impound. You have the clearance the car effectively carries at speed. You have the suspension stiffness and setup choices that try to keep the aerodynamic platform consistent. You have the rulebook, which may specify a minimum. You have the driver, who has to live with the ride, grip, and balance that result.
Keep those pieces separate in your mind. The legal measured clearance answers whether the car is allowed to run. The on-track platform answers whether the aero parts are being used in the intended condition. The mechanical result answers whether the driver can still use the tires, especially in slower parts of the lap. The test result answers whether the package is actually quicker.
Do not let one of those answers masquerade as all of them. A car can pass a static clearance check and still be a poor aero test because the setup changes too many other variables. A car can feel sharper in one fast corner and still be slower over the lap. A car can gain high-speed corner speed and lose enough low-speed grip that the lap does not improve. A car can look more serious sitting low in the paddock and still be aerodynamically worse on track. Your job is to separate those outcomes.
The first boundary: legality and practical safety
Before you treat ground clearance as a setting, make sure you are allowed to change it. Some categories specify minimum ground clearance. Some road-car jurisdictions treat vehicle modifications as regulated. You do not solve an aero problem by creating a legality problem.
The historical examples matter here. When minimum ground clearance rules appeared, some teams tried devices that let the car run down on the deck on track and then return to legal height on the way back to the pits. That belongs in the lesson as a warning, not as a technique. Your operating standard is simpler: the setting you test should be a setting you can defend under the rules that govern your car, your event, and your inspection process.
The same restraint applies to the physical condition of the car. The bonded corpus supports testing configuration changes, not reckless experimentation. You need a mechanically sound baseline, a change that your crew can make repeatably, and enough discipline to avoid combining the ground-clearance change with other changes that hide the result.
The second boundary: a mechanically optimized baseline
McBeath describes aerodynamic configuration testing as most useful when the race car already has an optimized mechanical setup. That is not a throwaway line. If the car is wandering around on tires, alignment, braking, or basic balance, you will not know whether the ground-clearance change helped aero performance or merely interacted with an unresolved mechanical problem.
For a driver, this means you should not demand aero answers from a messy car. If the brake balance is changing every run, the tires are outside their useful window, the driver is inconsistent, or the car has a known suspension issue, a ground-clearance test will mostly create noise. Fix the obvious mechanical baseline first. Then test the aero variable.
This is especially important because ground clearance can push on mechanical grip. If you stiffen the car to preserve platform, and the car becomes worse at low speed, the driver may describe that as an aero change even though the cost is mechanical. Your notes must separate those two things. High-speed balance, high-speed confidence, and high-speed corner speed tell one story. Low-speed rotation, traction, and the ability to put power down tell another. You need both stories before you decide.
Technique: run a ground-clearance test like an aero test
A useful ground-clearance test has four habits: isolate the change, gather the right evidence, return to baseline, and average the result.
First, isolate the change. If you change ground clearance, do not also change wing incidence, tire pressure strategy, damper settings, alignment, or driver procedure unless the test plan explicitly accounts for it. The Carroll Smith style comparison described by McBeath is valuable because only the wing configuration changed during the test. Apply that same discipline here. If ground clearance is the question, ground clearance is the change.
Second, gather the right evidence. Lap time matters, but it is too blunt by itself. Sector time is better. Higher-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds are better still when the corner is fast enough for aero load to matter. McBeath gives a practical threshold of roughly above 60 mph or 100 km/h, while noting that the exact threshold depends on downforce level. Straight-line speed also matters because aero changes can affect the car in more than one part of the lap. Driver feedback matters because the data should be paired with what the car did in the driver hands.
Third, return to baseline. Conditions move. Weather changes. Track grip changes. Tires deteriorate. If you test baseline, then lower setting, then stop, you may be comparing a fresh-tire baseline against a later-run condition rather than comparing two ground-clearance settings. A return-to-baseline run is not wasted time. It is how you find out whether the track moved under your feet.
Fourth, average the result. A single lap can lie. The method McBeath cites used five laps per configuration, averaged the times, and discarded abnormally high or low laps. That is a crude but useful statistical habit for club-level work. Your goal is not to crown the prettiest lap. Your goal is to find the setting that repeats.
Sub-skill 1: separate aero-speed evidence from low-speed mechanical evidence
The cleanest evidence for this lesson tends to appear in faster sections. If the ground-clearance setting helps the car aerodynamically, the first clues should show up in higher-speed corner entry speed, apex speed, exit speed, sector time, or confidence in the fast part of the lap. That is why you should mark the track map before the test. Identify the corners or sectors where speeds are high enough for aero load to be relevant. Then identify the slow sections where mechanical grip will dominate.
When you review the run, do not mix those sections into one vague impression. Ask two separate questions. Did the car gain in the high-speed sections where aero changes should show? Did the car lose in the slower sections where a stiffer platform or reduced compliance could hurt mechanical grip? If both are true, you have a tradeoff to evaluate. If the car gains in fast sections and does not lose elsewhere, the setting is promising. If it loses in slow sections and does not clearly gain in fast ones, the lower or different ground-clearance setting has not earned its cost.
This is where an intermediate driver can become much more useful to the team. Instead of saying the car felt better or worse, you can say the car was more stable entering the fast corner, but it gave up traction in the slow exit, or the high-speed sector improved while the slow sector fell away. That kind of feedback matches the data channels the team can actually use.
Sub-skill 2: describe aerodynamic balance, not just grip
Driver feedback on aerodynamic handling balance is part of the supported test method. That means you need to say more than more grip or less grip. The useful question is how the balance changed in the speed range where aero matters.
Did the car ask for less steering in a fast corner? Did the rear feel more secure at turn-in? Did the front feel better at initial placement but the rear become nervous as speed built? Did the car feel unchanged in the fast section but worse in the slow section? Those are the kinds of distinctions that help separate an aero result from a general setup impression.
Be careful with your language. Do not claim the floor is working just because the car felt planted once. Do not claim drag increased just because straight speed was down on one lap. Say what you know. The sector improved. The fast apex speed improved. The straight speed changed. The low-speed balance worsened. Then let repeated evidence decide whether the ground-clearance setting is worth keeping.
Sub-skill 3: respect the one-variable rule
This lesson sits in a module with wing incidence, attachment, front-to-rear balance, and wing positioning. Those are related skills, but they are not the same test. If you change wing incidence and ground clearance together, you may make the car faster, but you will not know which change produced the result. That is fine for a last-minute race-weekend scramble if you accept the uncertainty. It is not fine for learning.
The one-variable rule is especially important with ground clearance because the change can influence several sensations at once. It may alter the aero environment near the floor. It may require a different platform stiffness. It may change how comfortable the driver is over the lap. If you also move a wing or change incidence, the interpretation becomes cloudy.
A disciplined test does not forbid later combined tuning. It simply says you first learn what each setting does. Once you know the direction and size of the ground-clearance effect, you can decide whether it should be combined with an incidence change, a balance change, or a device-location change in a later test.
Sub-skill 4: use visual evidence as a learning aid, not a decoration
McBeath emphasizes that being able to see what is happening to the air around a competition car can greatly improve understanding, especially around wings, spoilers, diffusers, cooling intakes, and outlets. For this lesson, the important point is not that you must own professional tools. The important point is that visual evidence can keep you from guessing.
If you have access to practical trackside visualization methods, use them to support the ground-clearance test. Look near the areas that are supposed to benefit from the setting: the underbody exit, diffuser area, splitters, spoilers, and nearby openings. You are not trying to produce a professional aerodynamic map. You are trying to find clues that match or contradict the data and the driver report.
A useful visual clue does not replace the lap and sector evidence. It adds context. If the driver reports a high-speed balance change and the data shows a repeatable high-speed sector change, visual evidence around the relevant device may help explain why. If the visual evidence is confusing or inconsistent, do not overread it. Treat it as one more piece of the test.
Sub-skill 5: know when not to generalize
A major lesson from the corpus is humility. McBeath is explicit that it is difficult to generalize in competition-car aerodynamics, and that what works on one car may not work on another apparently similar car. That matters more for ground clearance than for many settings because the lower body, underbody, and near-wheel flow are strongly tied to the specific car.
Do not copy a ride-height number from a faster car and call it science. Do not assume a setting from a single-seater applies to a production-based track car. Do not assume a permitted-tunnel car and a flat-floor car want the same platform. Do not assume a car with a different splitter, diffuser, wheel opening, or cooling layout will respond the same way. Borrow questions from other cars, not answers.
The repeatable professional habit is trial and error with controls. You make one change, record the result, return to baseline when needed, and keep what the evidence supports. That is slower than copying a number. It is also how you avoid building a setup around someone else car.
Calibration cues: what improvement looks like
A good ground-clearance setting leaves evidence in more than one place. The most useful pattern is repeatable improvement in the high-speed sectors or higher-speed corners, supported by driver feedback that the balance in those sections is better or more usable, without a larger loss in low-speed mechanical grip or straight-line performance.
That does not mean every number improves. Aerodynamic tuning is often a tradeoff. A setting may help one sector and hurt another. The point is to know which part of the lap changed and why you are accepting it. If a circuit has several fast sections and few slow traction zones, you might accept a small low-speed cost. If the event is dominated by slower corners, you may reject a setting that only helps one fast moment. The corpus does not give a universal answer, and you should not invent one. The decision belongs to your car, your track, and your measured result.
The driver cue should also be specific. A useful cue is not simply that the car felt racey. A useful cue is that the car was calmer in the fast entry, carried more speed at the fast apex, or let you commit earlier in a high-speed section. A warning cue is that the car became harsh, nervous, or less usable in the low-speed sections after the platform was made more rigid. The lap time alone may hide this. The sector and corner-speed data will make it visible.
A trustworthy improvement survives the baseline return. If the new setting looks faster, then the old setting looks slower again when you return to it, the evidence is stronger. If the baseline return is also faster, the track or tire condition may have changed. In that case, you have learned that the test environment moved, not that the ground-clearance change was magic.
Worked example: a permitted-tunnel single-seater after minimum ground-clearance rules
Imagine a single-seater category that still permits underbody tunnels but specifies minimum ground clearance. The history in the corpus says that when skirts were banned and minimum clearance was specified, downforce dropped for a time, and teams tried to recover the loss. Some ideas were not sensible or legal in spirit, such as driver-controlled ride-height devices that let the car run low on track and then return to legal height for the pits. Other ideas were more subtle, including splitters ahead of the rear wheels that exploited the high static pressure ahead of the wheels and acted like horizontal skirts.
Your lesson from that situation is not to imitate the old devices. Your lesson is to see the setting problem clearly. The ground clearance is part of the underbody package, and legality is part of the setting. If you lower the car within the allowed range, you may help the near-ground aero pieces. But if the car needs a very stiff platform to keep that condition, the driver may lose mechanical grip in slower sections. You cannot settle the argument in the paddock.
A disciplined test would run the legal baseline for five laps, change only the ground-clearance condition, run five laps, then return to baseline. You would look at the faster sections first. Did entry, apex, or exit speed improve in the high-speed corners? Did straight-line speed change? Did the driver report a cleaner aero balance or just a harsher car? Then you would look at the slower sections. Did traction or rotation suffer? The winning setting is the one that improves the useful parts of the lap enough to pay for its costs.
Worked example: the club racer with no wind tunnel
Now imagine the more common Tracky case: an amateur racer or serious HPDE driver with a splitter, underbody work, or diffuser, but no wind tunnel and no professional aero department. The corpus is built for this world. It says club racers can still use practical tools, track testing, data logging, visual evidence, and common sense to improve their understanding.
The mistake would be to lower the car because the lower photo looks faster, run one session, and keep the setting because the best lap improved. That best lap may have come from driver familiarity, track evolution, tire condition, or a draft. The better method is an A-B-A test. Baseline, changed clearance, baseline again. Five laps each if the event format allows. Record lap time, sector time, fast-corner speeds, straight speed, and driver feedback.
If the changed clearance improves the fast sector but the baseline return also improves, be cautious. The track may be getting better. If the changed clearance improves the fast sector and the baseline return gives the speed back, the result is more believable. If the changed clearance improves the fast sector but hurts every slow exit, you have a decision, not a slogan. If the changed clearance only improves the best lap and not the average, do not build the setup around it yet.
This example is the core of the skill. You do not need Formula 1 tools to learn. You need a controlled change, enough data to see the pattern, and the humility to return to baseline.
Worked example: separating ground clearance from wing incidence
Suppose the car is understeering in faster corners, and someone wants to fix it by lowering the front and adding wing incidence in the same session. Both changes might be plausible in a broad sense, but doing them together destroys the lesson. If the car improves, you will not know whether the ground-clearance change helped, the incidence change helped, or the combination merely moved balance in a way that masks a cost elsewhere.
The better plan is to choose the question. If the question is ground clearance, hold incidence constant. Run the baseline. Change only the clearance condition. Compare high-speed corner data, straight speed, sector time, and driver balance notes. Then return to baseline. Once you understand that effect, you can move to the sibling lesson on incidence and test that setting with the same discipline.
This is how the module fits together. Wing incidence is not free. Attachment matters before stall. Front aero must not outrun the rear. Wings are system components. Ground clearance belongs in the same system, but it still deserves its own isolated test before you combine it with the rest.
Common mistakes
The first mistake is the deck-scraper reflex. This is the belief that the lower setting is automatically the faster setting. The corpus does not support that shortcut. It supports the idea that ground clearance matters, and that minimum-clearance rules reduced downforce in ground-effect contexts, but it also shows that stiff platforms can hurt drivers and low-speed mechanical grip. Good looks like proving the lower or different setting with sector data, corner-speed data, and feedback.
The second mistake is the legality dodge. The old ride-height device example is a warning: do not build your learning around a setting that only works by stepping around the rulebook. Good looks like testing a configuration that is legal, repeatable, and acceptable under the event rules.
The third mistake is the multi-change fog. Changing ground clearance while also changing wing incidence, tire pressures, or other setup items may produce a faster car, but it does not produce a clear lesson. Good looks like one aerodynamic configuration change at a time, with the rest of the car held as stable as possible.
The fourth mistake is the hero-lap trap. One fast lap can come from many causes. Good looks like multiple laps, averaged results, and abnormal high or low laps treated carefully rather than worshipped.
The fifth mistake is ignoring the baseline return. Weather, track condition, and tire deterioration can shift the comparison. Good looks like returning to the original setting periodically, especially when conditions are changing.
The sixth mistake is treating driver feedback and data as rivals. Driver feedback on aero handling balance is part of the method. Data without feedback may tell you where the lap changed but not how the car behaved. Feedback without data may chase impressions. Good looks like pairing both.
The seventh mistake is copying another car. McBeath is blunt that what works on one car may not work on another apparently similar car. Good looks like using other cars to inspire questions, then answering those questions on your own car.
Drill: the A-B-A ground-clearance test
Run this drill at a test day or race practice where you can make one setup change safely and repeatably. The count is three runs. The target is five timed laps per run. The duration is usually one test block or several short sessions, depending on event format. The success criterion is a repeatable pattern in the data and driver notes, not a single best lap.
Before the first run, choose the baseline ground-clearance setting and confirm that the car is legal, safe, and mechanically stable. Mark the high-speed corners or sectors where aero effects are most likely to show. Also mark the slower sections where mechanical grip may be exposed. Decide exactly what will be measured: lap time, sector time, higher-speed corner entry speed, apex speed, exit speed, straight-line speed, and driver balance notes.
Run A, the baseline. Drive five laps at a repeatable pace. Do not chase a heroic lap. After the run, write down the balance in the high-speed sections and the low-speed sections separately. Save the data.
Make the ground-clearance change. Do not change incidence, tires, alignment, or another setup item at the same time. Run B for five laps. Use the same driving targets. Again, write notes immediately after the run. You are looking for the effect of the setting, not for proof that your idea was right.
Return to A, the original baseline. Run another five laps. This is the part many amateurs skip, and it is the part that protects you from track evolution, weather changes, and tire deterioration. If A no longer behaves like A, the test condition changed. If A returns to its earlier pattern, the B result becomes more believable.
Review the averages, discard laps that are clearly abnormal, and compare the marked sections. The changed setting passes the drill only if the useful gains repeat and the costs are understood. If the result is mixed, write the mixed result. That is not failure. That is the information you need for the next test.
How to decide after the drill
After the A-B-A test, do not ask which setting felt more exciting. Ask which setting made the car faster in the sections where it was supposed to help, and whether the total cost was acceptable.
Keep the new setting if the high-speed evidence improves, the driver feedback matches the improvement, the baseline return supports the comparison, and the slow-section or straight-speed cost is acceptable for the event. Reject it if the improvement is only a best-lap artifact, if the baseline return invalidates the comparison, if the car becomes less usable in low-speed sections without a matching high-speed gain, or if the setting creates a legality or repeatability problem.
If the result is close, repeat the test later rather than forcing a conclusion. Trial and error is not a weakness in this area. It is part of aerodynamic development at every level that does not have perfect predictive tools.
When this principle breaks down
This lesson does not give numeric ride-height targets, diffuser throat heights, rake maps, or universal minimums. The bonded corpus does not support that level of prescription, and the subject itself resists it. Underbody designs differ. Cars differ. Rules differ. Tracks differ. The correct ground-clearance setting is therefore not a number copied from a book. It is a tested condition on your car.
The principle also breaks down when the car is not ready for the test. If the mechanical setup is not stable, if the driver cannot repeat laps, if the team cannot make the change accurately, or if the event format prevents a baseline return, you can still gather impressions, but you should not treat them as a finished conclusion.
Finally, the principle breaks down when you use ground clearance to avoid learning the rest of the aero system. A lower or different platform cannot rescue stalled flow, a poorly matched front-to-rear balance, or a wing setting that costs more than it earns. Ground clearance is one part of making devices earn their drag. Treat it as part of the setting, then test it with the same discipline you use for every other aero change.
The takeaway
Use ground clearance as a setting, not as a pose. Start from a legal and mechanically sound baseline. Change one thing. Measure the parts of the lap where aero should matter. Protect the comparison with a return to baseline. Pair driver feedback with data. Accept that what works on one car may not work on another. The right ground clearance is the one your car proves on track, not the one that looks fastest in the paddock.
Worked example: a permitted-tunnel single-seater after minimum ground-clearance rules
A permitted-tunnel single-seater shows why ground clearance cannot be reduced to a lower-is-better slogan. The corpus describes how minimum ground-clearance rules reduced downforce for a time after skirts were banned, and how teams tried to recover the loss with devices near the wheels and with ride-height ideas. The useful lesson is not to copy those devices. The useful lesson is to test the legal ground-clearance condition as part of the underbody package. Run the baseline, change only the clearance condition, run the comparison, and return to baseline. Judge the result by high-speed corner speeds, sector times, straight speed, and driver feedback, while watching for low-speed mechanical-grip loss from a platform that has become too stiff.
Worked example: the club racer with no wind tunnel
A club racer with a splitter, diffuser, or other lower-body work can still learn without professional tools. The supported method is to use disciplined track testing. Run five laps in the baseline condition, five laps with the changed ground-clearance condition, and five laps after returning to baseline. Record lap times, sector times, higher-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds, straight-line speeds, and driver feedback on aerodynamic balance. The changed setting is credible only if the pattern repeats and the baseline return makes sense. One best lap is not enough.
Worked example: separating ground clearance from wing incidence
If the car needs an aero balance change, it is tempting to change ground clearance and wing incidence together. That may make the car faster, but it will not teach you which change worked. For this lesson, hold incidence constant and test only the ground-clearance condition. Once you understand that effect, move to the related incidence lesson and test that variable with the same one-change discipline. This keeps the aero system understandable instead of turning the setup sheet into noise.
Common mistakes
The common mistakes are predictable. The deck-scraper reflex assumes lower is automatically faster, but the corpus supports a tradeoff between platform control and low-speed mechanical grip. The legality dodge treats minimum ground clearance as an obstacle to evade rather than a rule to respect. The multi-change fog combines ride height, wing incidence, tires, and other changes so the result cannot be interpreted. The hero-lap trap trusts one quick lap instead of averages and repeatability. The missing-baseline error ignores weather, track, and tire changes. The copy-paste setup error assumes another car answer applies to your car. Good work looks like a legal, isolated, repeatable test with data and driver feedback pointing in the same direction.
Drill: A-B-A ground-clearance test
Run three test blocks if the event format allows it. Block A is the legal baseline for five timed laps. Block B is the changed ground-clearance condition for five timed laps, with no other setup changes. Block A again returns to the original setting for five timed laps. Before the drill, mark the higher-speed corners and sectors where aero should matter and the slower sections where mechanical grip may be exposed. The success criterion is a repeatable pattern after abnormal laps are discarded: the changed setting must show where it helps, where it hurts, and whether the baseline return supports the comparison.
Calibration cues
Improvement should show up as repeatable high-speed sector or corner-speed gains, supported by driver feedback that the aero balance is more usable. A warning sign is a setup that feels harsher or less usable in low-speed sections without a matching high-speed gain. Another warning sign is a result that disappears when you return to baseline, because that suggests the track, tires, or weather changed during the test. The best cue is not a dramatic sensation. It is a consistent pattern across lap data, sector data, speed traces, and driver notes.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 9889fec2-9526-6e32-05ee-24aff01466ab | 257 | 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 | c0cd0f54-6d9c-7f08-e9af-37c31b3421d3 | 345 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 17fd5a9b-5fdf-ead1-ff69-572014594b23 | 477 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 9e3001fd-e626-5565-9b11-bc3cab151d27 | 281 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 2abb3a1a-1abc-3549-8f79-9fce704061d6 | 334 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 6edca499-2988-7702-ccc8-3d17b516edff | 385 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 09774fa8-5f4f-bd8e-8c79-d57ffe9e2cf2 | 9 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 9 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | e673baaf-4493-4e08-e266-d690cebffcc6 | 8 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 10 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 149c4d5c-d228-0358-acc0-8a92ac07ec7c | 50 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 11 | Speed Secrets Professional Race Driving Techniques Ross Bentley | 26bc8e35-76a6-4f72-ea86-df10ba43a636 | 14 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 12 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | cd94958f-1042-ceff-8d99-06fa06ac633b | 504 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |