Correction: Freddi et al. Reverse Engineering of a Racing Motorbike Connecting Rod. Inventions 2023, 8, 23

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Figures 12–14, as published. In those figures, the data tables are incorrect. The error arises from an incorrect fatigue test setup made at the time of the project. The authors requested to remove the aforementioned three figures. Figure 15 is correct and it should remain in the article (as the new Figure 12).

For the aforementioned reasons, the following corrections are proposed.

Figure 15 becomes Figure 12, Figure 16 becomes Figure 13, and Figure 17 should change to Figure 14.

The sentence “A series of inherent fatigue results on the original and modified connecting rod end are provided in Figure 12 and Figure 13.” should be deleted.

The original paragraph “After the modifications to the geometry to decrease the mass of the component, new simulations were performed to ensure fatigue life of the connecting rod. As can be observed in Figure 14 and Figure 15, the number of fatigue life cycles decreased significantly. However, considering that the load case is the worst possible and that in real life, the connecting rod never experienced such a continuous fatigue cycle, the modified connecting rod (result of a series of lightening iterations) is considered safe against fatigue. The next step then involved the fabrication of the component.” should be replaced with the following: “After the modifications to the geometry to decrease the mass of the component, new simulations were performed to ensure fatigue life of the connecting rod. As can be observed in Figure 12, the minimum number of fatigue life cycles is not particularly high. However, considering that the simulated load case is the worst possible and that the connecting rod never experienced such a continuous fatigue cycle in real life, the modified connecting rod (result of a series of lightening iterations) is considered safe against fatigue. The next step then involved the fabrication of the component.”

“The reverse engineering process combined with finite element calculation allowed it to go from 110 g to 97.6 g, a reduction of 11.2%, as shown in Figure 16.” should be changed to read “The reverse engineering process combined with finite element calculation allowed it to go from 110 g to 97.6 g, a reduction of 11.2%, as shown in Figure 13.”

“The new prototype is shown in Figure 17.” should be changed to read “The new prototype is shown in Figure 14.”

Captions under figures should also change to include the correct numbers of the related figures.

The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.