Choose one legal experiment at a time

Generated from content/lms/platform-specific-spec-miata/06-translate-miata-feedback-into-legal-next-actions/03-choose-experiments-that-fit-the-rules.md; edit the source file, not this page.

Source path: content/lms/platform-specific-spec-miata/06-translate-miata-feedback-into-legal-next-actions/03-choose-experiments-that-fit-the-rules.md

Course: Race a Spec Miata by the rulebook

Module: Translate Miata feedback into legal next actions

Estimated duration: 55 minutes

This lesson is about the moment after feedback. You come in from a session and say the car pushed at turn-in, stepped out at exit, would not take throttle, felt lazy in a fast bend, or made you nervous in traffic. The mistake is treating that sentence as an order to change the car. In a rules-limited Miata class, feedback is only the beginning. Your job is to turn that feedback into one legal, measurable, reversible experiment.

That sentence has four parts, and all four matter. Legal means the action fits the current rules for the event and class you are running. Measurable means you can tell whether it helped without relying on one emotional lap. Reversible means you can return to a known baseline if the track, tires, or driver changed under you. One means you do not stack changes until you can no longer tell what actually caused the result.

The core skill is not mechanical cleverness. It is disciplined translation. You hear a symptom, separate driver input from chassis balance, choose the smallest lawful thing that could test the cause, and collect enough evidence to decide what to do next. That is especially important in production-based racing because the rule book and the stock-based platform are part of the problem you are solving. You are not designing a clean-sheet race car. You are working inside a constrained box, and the box is real.

Principle: feedback is not a setup change

A car can feel wrong for at least three different reasons. The mechanical balance may actually be wrong. Your inputs may be asking the tires to do something they cannot do. Or the track, tires, fuel load, traffic, weather, and surface may have changed since the baseline you are comparing against. The same sentence from the driver can point to different causes.

If the car understeers at turn-in, you might be looking at an actual front grip limitation. But you might also be looking at a brake release problem. If you finish braking too early, you unload the front of the car before it has finished accepting cornering load, and the car can begin understeering right where you wanted it to rotate. If the car oversteers on exit, you might have a rear balance problem, but you might also be opening the throttle too early, too abruptly, or at a steering angle that asks too much of the rear tires. If the car feels worse late in a session, tire deterioration or changed conditions may have moved the baseline rather than proving that the last adjustment was bad.

So the first rule is to delay the wrench. Do not decide the action until you have named the likely mechanism. The mechanism is what connects the symptom to the experiment. Understeer at turn-in is not a mechanism. Front tires unloaded by an early brake release is a mechanism. Exit oversteer is not a mechanism. Throttle applied before the car is ready to unwind steering is a mechanism. Slower laps late in the session is not a mechanism. Tire condition, traffic, heat, or a deteriorating baseline may be the mechanism.

This is why adaptability matters. A good driver does not force one style onto every car and every condition. If the car has a handling tendency, if the track changes, or if there is no adjustment left to make, you still have a tool available: your driving. That does not mean every problem is your fault. It means driving input is one of the variables in the system, and you need to test it before spending a rules-limited change on the car.

Rules are part of the engineering problem

In production-based racing, the regulations are not paperwork you read after the interesting work is done. They define the shape of the work. The car begins as a street-car platform, many parts are retained because of rules and cost, and the available improvements are bounded. That makes the first experiment filter simple: before you ask whether a change might help, ask whether it is allowed.

There are two wrong habits here. The first is assuming that because a change is common race-car practice, it is legal for your Miata class. The second is assuming that because a change is hard to see, it belongs in the option set. This lesson is about legal next actions, so hidden or hard-to-measure modifications are outside the operating envelope. They may appear in old racing texts as part of the history of production-based competition, but they are not the mindset you use when choosing a Tracky lesson experiment. Your question is not what can be hidden. Your question is what can be tested cleanly, defended under the rules, and repeated.

For a Spec Miata driver, that means your legal experiment menu should be built from the actual rule set for the event, not from paddock folklore. If the rule book permits a setting, adjustment, maintenance correction, tire-pressure choice, alignment setting, or component condition check, then it can enter the experiment menu. If the rule book does not permit it, it is not an experiment. It is a rule problem. The exact allowed list must come from the current class rules, so this lesson teaches the decision process rather than inventing a setup catalog.

The practical habit is to write the rule filter before the change. Symptom first. Hypothesis second. Rule status third. Only then do you choose the test. If you cannot state why the action is legal, you do not run it as a car change. You either reframe the experiment as a driving change or ask for rule clarification before touching the car.

The three buckets of legal next actions

After a session, most useful next actions fall into three buckets. The first bucket is a driving experiment. You change brake release timing, throttle timing, steering rate, line placement, or how you handle traffic. This bucket is often the safest first step because it does not require a mechanical allowance, and it directly tests whether the symptom follows your input.

The second bucket is a legal setup or preparation experiment. This exists only if the current rules allow it. The experiment might involve a reversible setting or condition within the allowed window, but the important thing here is not the specific setting. The important thing is that you choose it because it tests a named mechanism. You do not change something because it sounds race-car serious. You change it because it should affect the tire, load transfer, balance, or drivability problem you named.

The third bucket is a no-change data experiment. This is underrated. Sometimes the correct next action is to gather a better baseline. If the track changed, the tires are fading, traffic ruined the sector, or your inputs are inconsistent, another change will not clarify anything. In that case, the experiment is to hold the car constant and drive a controlled comparison. The goal is to make the next decision cleaner.

Intermediate drivers often skip the third bucket because doing nothing feels passive. It is not passive if it is deliberate. Holding the car constant while you clean up brake traces, throttle traces, line, and lap consistency is an experiment. It tells you whether the symptom is stable enough to tune against.

The one-variable rule

A useful test isolates the variable. If you change line, brake release, throttle timing, tire pressure, and rear ride behavior all at once, you may improve the lap time, but you have not learned much. You cannot tell which part helped, which part hurt, and which part was just noise.

A disciplined on-track test uses the same logic Carroll Smith applied in configuration comparison: run a configuration, keep the change isolated, collect multiple laps, average the result, and treat abnormal laps carefully. The exact historical example involved wing configurations, not a Miata setup item, but the test discipline transfers well. One configuration over a set of laps. One change. Another set of laps. Compare lap times, sector times, speeds, and driver feedback. If the world changes around you, return to baseline so you can tell whether the car changed or the conditions changed.

That baseline return is not optional busywork. Track conditions, weather, traffic, and tire deterioration can move the target during the same session. A change that looked better on lap three may only have been blessed by cleaner traffic or fresher tires. A change that looked worse on lap seven may have been judged after the tires had already fallen off. Returning to the baseline periodically is how you keep the experiment honest.

For a track-day or club-racing driver, the cleanest format is usually A-B-A. A is the baseline. B is the one change. A again is the return. If the baseline comes back and the car or data comes back with it, your comparison is more believable. If the baseline does not come back, you learned that something else changed and the test is contaminated.

What to measure

Lap time is useful, but lap time alone is too blunt. It mixes driver execution, traffic, entry speed, midcorner speed, exit speed, mistakes, and conditions into one number. A better experiment uses lap time as the headline and sector or corner data as the explanation.

For this lesson, the useful data channels are modest. You want lap time and sector time if available. You want speed at entry, apex, and exit for the corner you are testing. You want throttle trace, brake pressure or brake timing, steering trace or total steer angle if available, gear, RPM, GPS line, and some sense of consistency from lap to lap. If you do not have all of those channels, use what you have. The rule is not to buy every sensor. The rule is to compare the symptom against other evidence before deciding.

Look for incongruencies. If the driver says the car will not turn, but the brake trace shows the driver finished braking too early and added a large steering input afterward, the first experiment may be brake release, not setup. If the driver says the car has no exit grip, but the throttle trace shows early application followed by a lift, the first experiment may be delaying or reshaping throttle pickup. If the driver says the car is slower after a change, but the GPS line moved and traffic affected the tested sector, the comparison is weak. Ask why before you ask what to change.

Good data work also calibrates to your driving. Intermediate drivers can be tempted to chase an ideal trace they do not yet have the consistency to reproduce. Instead, compare your own clean laps, your own messy laps, and any trusted reference you have. Imagine what the ideal would look like, then set one objective for the next session. If the objective is brake release, do not also judge yourself on a new line and a new throttle plan. Keep the test small enough to execute.

The mechanism underneath the symptoms

The reason this process works is that car balance is not a single fixed trait. Mechanical setup helps determine the basic understeer or oversteer tendency in a steady-state corner, but the car is never sitting still at the limit. You are braking, releasing, turning, adding throttle, unwinding steering, crossing bumps, and responding to the surface. Those transient moments decide what the car feels like.

Load transfer is central. Moving load off the front tires reduces their cornering capability and contributes to understeer. Braking can change cornering balance, and acceleration out of a balanced corner can create a new instability if the car is not able to accept power cleanly. Even a well-balanced car still needs small steering corrections because the surface and tire state are not perfectly consistent.

This means feedback should be tied to phase of corner. Turn-in, midcorner, and exit are different diagnostic windows. Turn-in feedback often points toward brake release, front loading, initial steering rate, and entry speed. Midcorner feedback often points toward line, minimum speed, steady-state balance, and whether you are asking the car to hold too much radius. Exit feedback often points toward throttle timing, steering unwind, rear grip, and whether acceleration destabilizes the car.

A rules-fit experiment respects that phase. Do not answer an exit problem with a turn-in change unless you can explain the connection. Do not answer a turn-in problem with a throttle experiment unless the corner sequence makes that relevant. The closer the experiment is to the phase where the symptom appears, the cleaner the test.

How to choose the next experiment

Start with the symptom sentence, then rewrite it into a testable sentence. Bad version: the car pushed everywhere. Better version: in the first third of the corner, after brake release, steering angle rose and apex speed fell compared with my better laps. Bad version: the rear is loose. Better version: at exit, throttle pickup produced wheelspin or a corrective lift before I could unwind steering. Bad version: the car hates fast corners. Better version: in the high-speed section, I lifted where the target lap held throttle, and the sector loss came from that lift rather than a straight-line speed deficit.

Once the sentence is testable, choose the least invasive legal experiment. If the data points to driver input, choose a driving experiment first. If the data points to a stable chassis behavior and the rules allow a relevant setting change, choose one legal setup experiment. If the data is inconsistent, choose a no-change baseline experiment. If safety is involved, stop treating it as a performance experiment until the car is inspected and the issue is understood.

The experiment should include a count, a place, a control, and a success criterion. Count means how many laps or repetitions you will use. Place means the exact corner or sector. Control means what you promise not to change. Success criterion means what would convince you. Without a success criterion, you will negotiate with your memory afterward.

A good success criterion does not need to be complicated. For a brake-release experiment, success may be a shorter brake zone, a visible trail or release shape instead of an abrupt early finish, less total steering correction at turn-in, and equal or better apex speed without a nervous rear. For a throttle experiment, success may be earlier full commitment without a later lift, cleaner exit speed, and no extra steering correction. For a traffic/racecraft experiment, success may be holding a legal lane, leaving required room, and still preparing a better exit or over-under opportunity.

When the best next action is driving, not setup

There are several cases where the first legal experiment should be driving. If the data shows coasting, hesitant throttle application, early throttle followed by lift, or unnecessary lifts in fast corners, the first job is to clean the input. If the brake trace shows inconsistent pressure, a long light brake where a harder shorter brake would fit, or an early finish before turn-in, the first job is to shape the brake event. If steering angle varies wildly lap to lap, the first job is to make the corner repeatable.

This is not an insult to the driver. It is how you avoid tuning around noise. A car cannot be meaningfully adjusted against a different driver every lap. Your hands, feet, and line are part of the setup the tires see. If those inputs are inconsistent, the car will give inconsistent feedback.

Advanced throttle control gives a useful example. Strong drivers may still miss the grip level when tires wear or conditions change, but they adjust quickly. They sense the loss, soften the input, and update the next lap. The lesson for the intermediate Miata driver is not that you must be perfect. It is that your first reaction to a small slide or wheelspin should be information, not drama. Ask whether the tire state changed, whether your throttle timing changed, and whether the next lap can test a cleaner input.

When the best next action is a legal car experiment

Once your driving data is consistent enough, a legal car experiment becomes more useful. The key is to keep it tied to mechanism. A steady turn-in understeer complaint that survives a controlled brake-release test may justify a legal front-end or balance-related setup check, if your rule set allows that action. A repeatable exit stability problem that survives a controlled throttle and unwind experiment may justify a legal rear-grip or balance-related check, if allowed. A straight-line speed change should be evaluated differently from a corner-balance change because the performance signature is different.

Do not treat one good lap as proof. Use multiple laps, compare sectors, and watch for abnormal laps. A single lap can be helped by traffic, a tow, a cleaner mistake pattern, or bravery that you cannot repeat. The question is whether the change improved the car in the targeted phase without creating a new cost somewhere else.

Also do not treat every loss as a failure. Sometimes a legal setup change improves the problem corner but costs time in another sector. That may still be useful if the corner matters more for racecraft, passing, tire life, or safety. But you need the data separated by sector or corner to make that argument. Whole-lap time alone may hide the trade.

When the best next action is no change

No-change testing is correct when the baseline is unstable. If the weather shifts, the track rubbers in, the tires deteriorate, or traffic interrupts the laps, a setup comparison can become meaningless. The same applies if you are learning a new grip level, returning after a mistake, or racing another car so hard that your inputs are no longer representative.

The right move is to stabilize the test. Run a few clean baseline laps. Pick one corner. Repeat the same entry plan. Do not chase every sensation. If the symptom disappears when your driving cleans up, you learned something. If the symptom remains with consistent inputs, the next experiment becomes more legitimate.

This discipline matters because tire and track changes are subtle. The car can feel worse because the tires are aging through the run, not because your last idea was wrong. Returning to baseline and comparing average behavior across multiple laps protects you from blaming the wrong cause.

Racecraft experiments must fit the rules too

This module is about translating feedback into legal next actions, and legal does not only mean mechanical legality. Racecraft experiments also have rules. In Miata racing, close traffic is normal, and the SuperMiata guidance in the bonded corpus is blunt about leaving room, avoiding last-second blocking, and using only one blocking move. The lesson is not to import a full passing rulebook from one series into another. The lesson is that your experiment in traffic must fit the applicable passing rules with the same seriousness as a setup change fits the technical rules.

If your feedback is that you lost exits while defending, do not turn the next session into a late-blocking experiment. Choose a legal racecraft experiment. For example, decide earlier whether you are defending or setting up an over-under. Leave the required room when there is overlap. If you lose track of a car, give room at apex and track-out rather than assuming empty pavement. If a section requires more margin because walls, tall curbs, or damage risk make going off severe, build that margin into the plan.

This is still performance work. Legal, predictable racecraft often creates better exits because you are not reacting at the last second. The same one-variable logic applies. If the variable is earlier defensive positioning, do not also change brake point, apex choice, and throttle timing so much that you cannot tell what helped.

The decision ladder

Use this ladder after each session. First, name the phase. Turn-in, midcorner, exit, straight, or traffic. Second, name the mechanism you suspect. Load transfer, brake release, steering demand, throttle timing, tire state, traffic placement, or a stable setup limitation. Third, check the rule path. Is this a driving experiment, a legal setup experiment, or a no-change data experiment? Fourth, choose one variable. Fifth, define the evidence before you run. Sixth, return to baseline if conditions or confidence require it.

Here is the key discipline: the experiment is not successful because it made you feel busy. It is successful if it creates a decision. Keep it. Revert it. Refine it. Move to the next hypothesis. Or stop because the comparison was contaminated. Any of those outcomes can be useful if they are honest.

What good looks like

Good looks boring from the outside. You come in, name the symptom by corner phase, look at the supporting data, choose one legal action, and write down what would count as success. You run the session without stacking other changes. You compare the right laps and sectors. You throw away obviously contaminated laps instead of building a story around them. You return to baseline when conditions move. You do not confuse a driving adaptation with a mechanical fix, and you do not confuse an illegal idea with an experiment.

Good also sounds different in the paddock. Instead of saying the car is bad, you say the car understeered after I came off the brake in Turn 3, and the brake trace shows I was done too early, so the next run is a brake-release experiment with no setup change. Instead of saying the rear is gone, you say I picked up throttle before I could unwind steering and had to lift, so the next run is a throttle-shape experiment. Instead of saying the setup change worked because one lap was quicker, you say the average of the clean laps improved in the target sector, the baseline return confirmed the direction, and the exits did not get worse.

That is the skill. Not guessing. Not tinkering. Not arguing from vibes. You choose one legal experiment at a time, and you let the car, the data, and the rulebook keep you honest.

Worked example: Turn-in understeer after brake release

You come in from a session and report that the Miata will not turn in. The tempting next action is to ask for a front-grip setup change. Before you do that, place the complaint in the corner. It is not everywhere. It is the first third of the corner, from brake release to apex. That phase matters because the front tires are sensitive to load. If you stop braking too early, the front may lose the load that helped it accept the turn, and the car can understeer right when you ask it to rotate.

The legal first experiment is a driving experiment, not a car change. Pick one corner where the symptom is repeatable. Hold the same entry reference, same gear, and same line target. For five laps, run your normal baseline and mark the clean laps. Then run five laps where the only target is a more deliberate brake release into turn-in. You are not trying to brake later by heroics. You are trying to avoid finishing the brake event so early that the front tires are unloaded before they need to work.

The evidence is specific. You want the brake trace, if available, to show a controlled release rather than an early cliff. You want less added steering after the initial turn. You want equal or better apex speed without a new correction at the rear. You want the sector to improve or at least become more repeatable. If the car turns better and the data supports the phase change, your next action is to keep practicing that input before changing the car. If the car still understeers with a controlled release and consistent entry, then you have earned the right to consider a legal setup or preparation check under the current rules.

The important point is that the same driver sentence produced two possible paths. If the mechanism was early brake completion, the legal experiment was input timing. If the mechanism survives the input test, a legal car experiment becomes more credible. You did not ignore the feedback. You translated it.

Worked example: Exit oversteer or wheelspin as the session ages

You report that the car got loose on exit late in the session. The first question is whether the car changed, the tires changed, or your throttle changed. The bonded corpus gives a useful warning here: as tires wear or conditions change, even strong drivers can misjudge grip briefly, then adjust the next laps. That is the correct mental model for this example. A late-session slide is data, but it is not automatically a setup verdict.

Pick the exit phase of one corner. Compare your earlier clean laps to the late laps. Look at throttle trace if you have it. If the pattern is early throttle followed by a lift, the experiment is not to ask the rear tires for even more while adding a setup change. The experiment is to reshape throttle pickup. On the next run, keep the same line and apex intent. Delay initial pickup slightly or soften the rate until you can add throttle without a corrective lift, then unwind steering and commit. The goal is not timid throttle. The goal is throttle that the rear tires can accept.

The success criterion is exit quality, not just bravery. A successful run shows fewer lifts after initial application, cleaner exit speed, and less steering correction while throttle increases. If you simply wait too long and leave speed on the table, the data will show unused exit capacity. If you apply too early and have to lift, the data will show the cost. If the same controlled throttle still produces repeatable exit instability, then you can consider whether a legal car-side adjustment or inspection is warranted.

This example also teaches why baseline return matters. If the tires are fading quickly, the B test may be judged on worse tires than the A test. If possible, return to the baseline plan and see whether the original behavior returns. If everything is sliding more, the baseline moved. That does not make the experiment worthless, but it changes the conclusion. The next action may be tire management, cleaner throttle discipline, or a later legal setup test on fresher or more stable conditions.

Worked example: A racecraft complaint becomes a legal positioning experiment

Suppose your feedback is that you keep losing exits while defending into a corner. This is not a setup problem yet. It may be a racecraft experiment, and racecraft experiments still need rules. The Miata-series guidance in the bonded corpus emphasizes leaving room when there is overlap, not shutting the door, avoiding last-second blocking, and giving extra room in sections where walls, tall curbs, or damage risk make an off-track escape unacceptable.

Turn that into a legal experiment. Choose one passing zone in the next session or race practice. Decide before the braking zone whether you are defending the inside or setting up a later exit. Make the defensive move early enough that it is not a panic block. If there is overlap, leave the required lane. If you lose track of the car, leave room at apex and track-out. Your variable is decision timing, not aggression.

The success criterion is whether you can preserve an exit while staying predictable and legal. You should be able to say where you placed the car, when you made the move, whether you left room, and whether your exit speed or position improved. If you gained one car length by forcing someone off line or relying on them to avoid you, the experiment failed even if the lap looked faster. Legal constraints are not outside performance. They define the performance problem.

Drill: The one-change A-B-A notebook

Run this drill at your next event when you have at least three sessions or enough laps within a session to compare cleanly. The count is three phases: baseline A, experiment B, and baseline return A. The duration is one event day, with one chosen corner or sector per session. The success criterion is that you finish with one defended decision: keep the change, revert the change, repeat the test, or reject the comparison as contaminated.

Before session one, write one symptom from the previous event or warm-up. Use a phase label: turn-in, midcorner, exit, straight, or traffic. Then write one suspected mechanism. Do not write a solution yet. During session one, collect baseline laps. Your job is repeatability. Hold the car constant. Mark laps with traffic, mistakes, or unusual conditions so they do not become fake evidence.

Before session two, choose one legal experiment. If the mechanism points to input, choose a driving experiment. If the mechanism points to a stable car behavior and the rulebook allows a relevant adjustment, choose one car-side experiment. If the data is unclear, choose another baseline experiment instead. Run at least five laps or five clean repetitions if the session allows. Do not stack other changes. Do not decide mid-run to test a second idea.

Before session three, return to the baseline or baseline driving plan. This is the part many drivers skip. You are checking whether the baseline returns. If it does, the comparison has more weight. If it does not, the day changed under you, your tires changed, or your execution changed. That is still a conclusion, but it is not permission to pretend the B change was proven.

After the drill, write four sentences. The symptom was this. The mechanism I tested was this. The legal experiment was this. The evidence says this. If you cannot write the fourth sentence without arguing with yourself, the right next action is another cleaner test, not a bigger change.

Common mistakes

Mistake one is starting with the part instead of the mechanism. The driver says push, and the paddock immediately names a setup change. Good looks different. You first identify whether the push appeared at turn-in, midcorner, or exit, then compare the phase against brake, steering, throttle, line, and sector evidence.

Mistake two is stacking changes. You alter the car, change your line, brake later, and drive harder, then claim the setup worked. Good looks like one variable, clean laps, and a baseline return when possible. If you cannot isolate the cause, you have created a story rather than evidence.

Mistake three is tuning around inconsistent driving. If your brake pressure, throttle pickup, steering angle, or line changes every lap, the car is responding to different inputs every lap. Good looks like holding the car constant until your inputs are stable enough that feedback means something.

Mistake four is ignoring tire and track drift. A change can look better because the lap was cleaner or worse because the tires aged. Good looks like comparing clean laps, watching for abnormal times, and returning to baseline when conditions have moved.

Mistake five is treating illegality as creativity. Production-based racing has always tempted people to bend rules, but this lesson is about legal next actions. Good looks like reading the current rules, choosing only defensible options, and moving illegal or unclear ideas out of the experiment list.

Mistake six is using lap time alone. Whole-lap time can hide where the change helped and where it hurt. Good looks like checking sector time, corner speed, throttle behavior, brake shape, steering demand, and line where available.

Mistake seven is making racecraft experiments without rule discipline. If you defend later, shut the door, or fail to leave room, you have not proven a passing strategy. Good looks like earlier decisions, required room, predictable placement, and exits that improve without relying on contact avoidance.

When the principle breaks down

The one-change experiment is powerful, but it has limits. If the car has a suspected mechanical fault, stop treating the issue as a performance experiment. Inspect and fix the car. If weather changes suddenly, if a wet track appears, if traffic ruins the tested laps, or if tires deteriorate faster than expected, the comparison may not support a conclusion. In those cases, the honest answer is that the test was contaminated.

The principle also breaks down when the rule status is unknown. If you cannot determine whether the car-side change is legal, do not run it as a car experiment. Use a driving experiment, collect more data, or get a rule answer. The point is not to be timid. The point is to keep the experiment useful. A result you cannot legally use is not a next action.

Finally, the principle breaks down when the driver cannot repeat the baseline. If you are learning the track, changing reference points every lap, or driving in heavy traffic, your next action may be a consistency objective rather than setup. That still fits the lesson. Choosing no change because the evidence is not ready is a mature experiment choice.

Author Review

No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.

Sources

#	Document	Chunk	Pages	Score	Collection
1	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	4adf8cb4-89c7-1b45-bd4d-9bb03634ecf3	345	1	uio_books_raw_v1
2	Data for Drivers	cabda699642b26311b0a7ef998da2c71	15	1	uio_books_raw_v1
3	Ultimate Speed Secrets	44d7ac0d-fb94-0e2b-3c78-37f96616e48b	2	1	uio_books_raw_v1
4	Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh	e5ada18a-331b-8f45-54aa-5ac71c5cc184	75	1	uio_books_raw_v1
5	Tune To Win Carroll Smith	a0176f9a-63d4-70af-aa15-ae1e535eb5ce	152	1	uio_books_raw_v1
6	High-Performance Driver Education (HPDE) Techniques by Skill Level	e45bb70d9d6a485be37714f2bb1d49db	33	1	uio_books_raw_v1
7	Unofficial SuperMiata Guide (2018)	f693f504b019c7cf9681d146bca8b246	30	1	uio_books_raw_v1
8	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	c0cd0f54-6d9c-7f08-e9af-37c31b3421d3	345	1	uio_books_raw_v1