Protect the air before it reaches the device
Generated from
content/lms/race-aerodynamics/02-shape-the-whole-cars-airflow/03-protect-flow-into-critical-devices.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/race-aerodynamics/02-shape-the-whole-cars-airflow/03-protect-flow-into-critical-devices.md
Course: Engineer downforce you can actually use
Module: Shape the whole car's airflow
Estimated duration: 55 minutes
The skill
Protecting the air before it reaches an aero device means you stop treating the wing, spoiler, diffuser, splitter, cooling inlet, or outlet as a part that works by itself. You treat it as a part that only works with the air the rest of the car delivers to it. The device can be well shaped, correctly built, and mounted at a sensible angle, yet still underperform if the flow arriving at it has already been bent, separated, blocked, or disturbed by the body, the ground, the wheels, another aero part, or another car.
For this lesson, the rule is simple: before you ask a device to make more load, first ask whether the device is being fed usable air. If the feed is poor, more angle, more surface area, or a bigger add-on may only increase drag, increase sensitivity, or move the stall point closer. If the feed is clean enough, the same device can work over a broader range and can usually be tuned with less guesswork.
This is narrower than treating the whole body as one aero system. That broader lesson asks you to see the car as a coupled pressure and flow field. Here, your job is more practical and more immediate. You pick one critical device and map the air it receives before you modify the device itself. You are learning an inspection order and a testing habit: device second, feed first.
Why the feed matters
A wing does not make useful downforce merely because it exists in the air. The McBeath material emphasizes attached flow and separation when discussing wing twist: if the flow across the span remains attached for longer, more downforce can be generated before large-scale separation and stall occur. It also points to the lower surface of the wing as central to downforce production, because the major part of downforce comes from entrainment of air to that lower surface. For your purposes as a driver or club-level developer, that means the air reaching the lower surface and the air leaving the area around the wing both matter.
The same logic applies to diffusers, spoilers, cooling intakes, and outlets, even though each device works in its own way. McBeath groups wings, spoilers, diffusers, cooling intakes, and cooling outlets as crucial areas where seeing what the air is doing can help you understand the car and find places to improve. The practical lesson is that the device is never just the visible component. The device includes the approach flow, the local body shape, nearby wheels, nearby ground, and the exit path if the device passes air through or under the car.
If you skip that step, you are guessing at the wrong end of the problem. Adding rear wing angle when the wing is being fed by poor upstream flow is not the same problem as adding angle to a wing in strong attached flow. Moving a front wing closer to the ground without checking the ground clearance effect and the rotating front wheels is not the same problem as tuning the wing in isolation. Opening a cooling inlet without understanding the air around the inlet and outlet is not the same problem as simply making a hole larger. The part and its air supply are one working unit.
The corpus is also clear about humility. Scibor-Rylski warns that approximate calculations often fail to produce reliable values and cannot substitute for aerodynamic investigation. McBeath closes with the reminder that it is very difficult to generalise on many aspects of competition car aerodynamics, and that what works on one car may not work on another apparently similar car. For this skill, that is not an excuse to do nothing. It is the reason you test the feed path on your own car instead of copying someone else's device setting.
The mechanism in plain paddock language
Think of every aero device as having an inlet condition. The inlet condition is the flow state the device receives before the device gets a chance to do its work. A rear wing receives air that has already passed over the nose, cockpit, roof, engine cover, bodywork, and sometimes other devices. A front wing receives air near the ground and near the front wheels. A diffuser receives air that has already been shaped by the underbody, ride height, ground proximity, and any upstream underfloor details. A cooling outlet works only if the car gives the air a usable path through the inlet, through the heat exchanger space, and out into a region where it can leave.
When that inlet condition is steady enough and attached enough, the device has something to work with. When the inlet condition is already damaged, the device becomes more sensitive. A small setup change can have a bigger-than-expected effect, or no useful effect at all. You may see drag rise without the vertical load you expected. You may feel balance change with speed in a way that is hard to predict. You may find that the car responds on one circuit or in one traffic condition and not on another.
This is why the first diagnostic question is not how much angle the device has. The first question is what air reaches the device. The second is whether the surrounding car shape helps that air stay useful until it reaches the device. The third is whether the device still receives usable air when the car is in the condition that matters: at speed, at the ride height it actually runs, with the wheels rotating, and, if you race, near other cars.
McBeath's text supports that order. It values CFD because it can illuminate the aerodynamic effects involved, and it values full-scale wind tunnel data because it provides practical appreciation of modifications and adjustments. It also says that for the enthusiast aerodynamicist, simply seeing what is happening to the air around the car, especially near wings, spoilers, diffusers, cooling intakes, and outlets, can provide understanding and pointers for improvement. Your track-day version of the same discipline is to make the airflow visible where possible, make one change at a time, and connect the observation to performance evidence.
The five sub-skills
Sub-skill one is naming the protected feed path. Do not start with a vague phrase like the rear aero is weak. Name the device and name the air path. For example: the rear wing is fed by air coming over the cockpit and engine cover; the front wing is fed by air near the nose, ground, and front wheels; the diffuser is fed by underbody flow; the radiator outlet is fed by air that first entered the cooling inlet. This sounds basic, but it prevents a common mistake: tuning the visible device while ignoring the part of the car that sets the device's inlet condition.
Sub-skill two is identifying nearby interference. The Scibor-Rylski material on the front negative-lift wing is directly useful here because it names angle of incidence, ground clearance, spanwise lift distribution, and the flow pattern due to interference between the front wing and rotating front wheels. That is a compact checklist. If the device sits near the ground, ground clearance is not background detail. If the device sits near a wheel, wheel flow is not background detail. If the device spans across the car, the center and the ends may not be receiving the same quality of air. You are not trying to solve every interference mechanism in one pass. You are learning to notice that the device is working inside interference, not outside it.
Sub-skill three is recognizing attachment and separation as tuning limits. McBeath's wing-twist example gives you the operating idea: keeping flow attached longer allows more downforce before large-scale separation and stall. At the intermediate level, you do not need to become a CFD engineer to use that idea. You need to understand that a device setting can look more aggressive while actually becoming less useful if it pushes part of the flow past its attached operating range. Protecting the air is partly about keeping the device from being asked to rescue flow that was already made poor upstream.
Sub-skill four is choosing evidence before opinion. The corpus points to several evidence paths: visualizing air around crucial areas, full-scale wind tunnel testing, CFD, road testing with measuring equipment, performance simulations comparing downforce and drag with lap time, and data logging strategies that help mechanics, engineers, and drivers extract useful information. Your budget may limit which tools you can use, but the habit is the same. You need before-and-after evidence, not paddock confidence.
Sub-skill five is refusing universal recipes. McBeath repeatedly frames aero development as car-specific. Underbody design guidance is necessarily conservative because every new design differs. Later, the conclusion is even more direct: what works on one car may not work on another, and trial and error are essential at every level. Protecting the air before the device is therefore not a fixed setup sheet. It is a method for making your own car less mysterious.
A practical inspection order
Start with the device you care about and write down what you think it does. Rear wing, front negative-lift device, spoiler, diffuser, cooling intake, or outlet are all valid choices. Then write down the air path into it. Keep the wording physical. Air comes from over the nose. Air comes from under the splitter. Air comes from between the wheel and body. Air comes from over the cabin. Air leaves through a cooling outlet into the external flow. If you cannot describe the path, you are not ready to tune the device.
Next, inspect upstream bodywork and nearby devices. You are looking for any feature that changes the flow before your device gets it. On a simple club car, that might be the roofline, windshield, mirrors, fenders, wheel openings, a splitter edge, or the underbody ahead of a diffuser. The chunks you received do not give a universal list of body fixes, and you should not invent one. The point is the method: identify what comes before the device and decide whether that part is part of your experiment.
Then inspect the device's operating envelope. Does the device run near the ground? Does it run near a rotating wheel? Does it run near another device? Is it affected by ride height or ground clearance? The front negative-lift wing example makes this especially clear. A front wing's negative lift coefficient is discussed as a function of incidence and ground clearance, and its flow pattern is shown in relation to rotating front wheels. That means the wing cannot be honestly evaluated by incidence alone. You have to protect or at least account for the local air before you read the result.
After that, choose an observation method. McBeath says there are various ways to see what is happening to the air around the car, and that many can be used on track during testing or even in competition if test time is scarce. If you have access to CFD, a wind tunnel, or pressure and load measurement, use them carefully. If you do not, use legal trackside visualization, photos, video, logged speed and lap segments, driver notes, and repeatable setup records. The lower-cost method is not automatically bad. McBeath's practical advice is that whatever the budget, the prerequisite is using tools carefully and with common sense.
Finally, make a small, documented change. The change may be to the device itself, such as angle or position, or it may be to the feed path before the device. The lesson's priority is that you should know which one you are changing. If you move a rear wing, you are not only changing leverage or height. You may be changing the flow the wing sees. If you change front wing ground clearance, you are not only changing height. You may be changing both incidence effect and ground interaction. If you change a cooling outlet, you are not only changing exit area. You may be changing the local flow near the outlet and the pressure field that encourages or resists air leaving.
Protecting wings and spoilers
For a wing, the protected air is the air that reaches both the upper and lower surfaces, especially the lower surface when the aim is downforce. The chunk on wing downforce makes the lower-surface entrainment point explicit. The chunk on wing twist adds the attachment limit. Together, they give a practical tuning caution: if a wing is starved, disturbed, or pushed into separation, the shape and angle you see from outside are not the whole story.
At the track, this changes how you interpret a wing adjustment. If more angle improves confidence and segment speed in high-speed corners without an excessive straight-line cost, the device may still be operating usefully. If more angle brings drag cost, balance inconsistency, or no segment gain, one possible explanation is that the device or part of its span is no longer being fed or operated cleanly. The corpus does not give a magic threshold for that judgment, so do not create one. Use comparative runs, visual evidence where possible, and common sense.
A spoiler has the same general diagnostic requirement even though it is not a wing. It sits in the body flow and changes what the air does around the body. That means the useful question is still upstream. What is the flow like before it reaches the spoiler? What downstream device or pressure region are you trying to influence? Are you improving the car or just adding a visible part? The sibling lessons on mapping pressure into vertical load and treating the body as one system handle the larger force accounting. This lesson stops at the feed question: is the device being presented with air it can use?
Protecting diffusers and underbody devices
A diffuser is especially easy to misunderstand because the part you notice is at the rear, while the feed it needs starts upstream under the car. McBeath's underbody chapter summary warns that every new design will be different and offers conservative guidelines rather than universal certainty. It also notes that professionals use CFD to model many configurations and wind tunnels to validate solutions. For you, that means diffuser work should be approached as a feed-path problem, not just as a rear shape problem.
The practical question is whether the underbody air reaching the diffuser is being prepared and preserved. The chunks provided do not supply detailed prescriptions for fences, strakes, tunnels, sealing, or ride-height targets, so this lesson will not invent them. It will give you the discipline that applies before any of those details: inspect the underbody path ahead of the diffuser, track the actual running condition, and verify the result on your car. If you change the rear diffuser and ignore what air enters it, you may be tuning the visible end of a system whose beginning is uncontrolled.
Protecting cooling intakes and outlets
Cooling openings are also aero devices. McBeath explicitly includes cooling intakes and outlets among the crucial areas where seeing what the air is doing can help understanding and development. That matters because many drivers think of cooling as a temperature problem first and an airflow problem second. In practice, the air has to reach the intake, pass through the cooling path, and leave through an outlet that is not fighting the surrounding flow.
The lesson here is not to make every opening bigger. The corpus does not support a blanket rule like that, and it would be poor engineering. The lesson is to treat the intake and outlet as a pair of airflow devices. If temperatures are poor or drag seems high after a cooling change, inspect both sides of the path. The inlet may not be receiving the air you think it is receiving, or the outlet may not be allowing the air to leave cleanly. You protect the air before the intake, and you protect the exit condition after the heat exchanger path.
Protecting devices in racing traffic
McBeath includes the blunt reminder that aerodynamic interactions are a fact of life when cars are racing. That one sentence should change how you think about device feed in traffic. A device that works cleanly in open air may receive different air when you are close behind another car or alongside one. The corpus chunk does not quantify the effect or tell you exactly how your car will respond, so the right lesson is behavioral and diagnostic, not numeric.
When you test, separate open-air data from traffic data. When you race, expect the car's aero balance to be less repeatable near other cars. When you make a setup decision, do not rely only on one lap tucked behind traffic or one clean lap in isolation. The device feed condition is part of the result. This also keeps you from blaming yourself for every strange high-speed balance change in a pack. Sometimes the driver input was not the only variable. The air delivered to the device changed.
Calibration cues
The first cue is visual: the air near the device becomes less mysterious. McBeath values being able to see what is happening around wings, spoilers, diffusers, cooling intakes, and outlets because it helps understanding and points toward improvements. If your test produces a clearer picture of where flow is attached, where it separates, or which area changes when you adjust a part, you have improved your process even before the lap time appears.
The second cue is consistency. A protected device tends to give you more repeatable behavior across comparable runs. The corpus does not give a driver-feel dictionary for every device, so keep the cue honest: you are looking for repeatable changes that match the direction of the change you made. If a rear wing move makes the car feel different only on one lap with traffic, that is weak evidence. If the same setup produces the same high-speed balance trend over comparable open-air laps, and your speed traces or segment times move with it, that is stronger evidence.
The third cue is the downforce-drag trade. McBeath points to performance simulation comparing downforce and drag values against predicted lap time. The practical lesson is that more downforce is not automatically a faster lap if the drag cost or balance cost is wrong for the circuit. When you protect the feed, you are trying to make the device more efficient and predictable, not merely bigger in effect. A change that adds drag without usable load is not a success just because the part looks more aggressive.
The fourth cue is cross-tool agreement. Scibor-Rylski emphasizes wind tunnels and full-sized vehicles carrying measuring equipment under natural conditions. McBeath uses CFD and wind tunnel data to illustrate and validate modifications, and also allows simpler tools when used carefully. When visual evidence, logged data, driver feel, and lap segments all tell the same story, your confidence rises. When they disagree, the correct response is more careful testing, not a louder opinion.
Failure modes
The first failure mode is tuning angle before feed. You add wing angle, move a device, or change incidence because you want more load, but you never checked what air reached the device. If the flow is already near separation or badly disturbed, the change may give you drag, sensitivity, or confusion instead of useful load. The recovery is to step back, return to a known baseline if needed, and inspect the approach flow.
The second failure mode is ignoring nearby wheels and ground. The front negative-lift wing chunk is the warning label. It ties front wing behavior to incidence, ground clearance, and interference with rotating front wheels. If you tune a front device without accounting for those conditions, you may misread the result. The recovery is to treat ground clearance and wheel proximity as part of the device test, not as unrelated packaging details.
The third failure mode is copying another car. McBeath's conclusion says that what works on one car may not work on another apparently similar car. The recovery is to use other cars for hypotheses, not answers. If another driver found speed with a device move, your next step is not blind copying. Your next step is asking what feed condition changed on that car and whether your car shares it.
The fourth failure mode is trusting rough calculation alone. Scibor-Rylski warns that approximate calculations often fail to produce reliable values and cannot replace aerodynamic investigation. The recovery is to move from paper confidence to measured or observed evidence as soon as practical. This does not mean every club racer needs a wind tunnel. It means the test method must expose the real car to real airflow conditions.
The fifth failure mode is declaring victory from a single data point. Aero changes are sensitive to conditions, and racing interactions can alter the air around the car. If one lap is faster after a device change, ask what else changed: traffic, line, tire state, wind, driver confidence, or speed at the start of the segment. Use the tools carefully and with common sense, as McBeath advises. The recovery is repeatability.
What good looks like
Good work starts with a written baseline. You know which device you are evaluating, what air feeds it, what upstream features may disturb it, and what evidence you will collect. You make one meaningful change, not three. You compare like with like. You accept that a slower result is still useful information if it tells you that the device did not like the feed condition or the new position.
Good work also respects scope. This lesson does not ask you to solve the entire pressure map, design a new underbody, or perform a full aero balance study. It asks you to protect the air before it reaches the device. When you can do that reliably, the sibling lessons become more useful. Pressure mapping tells you what load the car is making. Whole-body aero thinking tells you how the rest of the shape participates. Wheel and ground interference tells you why front devices can be so sensitive. Lateral stability lessons tell you what happens when the aero result changes with yaw or traffic. This lesson gives you the first gate: feed quality before device tuning.
The takeaway
Your aero device does not live in free air. It lives in the air your car has already shaped. Protect that air before asking the device for more. See the flow where you can. Use CFD, wind tunnel work, data logging, road or track testing, and visual methods at the level available to you. Change one thing at a time. Expect the result to be car-specific. When the test says the idea did not work, do not force the conclusion. That is not failure. That is the normal path of aerodynamic development.
Worked example: Team Lotus style front negative-lift wing near the rotating front wheels
The Scibor-Rylski front wing material gives you a useful worked situation because it does not show the front negative-lift wing as an isolated part. It places the wing in the body shape, shows spanwise lift distribution, relates negative lift coefficient to angle of incidence and ground clearance, and calls out the flow pattern caused by interference between the front wing and the rotating front wheels.
Use that as your mental model for a front device on your own car. Suppose you want more front load and your first instinct is to add incidence. Before you do, protect the feed. Ask what air reaches the wing at its current ride height, how close the wing is to the ground, and how the front wheels disturb the flow near the ends of the span. If you only change angle, then interpret the result as a pure angle test, you have simplified the problem too far. The actual test includes angle, ground clearance, wheel interference, and the body integration ahead of and around the wing.
A disciplined test would hold the rest of the car steady, document the current setting, then make one change that you can reverse. If the change improves high-speed front confidence and segment speed without a drag cost that hurts the lap, you have evidence worth keeping. If it makes the car inconsistent, slows the car, or produces a balance that changes too much with ride condition or traffic, do not assume the wing needs still more angle. The device may be telling you that the feed path is the limiting problem. The next investigation is not bigger adjustment. It is cleaner understanding of the local air.
Worked example: ADR rear wing position as a feed experiment
The McBeath chunk that captions the ADR rear wing in its stock position and about to be moved is short, but it points to an important testing habit. Moving a rear wing is not only a geometric change. It can also be a feed-path change. The wing may see different air after the move, and that new air may be better, worse, or simply different from the stock position.
If you use this example on a club car, begin by treating the stock position as a real baseline, not as something to dismiss. Photograph the installation, record the angle and position you can measure, and note the car's high-speed balance and straight-line cost in comparable conditions. Then inspect what air reaches the wing. On many cars, the rear wing is downstream of major bodywork, so the flow reaching it has already been shaped by the rest of the car. The bonded corpus does not provide a universal rule for where that wing should sit, so do not invent one. The correct move is to test the position as a local airflow experiment.
After the move, compare the same kind of evidence: visual flow clues if available, driver feel in comparable high-speed corners, logged speed or segment data, and any drag indication you can infer from straight-line performance. If the car improves, you have learned something about that car. If it slows down, McBeath's closing advice applies: try something else. The point is not that moving the ADR wing, or any wing, is always good. The point is that wing position changes the air the wing receives, and that feed condition must be part of the judgment.
Worked example: racing close to another car
McBeath's MIRA note that aerodynamic interactions are a fact of life when cars are racing is enough to shape a practical lesson. In open testing, your device receives the air your own car creates. In traffic, your car may receive air that has already been disturbed by another car. That does not mean every close-following moment is identical, and the bonded chunks do not quantify the effect. It means your evidence must separate clean-air behavior from traffic behavior.
At your next race weekend, do not use a traffic lap as your only proof that a device change worked or failed. If you added rear wing angle and then ran three laps close behind another car, the device feed was different from a clean-air lap. If the car felt less stable, that may involve driver input, tires, wind, or the altered air around the car. The responsible response is to collect a clean comparison where possible and keep notes that label traffic conditions clearly.
This example also affects driving judgment. If a high-speed aero balance change appears only when you are tucked in with another car, give yourself room in the conclusion. You still drive the car you have, but you do not overfit the setup based on one interaction. Protecting the air before it reaches the device includes recognizing when you cannot protect it because the race situation has changed it for you.
Common mistakes
Mistake one is the more angle reflex. You want more downforce, so you immediately increase incidence or add a more aggressive setting. Good looks different: you first ask whether the device is still receiving attached, usable air and whether the previous setting was already near a separation or stall limit.
Mistake two is treating ground clearance as a packaging number. The front negative-lift wing material ties ground clearance directly to the wing's behavior, so it belongs in the aero test. Good looks like recording the real running condition and interpreting the device in that condition.
Mistake three is ignoring rotating wheels. The front wing example specifically includes interference between the front wing and rotating front wheels. Good looks like considering wheel proximity and spanwise variation before you judge the wing as a clean two-dimensional surface.
Mistake four is copying a similar car. McBeath warns that even apparently similar cars may not respond the same way. Good looks like using another car's solution as a hypothesis and then testing your own feed path.
Mistake five is believing one tool too much. CFD imagery, wind tunnel work, visual testing, data logging, and driver feel each have value, but McBeath's advice is to use tools carefully and with common sense. Good looks like several forms of evidence pointing the same way.
Mistake six is ignoring the outlet side of cooling. If the topic is a cooling intake or outlet, the path through the car matters. Good looks like treating both intake and outlet as airflow devices and checking whether air can arrive and leave in a useful way.
Drill: the three-run device-feed audit
Use this drill at your next test day or HPDE session when rules and safety conditions allow. Pick one device only: rear wing, front device, diffuser area, cooling inlet, or cooling outlet. The drill is three comparable runs or sessions, ideally with similar fuel, tires, traffic, and weather.
Run one is the baseline. Do not change the device. Record the current setting, photograph the area, and write a plain-language feed path. Note where the air comes from before it reaches the device and what nearby features may disturb it. During the run, focus on repeatable driver inputs and collect whatever evidence you normally have: segment times, speed traces, temperatures, video, or driver notes.
Run two is the observation run. Use a legal and safe flow-observation method if available, or use video, photos, and careful notes if not. The success criterion is not speed. The success criterion is that you can say something more specific about the air near the device than you could before the run. For example, you may learn that the area you expected to feed the device cleanly is actually the area most affected by a wheel, body edge, or previous device.
Run three is the single-change run. Make one reversible change. It may be a device setting change or a feed-path change, but record which one it is. Repeat the same driving standard and compare the same evidence. The success criterion is a defensible conclusion, not a faster lap at any cost. A good conclusion sounds like this: with this one change, in comparable clean-air laps, the car gained or lost in this segment and the supporting evidence agreed or did not agree. If the evidence is mixed, your result is mixed. That honesty is the point of the drill.
When this principle breaks down
The principle does not break down because device feed stops mattering. It breaks down when you try to turn it into a universal recipe. The bonded corpus repeatedly warns against over-generalizing. Underbody designs differ, apparently similar cars can respond differently, and trial and error remains part of development at every level.
It also breaks down when your evidence is too weak. A single lap, a single traffic condition, or a single visual impression may not be enough. Approximate calculation alone is not enough when the question depends on the real car in real airflow. The right response is not to abandon the principle. It is to reduce the claim. Say only what the evidence supports, then test again.
Finally, it breaks down when the task is really a broader aero-balance task. If the car's entire pressure map or lateral stability behavior is changing, you should cross-reference the sibling lessons on whole-body aero, pressure-to-load mapping, wheel and ground interference, and lateral stability. This lesson gives you the device-feed discipline. It does not replace the larger car-level analysis.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 576d96a1-00b7-66dd-f5b1-e33666cc457f | 334 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | c7d0125c-8080-dbcc-df83-3b96d0b84bab | 477 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Road vehicle aerodynamics Scibor-Rylski A. J Sykes D. M | 0f26b44f-d090-5a5e-665d-fdc505cf695d | 120 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 43f9ecd8-7336-a0ec-07a9-5149279141e4 | 43 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 9f0edfc1-9e8c-3a96-a48d-b0d658513db3 | 385 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 61068e74-0999-1e25-03bd-8c545f352d25 | 26 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Road vehicle aerodynamics Scibor-Rylski A. J Sykes D. M | 2df1fb50-364b-8bec-c9c1-07732219a85b | 24 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 9e3001fd-e626-5565-9b11-bc3cab151d27 | 281 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 9 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | d788f877-dfdc-2c41-96e0-e6a0de38e907 | 412 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 10 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 78757d4c-5981-472c-7a07-7b79b28d7bc4 | 218 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 11 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | cd94958f-1042-ceff-8d99-06fa06ac633b | 504 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 12 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 6edca499-2988-7702-ccc8-3d17b516edff | 385 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 13 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 09774fa8-5f4f-bd8e-8c79-d57ffe9e2cf2 | 9 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |