Lay out a spaceframe around the load paths
Generated from
content/lms/suspension-and-chassis-design/06-chassis-architecture/01-spaceframe-design.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/suspension-and-chassis-design/06-chassis-architecture/01-spaceframe-design.md
Course: Design suspension geometry that actually wins races
Module: Design the structure that carries it all
Estimated duration: 55 minutes
A spaceframe is not a pretty collection of tubes. It is a force diagram made physical. You start with the loads the car must carry, you decide where those loads should enter the structure, and only then do you turn the lines into tubes, joints, brackets, panels, and gussets.
That order matters. If you begin with tube size, material, or a convenient shape around the driver, you can easily build something that looks like a race car chassis and still fails at the two jobs that matter here. First, it may not be stiff enough to let the suspension do its work. Second, it may not provide a coherent structure for crash loads and driver protection. The chassis can be strong in isolated members and still be poor as a system if the forces have to wander through bracketry, unsupported spans, flexible transition zones, or high-mounted reinforcement that buys stiffness at the cost of weight and center of gravity.
For this lesson, the skill is layout. You are not choosing the exact steel grade, tube wall, weld sequence, or rulebook certification process. You are learning how to place the main members of a spaceframe so the suspension, driver cell, engine bay, fuel volume, and crash structure all have sensible load paths. The adjacent lessons cover tub load paths and suspension pickups in more detail. Here, you are learning the whole-frame architecture: where the tubes go before the final bracket design and before material selection.
Principle: draw the forces before you draw the chassis.
The most important sentence in the source material is the idea that design starts as forces and is later made into chassis tubes. That is the mental model. A proper spaceframe layout begins as a set of lines between loads and reactions. The tire contact patch loads enter through suspension members. Suspension loads enter through pickup brackets. Powertrain loads enter through mounts. Belt, seat, roll, side, front, and rear crash loads enter through the driver cell and surrounding structure. Fuel, cooling, and service packaging impose volumes you must protect or leave accessible. The tubes are the physical answer to that force map.
This is why material selection comes later. A stronger tube in the wrong place is still a wrong tube. A beautiful weld at the end of a poor load path does not fix the architecture. Before fabrication starts, you should be able to point to every major member and explain which force it is carrying, where that force came from, and where the force is going next. If the answer is only that the tube fills a visual gap, the frame is not yet designed.
The second principle is that the chassis must not become an uncontrolled suspension spring. A race chassis needs enough torsional stiffness that the intended roll stiffness comes mainly from the suspension. If a region near the front or rear suspension is torsionally soft, that region effectively reduces the roll stiffness at that end of the car. The driver then feels a car that does not respond cleanly to springs, bars, dampers, and alignment changes because some of the intended suspension motion has been replaced by chassis motion. In practical terms, you tune the suspension and the frame quietly changes the tune.
That does not mean the goal is infinite stiffness. The source material is careful about minimum stiffness, low weight, low center of gravity, and practical packaging. A frame that is twice as stiff but carries its extra structure high in the car or blocks service access can be a worse race car. The target is a structure stiff enough to let the suspension do its job, strong enough to remain far from ultimate strength in racing loads and with margin for crash loads, and efficient enough that the added members do not make the car heavy, tall, or impossible to work on.
Crashworthiness uses the same load-path thinking. The bonded corpus does not give a detailed crash regulation manual, crush-box formula, or side-intrusion recipe, so do not invent one. What it does support is the requirement that the chassis be light and stiff, satisfy crash-test requirements where applicable, carry fuel, and provide a good driver environment. For a spaceframe layout, that means you treat the driver cell as a protected volume and make sure front, rear, side, suspension, and belt loads have routes around and through the main structure rather than through isolated brackets or single unsupported members. You still need the governing rulebook, physical testing, and qualified engineering review for final crash approval. Layout is the first gate, not the last.
The design sequence.
Begin with the hard points. Place the wheel centers, tire envelopes, suspension pickup targets, steering rack, pedals, seat, belts, roll structure, engine, gearbox, differential, fuel cell, cooling package, exhaust, bodywork constraints, and major service access. At this stage you are not decorating the car with tubes. You are discovering the volumes the frame must contain and the points where forces will enter. If two required items want the same space, solve that conflict before you draw a member through it.
Next, identify the load nodes. A suspension pickup should not be thought of as a tab welded to the nearest tube. It is a force entry point. The bracket should feed its load into the chassis in the most advantageous manner available. In layout terms, that usually means the bracket wants to land at or very near a node where other members can carry the load away in more than one direction. If the pickup lands in the middle of a long unsupported member, the bracket first bends that local member before the spaceframe participates. That is not a true system load path; it is local compliance disguised as a chassis.
Then sketch the primary torsion path. Imagine twisting the car between the front and rear suspension planes. Where does the load travel? A useful frame does not rely on two long rails acting alone. It creates connected upper and lower paths, links left to right, and gives the twist load a route through the front clip, engine bay, cockpit or roll-cage volume, rear bulkhead, and rear structure. The source material on the Winston Cup chassis is useful here because it does not treat stiffness as an abstract property. It identifies actual regions: front clip, engine bay, roof area, front window, and the area behind the roll cage. It also shows that a transition zone between the front clip and roll cage can reveal a large gradient in twist angle, which is the signature of a flexible area.
That gradient idea is important. Do not only ask whether the whole frame number improved. Ask where the frame twists. A chassis can have a respectable overall stiffness value while one short transition section is doing too much of the deformation. That transition region will corrupt suspension response, crack brackets, or make setup changes feel inconsistent. When you look at a CAD model, FEA plot, or physical twist test, your eye should go directly to the places where a stiff bay hands load to a weaker bay: front clip into cockpit, engine bay into main hoop, roof or windshield structure into cage, rear clip into driver cell, and suspension supports into the surrounding frame.
After the primary torsion path, design the local pickup neighborhoods. The source material points specifically to frame rail box beam walls, spring pockets, internal bracing, and gussets in the stock-car context. In a tube spaceframe, the equivalent lesson is local stiffness around every high-load suspension support. It is not enough for the global frame to be stiff if the pickup moves relative to the frame under lateral force, braking force, or spring load. Local pickup motion changes camber, toe, roll stiffness, and effective wheel rate. A good layout makes the global frame and local brackets work together.
Now add the practical constraints deliberately. Costin and Phipps make the compromise explicit: sometimes the better structure is not the chosen structure because aerodynamic disturbance, suspension geometry, or another mechanism matters more. That does not give you permission to make accidental compromises. It means you document the trade. If a tube cannot go where the load path wants it because the steering shaft, damper, exhaust, bodywork, or service envelope occupies that space, you choose the next best path and understand the cost. A spaceframe is an integration problem. The winning layout is the one that balances the conflicting elements, not the one that optimizes a single diagram while making the car impossible to assemble.
Finally, close the loop with verification. The source material shows several levels of checking: finite element analysis for relative changes, twist fixtures for torsional stiffness, kinematics and compliance rigs for manufactured performance, data logging, and vehicle dynamics simulation. At the layout stage you may not have all of those tools, but you should have the discipline behind them. You test the structure by asking how it twists, how pickup points move, how added members change stiffness for their weight, whether the boundary conditions are realistic, and whether a proposed improvement raises the center of gravity or blocks access. A twist fixture can be useful, but boundary conditions matter. The source material warns that some restraint conditions can be over-constrained and can inflate stiffness predictions. That means you use such tests carefully: excellent for comparing design A to design B under the same assumptions, dangerous if you treat one number as universal truth.
Sub-skill 1: load-path sketching.
Before you touch CAD, draw the car as a simplified side view, plan view, and front or rear section. Mark each suspension pickup, the main roll structure, engine and gearbox mounts, seat and belt points, fuel volume, and expected crash-load directions. Then connect the loads to strong nodes using the shortest sensible structural routes. You are not trying to draw final tube intersections perfectly. You are asking whether the car has a skeleton.
A useful test is the one-sentence tube test. For each major tube, complete this sentence in your head: this member carries load from this point toward that point. If you cannot complete the sentence, the member may still be useful for packaging, mounting, or secondary stiffness, but you should not mistake it for a primary load path. If the frame depends on many such unexplained members, the layout is not mature.
Sub-skill 2: node discipline.
A spaceframe rewards discipline at intersections. When loads enter at nodes, several members can share the load and carry it into the rest of the structure. When loads enter between nodes, the local tube bends before the frame can help. Suspension brackets are the usual trap because it is tempting to place the pickup exactly where the geometry wants it and then weld a bracket to whatever tube is nearby. The better sequence is to place the pickup, then make the chassis node serve it, or deliberately design the bracket and local reinforcement so the load is not left hanging from a flexible span.
This is where you must stay aware of the sibling lesson on pickup stiffness. This lesson is not a detailed bracket design course. The architectural rule is simpler: every important bracket should have an obvious path into the frame. If you cannot see that path in the layout drawing, do not assume a later gusset will make the problem disappear.
Sub-skill 3: stiffness targeting rather than stiffness worship.
The sources repeatedly frame chassis stiffness as a requirement in service of handling. Predictable handling comes when chassis flexibility does not dominate roll stiffness and wheel-camber response. That means the right question is not how stiff can I make it. The right question is what minimum stiffness and local support do I need so suspension tuning remains meaningful, and what is the least weight and center-of-gravity penalty that achieves it.
This matters because structural members cost something. They add mass. They may raise the center of gravity. They may reduce access to the engine, dampers, steering, or driver. They may interfere with suspension motion or bodywork. A member that improves a torsion number but blocks damper changes at the track may be a poor race-car decision. The Winston Cup study is valuable because its final design increased torsional stiffness significantly with only a small weight increase, kept service clearance, used standard-size tube members, and did not require frame-rail modifications. That is the mindset: improve the structure without losing the car.
Sub-skill 4: transition-zone scanning.
Every spaceframe has bays. The front clip may be one bay, the engine bay another, the driver cell another, the rear structure another. Weakness often appears where one bay hands load to the next. The Hopkins chassis work found a large gradient in twist angle in the transition between the front clip and roll cage. That is exactly the kind of place you inspect in your own layout.
In a drawing, look for abrupt changes in depth, missing diagonals, tubes that stop before a bulkhead, loads that enter one side of a bay with no clear cross-car path, and openings created by the driver, windshield, engine, or service access. In analysis, look for concentrated twist or local deflection. In a physical car, look for cracks, witness marks, alignment changes, or setup sensitivity near those transition areas. The fix may be an added member, a relocated member, a V-bar, a gusseted local structure, or a different bracket strategy. The right answer depends on the packaging, but the diagnostic habit is the same.
Sub-skill 5: local compliance control.
Global torsional stiffness and local pickup stiffness are related but not identical. A chassis can be globally stiff and still allow a spring perch or pickup support to move enough to change camber, toe, or effective roll stiffness. The source material specifically suggests evaluating camber and steer response to lateral force at the ground contact point. That is a useful mental model for the layout stage. Imagine a lateral force at the tire. Does the load pass through the suspension into a well-supported pickup region, or does it pry on a local pocket, rail wall, or bracket before the rest of the frame participates?
Local stiffness is also where crashworthiness and service life meet handling. A local support that bends easily under racing loads will not inspire confidence under larger abnormal loads. Conversely, a local support that is massively reinforced but disconnected from the rest of the frame is just a hard spot next to a weak path. Good local design spreads the load into the surrounding structure.
Sub-skill 6: compromise management.
Good chassis design is not a purity contest. The sources emphasize conflicting elements: stiffness, lightness, fuel, crash requirements, driver environment, suspension adjustability, cooling, aerodynamics, cost, and service. The skill is not avoiding compromise; it is making the compromise visible.
When the ideal member conflicts with the suspension mechanism, ask which loss hurts more. If the tube would force poor suspension geometry, the inferior structural route may be acceptable for the sake of the better mechanism. If the tube creates aerodynamic disturbance in a sensitive area, the same may be true. But you should record what you gave up and how you will compensate. Maybe the load path moves to a different node. Maybe the bracket grows a local support. Maybe the test plan includes a pickup-deflection check. A compromise that is named can be managed. A compromise hidden inside the drawing usually becomes a trackside mystery.
Calibration cues: how you know the layout is improving.
At the drawing-table level, improvement looks like fewer unsupported bracket loads, clearer nodes, shorter and more direct paths from suspension pickups into the frame, and fewer abrupt stiffness discontinuities between bays. You should be able to trace load from each corner of the car into the central structure without relying on a single local bracket or long bending span. You should also be able to explain why any less-than-ideal member placement was accepted.
In analysis, improvement shows as less twist for the same load case, but also as a better distribution of twist. A design that reduces a large local gradient in the front clip to roll-cage transition may be more valuable than a design that adds stiffness in a region that was not the limiting problem. Sensitivity analysis is powerful because it tells you which members or regions actually influence overall behavior. The Winston Cup work identified the roof, windshield, and front clip as high-potential redesign areas for torsional stiffness. Your own frame may point elsewhere, but the method is transferable: let the structure tell you where the leverage is.
In physical verification, improvement looks like consistent setup response. If spring, bar, damper, and alignment changes produce predictable changes, the chassis is less likely to be acting as a hidden spring. If the car refuses to respond consistently, or one end feels softer than the installed suspension should allow, suspect chassis or pickup compliance before blindly changing more setup. The source material supports this connection directly: a non-stiff chassis region near a suspension can effectively reduce that suspension's roll stiffness.
On a compliance rig or careful fixture, improvement looks like smaller pickup-point deflections under relevant loads, cleaner camber and steer response, and less dependence on over-constrained boundary conditions. If a twist fixture number improves only under a restraint condition that does not resemble how the car is loaded through the tires, treat it as a relative comparison, not final proof. The source material explicitly notes that over-constrained restraints can elevate stiffness predictions.
In the shop, improvement looks boring. The driver can get in and out. The belts and seat are properly supported. The engine and suspension components can be serviced. The cooling and fuel systems fit. The tubes do not make simple maintenance impossible. The car is not only a structure; it is a racing machine that has to be assembled, adjusted, inspected, and repaired under time pressure.
Failure modes and recoveries.
The first failure mode is material-first design. You choose a tube size, wall thickness, or alloy before the load path is mature, then try to justify the shape afterward. The symptom is a frame with impressive isolated members and weak system behavior. The recovery is to step back to the force sketch. Do not ask whether the tube is strong. Ask what load it carries and where the load goes next.
The second failure mode is the floating pickup. The suspension geometry looks correct, but the pickup bracket feeds load into an unsupported span or a local pocket that deflects. The car may feel vague, alignment may not hold under load, and setup changes may have muted effects. The recovery is node discipline: move the node, redesign the bracket neighborhood, or add members that carry the load into the frame without relying on local bending.
The third failure mode is the stiff middle and flexible ends. The driver cell or central bay looks robust, but the front clip, rear clip, engine bay, windshield area, or roll-cage transition is soft. The symptom in analysis is a large twist gradient. The symptom on track is an end of the car that does not respond like its installed spring and bar rates suggest. The recovery is to scan transitions and add or relocate members where the twist actually concentrates.
The fourth failure mode is absolute-number fixation. You chase a higher torsional stiffness number without regard for weight, center of gravity, service clearance, or boundary conditions. The car may become heavier, harder to work on, or only better in a fixture. The recovery is to judge each member by stiffness gained per cost paid, and by whether the load case resembles real vehicle loading.
The fifth failure mode is treating crashworthiness as thickness. Larger tubes and more metal can help in some places, but crashworthiness begins with coherent load paths and protected volume. A heavy isolated member that drives load into a weak joint or into the driver space is not a complete answer. The recovery is to map abnormal loads as deliberately as suspension loads, preserve the driver environment, and use the applicable rulebook and test requirements for final validation.
The sixth failure mode is ignoring the manufactured car. The paper layout may be sound, but weld access, bracket tolerances, internal bracing, and real clearances change the result. The source material stresses evaluating the manufactured design with objective testing and kinematics and compliance testing. The recovery is to plan verification from the beginning rather than treating it as a post-build ritual.
The final standard.
A good intermediate spaceframe layout should pass four reviews. The force review asks whether every major tube has a job. The suspension review asks whether chassis and pickup stiffness are high enough that the suspension controls wheel motion rather than the frame. The crash and driver review asks whether the driver cell, belts, fuel, and major abnormal load paths are treated as first-order design requirements, not leftovers. The race-car review asks whether the car can be built, serviced, adjusted, and improved without cutting apart the structure every time the team learns something.
If you can pass those reviews, you are no longer sketching tubes. You are laying out a race chassis.
Worked example: Hopkins/Winston Cup torsional-stiffness redesign
The Winston Cup chassis work gives a useful example because it treats frame improvement as an engineering search, not as a guess. The baseline Hopkins chassis was studied with finite element analysis across combinations of added members in the front clip, engine bay, roof area, front window, and the area behind the roll cage. The study considered 24 design cases and ended with a final design that substantially improved torsional stiffness with only a small weight increase. The added and relocated members were not allowed to ruin the race car: they preserved clearance for servicing the engine, vehicle systems, and suspension components, used standard tube sizes, and avoided frame-rail modifications.
The lesson for your own spaceframe is the method. First, the team did not assume the whole chassis was equally weak. Twist-angle information showed a large gradient in the transition between the front clip and roll cage, which pointed to a flexible region. Second, sensitivity analysis identified high-leverage areas, including the roof, windshield, and front clip. Third, the redesign goal was not stiffness at any cost. It was more torsional stiffness with minimum added weight and low center-of-gravity placement.
In a student or club-racing spaceframe, you can apply the same logic even without the same resources. Divide the car into front clip, engine bay, driver cell, and rear structure. Apply a consistent torsional load case in CAD, simple beam analysis, or a physical fixture. Look for where twist concentrates. Then propose member changes only in the regions with leverage. A diagonal or V-style member in the right transition can be more valuable than several tubes in a bay that was already doing its job.
Worked example: Formula SAE suspension design and the chassis that must support it
The Leeds Formula SAE material starts from vehicle dynamics and suspension targets. Desired wheel rates, effective spring and damper rates, and suspension geometry are established, then kinematics and compliance analysis is used to determine the actual behavior of the manufactured system. The paper emphasizes data logging, kinematics and compliance rig tests, and simulation as tools for assessing and improving performance.
That is a chassis lesson because suspension targets only matter if the structure lets the suspension achieve them. If the frame near a pickup is soft, the actual wheel rate and geometry at the tire will not match the intended design. If the chassis twists near one suspension end, that end effectively loses roll stiffness. The layout decision is therefore not just where the pickup fits. It is whether the pickup region and surrounding bay are stiff enough that the suspension geometry remains the geometry you designed.
For your own frame, work backward from the suspension intent. If you choose a wheel rate, anti-roll-bar rate, damper motion ratio, or camber target, ask what chassis movement would corrupt it. Then put tubes, nodes, brackets, and local supports where they prevent that corruption. This keeps the lesson scoped correctly: the chassis does not make the car handle by itself. It gives the suspension a stable foundation so the setup work has meaning.
Worked example: Formula 1 packaging conflict as a design discipline
The Formula 1 aerodynamic-development material is not a spaceframe manual, but it gives a clean statement of integrated chassis requirements. The constructor must make the chassis light and stiff, carry enough fuel, satisfy crash-test requirements, and provide a good working environment for the driver. It also points out the tension among suspension adjustability, cooling, reliability, and aerodynamic performance.
For a spaceframe designer, this is a warning against single-objective thinking. You can draw an excellent structural member through the exact space needed for fuel access, steering motion, radiator ducting, driver egress, or damper adjustment. On paper, the stiffness improves. As a race car, the design may get worse. The correct process is to name the conflict, decide which requirement dominates, and then make the structural compromise deliberate.
Suppose a perfect diagonal across the side of the cockpit would improve torsional stiffness but compromises driver access or side-protection packaging. You do not simply delete it and hope. You route the load through a different bay, use the roll structure more intelligently, reinforce the surrounding nodes, or include the compromise in the verification plan. Good packaging does not excuse a weak structure, and good structure does not excuse a car that cannot be driven, serviced, or made legal.
Drill: the three-pass spaceframe load-path audit
Do this drill before your next chassis design review or before you commit a new frame layout to fabrication. It takes about two hours and produces one marked-up drawing set plus one verification note.
Pass one is the force sketch. Spend 30 minutes on a side view, plan view, and one front or rear section. Mark the suspension pickups, steering rack, engine and gearbox mounts, seat, belts, roll structure, fuel volume, cooling package, and likely front, rear, side, braking, cornering, and vertical load directions. Draw force lines first. Do not draw extra tubes just to make the picture look complete. Success for this pass means every major external load has at least one intended route into the main structure.
Pass two is the node and transition audit. Spend 45 minutes circling every suspension or powertrain bracket that does not land at a clear node. Mark every bay-to-bay transition: front clip to cockpit, engine bay to driver cell, windshield or roof structure to cage, rear structure to driver cell. Use one color for suspected local compliance and another color for suspected torsional soft spots. Success for this pass means you can name the three highest-risk locations rather than saying the whole frame needs to be stiffer.
Pass three is the improvement proposal. Spend 45 minutes proposing three member additions or relocations. For each, write the load path it improves, the expected cost in weight or center-of-gravity height, the service or packaging issue it creates, and the verification method you would use. Success for this pass means at least one proposal improves a high-risk transition or pickup neighborhood without blocking major service access. If all three proposals are merely extra tubes in convenient open space, repeat pass one.
Common mistakes
Mistake one is drawing around the bodywork instead of the forces. The chassis may look complete, but the load paths will be indirect. Good looks like a drawing where the tubes can be explained before the body shape is considered final.
Mistake two is putting suspension brackets where the geometry is convenient and trusting the bracket to solve the structure later. Good looks like pickups that land at nodes or have local reinforcement that clearly carries load into surrounding members.
Mistake three is improving the center of the car while leaving the clips soft. Good looks like transition-zone checking, especially around the front clip, engine bay, roof or windshield structure, roll cage, and rear structure.
Mistake four is chasing stiffness without counting the cost. Good looks like member changes judged by stiffness gained, weight added, center-of-gravity effect, service clearance, and whether the load case is realistic.
Mistake five is treating a twist-fixture number as final truth. Good looks like using consistent fixtures for comparison, checking boundary conditions, and adding pickup-deflection or camber-and-steer-response checks where possible.
Mistake six is treating crashworthiness as a late rulebook item. Good looks like protecting the driver volume and abnormal-load paths from the first layout sketch, then using the applicable rules and tests for final approval.
Cross-references
Use the sibling lesson on designing the tub around load paths when the structure is a monocoque, semi-monocoque, or composite tub rather than a tube spaceframe. The principle is related, but the load-carrying skin and material behavior change the details.
Use the sibling lesson on suspension pickups when you need the detailed bracket, joint, and local stiffness work. This lesson stops at architectural responsibility: the spaceframe must give each pickup a proper load path. The pickup lesson should decide how the bracket itself avoids flex and protects geometry under load.
Use vehicle-dynamics and kinematics lessons when choosing the suspension targets the frame must support. A chassis layout is not successful because it is stiff in isolation. It is successful when the suspension rates, geometry, camber response, steer response, and setup changes behave as intended.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design Costin Micael Phipps David | b76a342e-5c16-6bd3-cb79-1b1626ca1ceb | 32 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Racing Chassis and Suspension Design Carroll Smith | 254d33a8-7c51-fc94-590c-8938d593b758 | 108 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Racing Chassis and Suspension Design Carroll Smith | 2a03fe7c-d1c4-6021-4421-a7a644592345 | 149 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Racing Chassis and Suspension Design Carroll Smith | eb2ac0b4-270a-d0a5-5236-f06a068e08ef | 149 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Racing Chassis and Suspension Design Carroll Smith | d05ed1e9-ad15-b224-c461-110eb40e5478 | 128 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh | ca7a3241-be1f-1f6f-b111-5291d7865790 | 96 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Racing Chassis and Suspension Design Carroll Smith | 641284b1-db2d-2ec6-42ff-218f9b509d67 | 128 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Racing Chassis and Suspension Design Carroll Smith | 7973bda3-ec69-1bf8-1b36-05339c91c559 | 106 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 9 | Racing Chassis and Suspension Design Carroll Smith | 52047a73-bbbf-e4e8-51ff-bb6cdbc0101b | 134 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 10 | Racing Chassis and Suspension Design Carroll Smith | a0af3cf2-4682-ba81-7348-92fbb693d913 | 268 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 11 | Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design Costin Micael Phipps David | 1d4ff083-706a-e9f3-607f-60c68e359f89 | 4 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 12 | Racecar Engineering - June 2020 | 60b70442-898e-54e7-eb8f-fcd68e359f89 | 54 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |