Use anti-roll bars as a platform checkpoint
Generated from
content/lms/platform-specific-spec-miata/05-keep-suspension-changes-inside-the-useful-window/03-use-anti-roll-bars-as-a-platform-checkpoint.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/platform-specific-spec-miata/05-keep-suspension-changes-inside-the-useful-window/03-use-anti-roll-bars-as-a-platform-checkpoint.md
Course: Race a Spec Miata by the rulebook
Module: Keep suspension changes inside the useful window
Estimated duration: 60 minutes
The job of the anti-roll bar checkpoint
An anti-roll bar is one of the fastest setup changes you can make, but in this module you are not using it as a magic cure. You are using it as a checkpoint. The question is not simply whether one hole softer or one hole stiffer makes the car faster. The better question is whether the chassis still has enough useful suspension motion, tire contact-patch behavior, and mechanical honesty for a bar change to behave like a bar change.
That distinction matters because the bar does two things at once. It trims balance, and it exposes whether the platform is inside its useful window. If a logical bar change makes the balance better and the car still takes a set cleanly, you have learned something useful about setup direction. If the same logical change makes the car roll farther, run out of motion, bottom, or suddenly wash out, you have learned something even more important: the bar was pointing at a platform problem, not only a balance problem.
For a Spec Miata-focused driver, this is the right attitude. The car is rules-constrained and mechanically simple enough that it tempts you to chase the obvious knob. But a bar setting is only meaningful when the rest of the platform lets the tires work. The bonded sources here do not give Spec Miata bar sizes, rule allowances, or a named track example, so this lesson stays on the transferable skill: use anti-roll bars to test whether your current ride height, suspension motion, and balance window are still honest.
The principle
An anti-roll bar couples the left and right suspension corners at one end of the car. When the car rolls in a corner, the outside suspension compresses relative to the chassis while the inside suspension droops. The bar twists and resists that opposite motion. That resistance adds roll stiffness at that end of the car.
The important word is roll. The bar is not a general spring that works all the time. In straight-line braking or straight-line acceleration, both sides of the suspension at that end move in the same direction with roughly the same force. In that condition the bar can pivot without being twisted in the same way, so it does not create the same resistance. This is why anti-roll bars are a balance and roll-control tool, not a direct fix for brake dive or acceleration squat.
Once the car is cornering, changing the roll resistance at one end changes how much lateral load transfer that end absorbs. If you increase front roll resistance, more of the lateral load transfer is carried through the front axle. The outside front tire becomes more heavily loaded relative to the rear, and front grip is reduced relative to rear grip. The usual result is more understeer. If you increase rear roll resistance, the rear axle absorbs more of that lateral load transfer. The rear loses grip relative to the front, and the usual result is less understeer or more oversteer.
That is the balance rule. To help the front of the car, you normally soften the front bar or stiffen the rear bar. To help the rear of the car, you normally soften the rear bar or stiffen the front bar. But you should hold that rule with discipline, not superstition. Ross Bentley explicitly warns that the general rule is not always what the car wants, so a real driver must be prepared to try the opposite and observe the result.
Why this is a platform checkpoint, not only a balance knob
Bars are attractive because they are easy. Bentley describes bar adjustment as one of the quickest and easiest suspension changes. Going Faster makes the same practical point: bars are the devices most often used to trim chassis handling where aerodynamics are not the controlling factor. That ease is useful, but it can also make you lazy. You can use the bar to trim a car that is already inside its window, or you can use it to hide a platform that is outside its window.
The checkpoint is simple: after a bar change, did the car behave like the theory says it should, and did it keep the tire in a usable range while doing it? If yes, the bar has given you a useful balance direction. If no, the bar has exposed a different problem.
The clearest example is a car that understeers because the front is overloaded. A textbook correction is to soften the front bar. That lowers front roll resistance and asks the rear to resist more of the roll motion. The front should gain relative grip. But Going Faster warns about the catch: with the same cornering force, a softer front bar allows more roll. If the car is running very low, that extra roll can move the outside front of the chassis closer to the ground. If it bottoms, the grip you hoped to gain can disappear because the front unloads when the chassis hits the limit.
That is why the bar is a checkpoint. The change itself may be correct, but the platform may not have room to accept it. The answer is not to keep softening the bar until the driver feels something different. The answer is to recognize that the bar change has found the limit of the suspension window. That cross-references directly to the sibling lesson on avoiding lowering that steals travel.
There is a second checkpoint hidden in the tire contact patch. Going Faster points out that as the car rolls, suspension geometry may keep camber in a range the tire likes up to a certain amount of roll. Past that point the tire can suddenly lose traction. That means more roll is not automatically more grip, even if the balance direction was logical. A bar change that improves load distribution but pushes the tire outside its camber window can make the car worse.
What the bar is actually doing
Think through the motion slowly. In a corner, the chassis rolls to the outside. The outside suspension compresses and the inside suspension extends. The bar arms are driven in opposite directions, so the bar itself twists. That torsional resistance is what fights roll. You are not adding power, adding tire, or changing the basic weight of the car. You are changing how the car divides roll resistance between front and rear.
Going Faster gives the useful shorthand that adjusting anti-roll bars has the same effect on the car as changing springs at the end where you make the change: it alters roll resistance at that end. The difference is that the bar is active primarily when left and right suspension movement differs. Springs work in bump whether both sides move together or not. Bars are roll-only tools in the way a driver feels them during setup.
This matters during diagnosis. If the complaint happens while the car is straight and braking, do not start by blaming the bar. If the car is unstable because you are releasing the brake poorly, turning in too early, or asking too much of the front tire before the cornering phase, the bar may not be the primary issue. The bar becomes a clean diagnostic tool when the complaint happens as the car rolls: entry rotation as the chassis takes a set, mid-corner balance, or exit balance while lateral load is still present.
The driver language should be phase-specific. Avoid vague reports like the car is bad. Say the car pushes after it takes a set, the rear steps out after the middle, or the front washes only when I try to add maintenance throttle. The corpus supports bar tuning across entry, mid-corner, and exit balance, but the more precise your phase description is, the less likely you are to make a random adjustment.
Adjuster literacy: what one hole really changes
Many adjustable bars change effective stiffness by changing the lever arm. The distance from the bar pivot to the link attachment matters. A longer lever arm makes the bar softer. A shorter lever arm makes the bar stiffer. Going Faster gives the simple leverage example: it takes less force to bend the bar through the same angle when the force is applied farther from the pivot. Moving the adjuster inward shortens the arm and raises roll resistance. Moving it outward lengthens the arm and lowers roll resistance.
This is why one hole on one bar does not always equal one hole on another bar. The actual change depends on the bar, arm geometry, hole spacing, and link arrangement. Race Car Engineering Mechanics adds another caution: small changes in bar diameter can have a major effect, while changing arm length is often the more practical adjustment. It also notes that most chassis roll resistance is ordinarily provided by the suspension springs, so a large percentage change in the bar alone does not always create the same percentage change in total chassis roll resistance.
For your purposes, the lesson is not to calculate the exact roll rate at the track. The lesson is to stop treating bar holes as personality settings. A bar hole is a leverage change. A diameter change can be a large stiffness change. A sliding end or variable link can have a different meaning from a simple blade or hole adjustment. If you do not understand which direction is stiffer on your car, you cannot interpret the result.
Before you drive, identify the current setting, the full soft direction, and the full stiff direction. Mark the bar or keep a setup note. If a crew member changes it, repeat the setting back in terms of front or rear and softer or stiffer. Intermediate drivers lose a surprising amount of learning by saying they changed the bar without knowing whether they changed roll resistance in the direction they intended.
Hardware sanity before interpretation
A bar that is installed poorly can lie to you. Race Car Engineering Mechanics is direct about installation checks: linkages should be checked for binding throughout total travel, bar arms should be checked for parallelism, and links should be adjusted for zero preload with the chassis on a perfectly flat surface and all four wheels at ride height.
Zero preload matters because the bar should not be adding a hidden cross-load before the car even rolls. If the link lengths preload the bar while the car is sitting still, then your left and right behavior can become asymmetric and your setup notes become hard to trust. Binding matters because a binding link turns a clean roll-resistance device into a restriction. You may think you changed stiffness, but the car may be responding to friction, misalignment, or a link that reaches a bad angle in travel.
In a rule-bound production-based class, do not read this as permission to replace every bushing or linkage with whatever you like. Read it as a checkpoint discipline. Within the allowed hardware, the bar should move freely through the suspension travel it must see, the links should not be loaded against each other at rest, and the setting should be repeatable. If those basic conditions are not true, do not treat a lap-time or balance change as clean bar evidence.
The five sub-skills
First, separate roll-phase complaints from non-roll complaints. The bar is a sharp tool when the car is rolling and left-right suspension motion differs. It is a dull diagnostic tool for a straight-line pitch complaint. If the car feels wrong before turn-in while both front tires are loading together, start your diagnosis somewhere else. If the car feels wrong after it takes a set, the bar belongs in the conversation.
Second, name the balance and the phase. Understeer and oversteer are not enough. Entry understeer, settled mid-corner understeer, and exit understeer can point to different combinations of driving and setup. The sources support bars as a knob for entry, mid-corner, and exit balance, but you still need to say where the behavior appears.
Third, choose the axle and direction intentionally. If you want more front grip, your standard choices are front softer or rear stiffer. If you want more rear grip, your standard choices are rear softer or front stiffer. The choice between the two is a platform question. Front softer may add roll and expose travel or camber limits. Rear stiffer may reduce understeer without adding as much front roll, but it can move the rear closer to its own grip limit. The right answer is the one the car confirms.
Fourth, inspect whether the platform can accept the change. If the car runs out of suspension movement, bottoms, or suddenly loses the contact patch after extra roll, the bar has found a limit. Do not keep chasing the same knob. This is where the lesson connects to ride height, travel, and the broader rule of stopping when one part is doing two jobs.
Fifth, run a bar sweep before you worship a single setting. Bentley describes trying full soft and full hard at the front, then doing the same at the rear, while noting the handling change. That sweep gives the driver and engineer a direction. You do not have to do reckless laps at the extremes. The point is controlled contrast: you need enough difference to feel what the bar actually does on that car.
Technique: a clean anti-roll bar change
Start with a baseline you can return to. Record front setting, rear setting, tire state if you are tracking it, and the exact complaint. A useful complaint sounds like this: the car is stable on turn-in, then pushes after it takes a set in medium-speed corners. That is far better than saying the car has understeer everywhere.
Next, decide whether you are testing balance or checking the platform. If the car is already near the ground, has evidence of bottoming, or feels like it goes solid mid-corner, be cautious about a change that allows more roll. The corpus specifically warns that lowering front roll resistance can give the car more roll at the same cornering force, which may let the outside front get closer to the ground. If it bottoms, the hoped-for grip gain can be lost.
Then make one meaningful change. If the front needs help, either soften the front or stiffen the rear. If the rear needs help, either soften the rear or stiffen the front. Do not change both ends unless you already have a reason and a note structure that can separate the effects. Bars are interrelated because changing one end changes how the other end participates in resisting roll.
Drive the first laps as an observation run, not a victory lap. Feel the way the car takes a set. Ask whether the balance moved in the predicted direction. Then ask the platform question: did the chassis accept the new roll attitude without bottoming, going solid, or making the tire suddenly give up? The second question is the checkpoint.
If the balance moved correctly and the platform stayed composed, you have a candidate direction. If the balance moved correctly but the platform showed a new mechanical limit, you have useful evidence against that direction in the current ride-height and travel window. If the balance moved opposite your expectation, do not invent a story. Go back to the hardware: verify the setting direction, link condition, preload, and whether the handling complaint was actually in a roll phase.
Calibration cues: what improvement feels like
A good bar change does not necessarily make the car feel dramatic. Often the best change makes the car easier to place. The front tire takes a set without asking for extra steering. The rear follows without a sudden correction. The car holds the chosen arc with less waiting. You feel less need to add steering lock after the middle of the corner, or less need to catch the rear after the same throttle application.
The contact-patch cue is smoothness. If the car rolls a little more but the tire stays in its useful camber range, the balance may improve progressively. If the car rolls past the useful range, the loss can feel sudden. The car may wash out immediately when the suspension reaches its movement limit or when the contact patch is harmed. Going Faster treats this as one of the reasons everything is more complicated than the simple bar rule suggests.
The platform cue is repeatability. A valid bar change should give you the same kind of response in the same kind of corner. If one corner is better, another is worse in a random way, and the steering feels inconsistent side to side, suspect preload, binding, track condition differences, or a driver input difference before you declare the bar theory wrong.
The setup-note cue is prediction. Before the session, you should be able to say what the change ought to do. After the session, your notes should say whether it did that, whether it created a new platform symptom, and whether you would repeat, reverse, or try the other end. If your notes only say better or worse, you are not using the bar as a checkpoint. You are guessing.
Worked example 1: mid-corner understeer that exposes lack of travel
You have a car that turns in acceptably, then pushes after it takes a set. The complaint is roll-phase and mid-corner, so the bar is a fair tool to test. The normal theory says to help the front by softening the front bar or stiffening the rear bar.
You choose to soften the front bar because you want more front grip. On the next run, the first impression is encouraging: the car is less reluctant to point. But as speed builds, the outside front of the chassis gets closer to the ground. At the same cornering force the car rolls more than before. In the loaded part of the corner the front suddenly washes out instead of progressively gripping.
This is not proof that anti-roll bar theory is false. It is exactly the platform checkpoint doing its job. The softer front bar reduced front roll resistance, but the current platform did not have enough clean motion to accept the extra roll. The outside front may be bottoming, the suspension may be going solid, or the tire may be leaving its useful contact-patch range. The next useful action is not another blind front-bar change. The next useful action is to connect this result to ride height, travel, and mechanical clearance.
This example is why the lesson belongs in a module about keeping suspension changes inside the useful window. The bar did not merely tune balance. It told you the window was too small for that direction.
Worked example 2: understeer with enough platform room, choosing front soft versus rear stiff
Now use the same original complaint, but the car has no evidence of bottoming and the tire behavior stays progressive. You test front softer and the car accepts the added roll. The front holds the arc better after the car takes a set. That is a clean result. It says the front was carrying too much relative roll load and the platform had enough room to move the load distribution in a useful direction.
But you still have the second choice: stiffen the rear instead. That also helps the front relative to the rear because it moves more roll resistance to the rear end. The difference is that rear stiffer may reduce the push without asking the front of the car to roll more. It may be the better direction if front travel is precious. It may also make the rear less forgiving.
A disciplined intermediate driver compares those two families instead of memorizing one favorite setting. Front softer and rear stiffer can both reduce understeer, but they ask different parts of the platform to pay the bill. The front-soft path spends front roll control. The rear-stiff path spends rear grip margin. The correct setting is not the one that sounds clever in the paddock. It is the one that gives the desired balance while staying inside the platform window.
Worked example 3: oversteer as tires and conditions change
Bentley notes that some cars have cockpit anti-roll bar controls so the driver can adjust as track conditions, fuel load, and tire wear change during a race. Even if your car does not have cockpit adjustment, the lesson still applies between sessions: the right bar setting can move as the operating condition changes.
Suppose the rear becomes less secure as the session progresses. The standard direction to improve rear grip is to soften the rear bar or stiffen the front bar. Softening the rear asks the rear to absorb less lateral load transfer through roll resistance, which can help rear grip relative to the front. Stiffening the front can also help the rear by making the front absorb more of the roll resistance burden.
Again, the checkpoint question decides which path is smarter. If the front already struggles with contact-patch quality or travel, adding front stiffness may create understeer or overload the outside front. If the rear is rolling onto a bad part of its geometry, softening the rear may not be as helpful as the simple rule suggests. Try the logical direction, record the result, and be prepared to test the opposite when the car refuses the textbook answer.
Common mistakes
The first mistake is treating the bar as a grip maker. A bar does not create grip from nothing. It changes how the chassis distributes roll resistance and therefore how each end of the car carries lateral load transfer. Good looks like using the bar to move balance, then asking whether the tires and suspension accepted the new load distribution.
The second mistake is trying to fix straight-line behavior with a roll-only tool. If the complaint is dive under braking in a straight line or squat under acceleration in a straight line, the anti-roll bar is not the primary mechanism. Good looks like saving bar diagnosis for conditions where left and right suspension movement differs, especially as the car takes a cornering set.
The third mistake is softening the front forever to fix understeer. The first step may be correct, but more roll can create bottoming or contact-patch loss. Good looks like stopping when the softer setting improves balance but exposes platform travel or geometry limits. That is not failure; that is useful information.
The fourth mistake is stiffening the rear until the car finally rotates, then calling it fast. Rear stiffness can reduce understeer, but it also reduces rear grip relative to the front. Good looks like enough rotation to place the car without making the rear abrupt or fragile.
The fifth mistake is ignoring preload and binding. A preloaded or binding bar turns a clean tuning exercise into a mystery. Good looks like checking that links move freely through travel, the arms are parallel where they should be, and the bar is not preloaded at ride height on a flat surface.
The sixth mistake is changing too many things at once. Because front softer and rear stiffer can both reduce understeer, changing both together may make the car feel better while teaching you very little. Good looks like one meaningful change, one clear prediction, one clear result, and a baseline you can return to.
The seventh mistake is assuming every bar hole is a small change. Effective arm length matters, and bar diameter can have a major effect. Good looks like learning the actual adjuster direction and treating large stiffness changes with respect.
The eighth mistake is refusing to test the opposite. Bentley's warning matters because real cars sometimes respond against the simple rule. Good looks like using the rule as a starting hypothesis, not as a law you defend after the car tells you otherwise.
Drill: two-end bar sweep platform check
Run this drill over three sessions at an event where you can make changes safely between runs. The count is three sessions: one baseline session, one front-bar contrast session, and one rear-bar contrast session. The duration is one normal session each, or roughly 15 to 25 minutes per session depending on the event format. The success criterion is not a lap time. The success criterion is that you can predict the balance direction, feel whether the car moved that way, and identify whether the platform stayed inside its useful window.
Before session one, inspect the simple things. Confirm the bar settings. Confirm which direction is softer and which is stiffer. Look for obvious link binding or preload problems if you have the access and knowledge to do so. Record the baseline. In session one, drive at a repeatable pace and choose one recurring corner type where the complaint appears. Do not try to solve the whole lap. Your note after the session should say phase, balance, and platform cue. For example: settled mid-corner understeer, no obvious bottoming, steering demand increases after set.
Before session two, change only the front bar in the direction your diagnosis predicts. If the car understeers, soften the front for the first test. If the rear is loose, stiffen the front for the first test. Drive the same corner type with the same observation priority. Did the balance move as predicted? Did the car roll more or less? Did the movement stay progressive, or did it suddenly wash out or feel like it hit a stop?
Before session three, return the front bar to baseline and test the rear bar in the matching direction. If the car understeers, stiffen the rear. If the rear is loose, soften the rear. Now compare the two families. Which end gave the cleaner balance change? Which end cost less platform margin? Which setting would you keep for the next session, and what problem would it create if you went one step farther?
If your car and event format allow a full sweep, extend the drill later by trying full soft and full hard at the front, then full soft and full hard at the rear, as Bentley recommends for understanding the car's response. Do that only as a controlled test with clear notes. The purpose is not to prove that extremes are race settings. The purpose is to build a mental map of what the bars do on your car.
When the principle breaks down
The first breakdown is mechanical contact. If a softer bar lets the car roll until the chassis bottoms or the suspension runs out of movement, the expected grip gain may disappear. The car can wash out immediately because the suspension has gone solid or because the tire is no longer being presented to the track in a useful way.
The second breakdown is contact-patch geometry. A car can tolerate a certain amount of roll while keeping camber in a range the tire likes. Past that amount, the tire can suddenly lose traction. A balance change that looks correct on paper can fail when it asks the tire to work outside that range.
The third breakdown is bad installation or adjustment state. Binding links, nonparallel arms, and preload at ride height can make the bar act inconsistently. In that state, the driver is not evaluating a clean roll-stiffness change.
The fourth breakdown is the usual rule itself. The normal direction is useful: front softer or rear stiffer for understeer, rear softer or front stiffer for oversteer. But Bentley's experience-based warning is part of the lesson. If the car does not respond as predicted, verify the hardware, verify the phase of the complaint, and then test the opposite rather than forcing the theory onto the evidence.
The fifth breakdown is using the bar to cover for another part doing two jobs. If a bar setting is being used to compensate for a ride height that has stolen travel, a spring choice that cannot support the platform, or a hardware mismatch that makes the tire unhappy, the bar may make the symptom smaller without making the car honest. Cross-reference the sibling lessons before you chase the adjustment farther.
What you should be able to do now
After this lesson, you should be able to explain why an anti-roll bar changes roll balance but does not directly fix straight-line pitch. You should be able to say which direction usually helps understeer or oversteer. You should understand why front softer and rear stiffer are not the same cure even when both can reduce understeer. You should be able to inspect whether a bar result is likely to be clean evidence or contaminated by preload, binding, bottoming, or contact-patch loss.
Most importantly, you should treat the anti-roll bar as a question you ask the platform. Does this chassis have enough useful window for the logical change to work? If yes, the bar helps you tune. If no, the bar has done something more valuable: it has stopped you from chasing setup past the point where the suspension and tire can honestly deliver it.
Worked example: mid-corner understeer that exposes lack of travel
A car that turns in acceptably and then pushes after it takes a set is giving you a roll-phase complaint, so an anti-roll bar test is legitimate. The normal correction is to help the front by softening the front bar or stiffening the rear bar. If you soften the front and the car initially points better but then rolls far enough that the outside front bottoms or the front suddenly washes out, the bar has exposed a platform limit. The theory did not fail. The current ride-height and travel window could not accept the extra roll. Good diagnosis is to stop chasing front-bar softness and connect the result to travel, bottoming, and contact-patch control.
Worked example: choosing front soft versus rear stiff
Front softer and rear stiffer can both reduce understeer, but they spend different margins. Front softer reduces front roll resistance and can help the front tire, while also allowing more front roll. Rear stiffer moves more roll resistance to the rear and can help the front without spending as much front travel, while reducing rear grip margin. The checkpoint is which path gives the balance change while keeping the platform composed. A clean test compares the two families separately, returns to baseline between them, and records whether the limiting symptom is front travel, rear security, or contact-patch behavior.
Common mistakes
The common errors are treating the bar as a grip maker, using it to fix straight-line dive or squat, softening the front until the car runs out of motion, stiffening the rear until rotation becomes fragility, ignoring preload or binding, changing both ends at once, assuming every adjuster hole is a small change, and refusing to test the opposite when the car contradicts the general rule. Good work is slower and cleaner: define the roll-phase complaint, choose one axle and direction, predict the balance change, watch for platform symptoms, and return to baseline when the result is contaminated.
Drill: two-end bar sweep platform check
Run three sessions. Session one is baseline: record front and rear settings, identify one recurring corner type, and write the phase-specific complaint. Session two changes only the front bar in the predicted direction. Session three returns the front to baseline and changes only the rear bar in the matching direction. Each session should be a normal 15 to 25 minute event session. The success criterion is that you can predict the direction, feel whether the balance moved that way, and identify whether the platform stayed inside the useful window or showed bottoming, going solid, sudden washout, or rear fragility.
When this principle breaks down
The anti-roll bar rule breaks down when the platform cannot accept the change. Extra roll can bottom the chassis, use up suspension movement, or push camber outside the tire's useful range. A bar can also lie when links bind, arms are misaligned, or preload exists at ride height. Finally, the normal balance rule is only a starting hypothesis. If the car does not respond as predicted, verify the hardware and the phase of the complaint, then test the opposite direction instead of forcing the setup story.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 2a989d49-c88d-70cf-0915-18d2d4fdcb48 | 226 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | bd8df41f-70e3-4ee5-b0ae-921b5f6798ca | 226 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | adc5e668-6c3e-78a2-d388-40a5435117e0 | 58 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | a66de429-4e3c-f5bc-d934-6d05e9ed2472 | 226 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 5b6a8d2f-9e18-e27e-f853-0d99fea74023 | 226 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh | 05979eb7-821f-f8f0-77fd-91a0fb4b73b2 | 42 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Tire Grip and Slip Angle | 66a26828-c446-4f9b-eea6-1a1ae12fc5e2 | 3 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |