Use dynamic pressure as your aero speed dial

Generated from content/lms/race-aerodynamics/01-model-aero-as-speed-dependent-load/02-use-dynamic-pressure-as-the-speed-dial.md; edit the source file, not this page.

Source path: content/lms/race-aerodynamics/01-model-aero-as-speed-dependent-load/02-use-dynamic-pressure-as-the-speed-dial.md

Course: Engineer downforce you can actually use

Module: Model aero as speed-dependent load

Estimated duration: 60 minutes

Dynamic pressure is the aero dial because it tells you how hard the moving air is working on the car. If you are an intermediate driver, you probably already feel that the car behaves differently in a fast corner than it does in a slow corner, and you may already know that wings, splitters, floors, and bodywork matter more as speed rises. This lesson gives you the working model behind that feeling. You use dynamic pressure to decide when an aero change is active enough to judge, when a handling comment is really an aero comment, and when wind or traffic has made a lap misleading.

The principle is simple: aerodynamic force scales with dynamic pressure. Dynamic pressure is the pressure contribution that comes from air motion. In race-car terms, it is the pressure acting on the car as it moves through the air. It can be described as the difference between total pressure and static pressure, and in the common calculation it is one half of air density multiplied by speed through the air squared. Written as a working paddock formula, q = 1/2 * rho * V^2. The important part for driving and testing is the squared speed term. If the car is unchanged and the air density is unchanged, the aero load does not rise in a straight line with speed. It rises with speed squared.

That squared term is why dynamic pressure is a better dial than your casual sense of speed. A little more speed at the top end of a straight can mean a noticeably larger aero load. A small speed loss in a fast corner can remove more downforce than your right foot expects. When you compare two laps, two setups, or two weather conditions, the useful question is not simply how fast was the car going. The useful question is how much dynamic pressure was available at the moment you are judging.

Keep this lesson narrow. It is not a lesson about deciding whether a change made more drag or more downforce, and it is not a full lesson on center of pressure or aero balance. Those are sibling skills. Here, dynamic pressure is the index. It is the x-axis you use before you make claims about drag, downforce, balance, pressure maps, coastdown results, or high-speed driver feel. If you do not first know whether the air load was comparable, you can talk yourself into conclusions that the run did not actually support.

The first mental shift is to stop treating vehicle speed and air speed as always the same thing. Wheel speed or GPS speed can estimate dynamic pressure by putting vehicle speed into the q formula. That estimate is useful, and a standard logger with speed, engine rpm, longitudinal acceleration, and suspension travel can still give a meaningful aero estimate. But a pitot tube measures the pressure relationship directly. A pitot-based dynamic-pressure trace and a calculated trace will resemble one another when the air is still and the car is alone. They deviate when the car sees wind or disturbed air.

That deviation matters on track. In a headwind, actual dynamic pressure is higher than the value you would estimate from ground speed alone. The car sees more air speed than the GPS number implies. Drag rises, and downforce rises as well. In a tailwind, the opposite happens: ground speed can look better on the straight while actual dynamic pressure and downforce are lower. In a slipstream, the car is again not seeing clean air that matches its ground speed. That is why top speed, by itself, is a poor aero verdict. A car that gains speed in a tailwind or draft may not have become lower drag. It may simply be operating in lower dynamic pressure.

As a driver, your first practical use of the dial is to attach every aero comment to a speed range. Do not report only that the car understeers. Say whether the understeer appears in the fast entry, the apex of a high-speed corner, the exit where speed has bled off, or the slow corner where aero load is small. The corpus gives a practical track-testing range by pointing at higher-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds above roughly 60 mph or 100 km/h, while also warning that the threshold depends on downforce level. Treat that as a working guide, not a law. The more aero sensitive the car is, the sooner the dial matters. The less aero the car has, the more cautious you should be before blaming a low-speed problem on bodywork.

Your second use is to choose fair data windows. A straight-line end point, a fast entry, a fast apex, or a constant high-speed section can be useful because dynamic pressure is high enough to make the aero signal visible. A slow hairpin exit is usually a poor place to judge an aero change unless the change also affected something mechanical. For a downforce measurement with suspension deflection, the useful condition is constant, fairly high speed on a long, flat, smooth straight. For drag measurement by coastdown, the road still needs to be long, straight, flat, and smooth. For surface-pressure work, the chosen test speed must be repeatable enough that pressure differences are not just speed differences in disguise.

Your third use is to keep test discipline. The aerodynamic force on the car is proportional to shape, size, speed, and air density. When you change the car, you are trying to learn something about the shape or setup change. If air density, wind, traffic, tire condition, or driver execution changes at the same time, the test becomes muddy. The practical testing advice in the corpus is blunt: run one configuration, run the comparison configuration, average the laps, discard abnormal times, and return to the baseline periodically because weather, track condition, and tire deterioration can move the baseline underneath you. Dynamic pressure does not remove those problems. It gives you a way to notice and contain them.

The cleanest instrumentation path is a pitot tube. A pitot tube can provide total pressure and, when paired with a reference static pressure in undisturbed air, lets you calculate dynamic pressure. On a closed car, reference static pressure may be measured inside the car for some surface-pressure work. On an open car, the reference needs to be placed above or ahead of the car where the air is not disturbed by the body. The point is not that every HPDE driver needs to install a pitot tube. The point is that pitot-based dynamic pressure tells you what the car actually saw through the air, including environmental airflow. That makes it especially useful when wind or traffic is part of the question.

The lower-cost path is calculated dynamic pressure from wheel speed or GPS speed. You use the same q relationship, with speed from the logger and air density as the density term. This is good enough for many learning tasks. It lets you mark the parts of the lap where aero force should be large, compare one setup against another at similar speed, and avoid reading too much into low-speed handling. Its limitation is also clear: calculated q assumes the car is seeing the same air speed as its ground speed. It cannot know, by itself, that a headwind added air speed, a tailwind removed it, or a car ahead disturbed the flow.

For an intermediate driver, the most valuable habit is to put measured q and calculated q side by side whenever you have both. If they overlay cleanly, the run is probably not being dominated by wind or draft effects. If measured q is higher than calculated q on the straight, think headwind or cleaner air speed than ground speed implies. If it is lower, think tailwind or reduced effective air speed. If the mismatch appears only when you are tucked behind another car, do not use that lap to judge the car's own aero setup. It may still be a useful racecraft lap, but it is a poor clean-air aero test.

Dynamic pressure also explains why aero forces show up through different channels. Drag is the horizontal resisting component, parallel to the direction of travel and opposite the car's motion. Downforce is the vertical component that increases the tire's cornering potential. Both are aerodynamic forces, and both are tied to dynamic pressure through their coefficients and the car's reference area. You do not need to solve every equation at the track, but you do need the relationship in your head: same car, same shape, same density, more q means more aero force.

This is why a high-speed corner can feel stable in one run and light in another even if the ground-speed trace looks close. If the second run has lower true dynamic pressure because of a tailwind, the tires may have less vertical load from aero at the same GPS speed. The driver may describe that as less confidence, less platform support, or needing to wait before committing. If the run has a headwind, the car may feel more planted, but it may also lose straight-line speed because drag rises with the same air-load dial. The aero dial moves both the useful vertical load and the resisting horizontal load.

Be careful with the word feel. Driver feedback is important, and the corpus specifically includes driver feedback on aerodynamic handling balance as part of a practical test. But feeling alone is not enough. You want feedback tied to the same dynamic-pressure windows each run. If you say the car is better in the fast right-hander, look at entry, apex, and exit speeds for that corner, and check whether the q environment was similar. If the car gained in a sector that includes a straight and a fast corner, do not instantly assign the gain to downforce or drag. Use the related lesson on separating drag from downforce for that. In this lesson, your job is first to ask whether the comparison was made at the same aero dial setting.

There are four main places dynamic pressure belongs in your normal workflow. First, it belongs in planning. Before the session, choose the segments where q will be high enough to matter: a long straight for drag or coastdown work, a fast corner for aero handling, or a steady high-speed run for suspension-deflection downforce measurement. Second, it belongs in logging. If you have a pitot tube, log measured q. If not, calculate q from wheel speed or GPS speed. Third, it belongs in notes. Your driver notes should tag comments as low speed, medium speed, or high q rather than simply good or bad. Fourth, it belongs in the review. You compare setup A and setup B only in windows where the q conditions are close enough to support the conclusion.

A basic aero test should start with a stable mechanical baseline. The corpus assumes a racecar with an optimized mechanical setup before aerodynamic configuration changes are judged. That does not mean the car must be perfect. It means you should not be chasing a mechanical braking, alignment, tire, or damper problem while trying to learn an aero lesson. If the car is mechanically inconsistent, q will not rescue the test. It will only show you that the aero conditions were comparable while the rest of the car was not.

Once the baseline is stable, define the question in one sentence. For this lesson, the question should be phrased around dynamic pressure. Examples: at what speed does this wing angle begin to show up in driver feel; does the calculated q trace match the measured q trace in this wind; are the fast-corner gains happening at similar q; is the suspension compression at constant high speed repeatable enough to estimate downforce. Avoid vague questions such as is the car better. Vague questions invite vague answers.

Then choose your measurement level. At the simplest level, you have lap time, sector time, speed, and driver comments. That is enough to learn something if you are disciplined. At the next level, you add calculated q from GPS or wheel speed and use it to mark the analysis windows. At a stronger level, you add suspension travel, longitudinal acceleration, and possibly ride height. At the advanced level, you add measured dynamic pressure, suspension load, and ride height together with the basic signals. The corpus is clear that exact aerodynamic magnitudes need the more advanced configuration, but useful estimates can still come from a more standard setup.

When you run the test, change one aero item at a time. That rule is not unique to dynamic pressure, but it is essential here because q is already changing around the lap. If you change wing angle, splitter height, tire pressures, and driving line at once, you will not know which thing produced the result. The example methodology in the corpus compares two wing configurations, runs each over five laps, averages lap times, discards abnormal times, and keeps other changes out. That is the level of discipline you need even when the test feels casual.

Return to baseline during the session. This is not bureaucracy. Tires deteriorate. Weather shifts. Track condition changes. Wind can move. If you only run baseline at the beginning and the test setup at the end, the apparent change may be partly the day moving underneath the car. A return-to-baseline run lets you see whether the original reference still exists. When the baseline has moved, your notes should say so. A less exciting but honest conclusion is better than a confident false one.

Use dynamic pressure to make the post-session review less emotional. Start by overlaying speed and q traces, or calculated and measured q if both exist. Mark the same segment on each run. Check whether the runs you want to compare were actually comparable through the air. Then look at the relevant outcome: straight-line speed for drag-sensitive work, high-speed entry/apex/exit speed for cornering aero, suspension compression for downforce estimation, and driver comments for balance. Do not start with the fastest lap of the day. Start with the cleanest comparison.

For downforce estimation through suspension deflection, the technique is specific. Run the car at a constant, fairly high speed on a suitable straight, log damper travel or suspension deflection at front and rear, and later calibrate those deflections in the garage by applying known mass at each axle through the relevant travel range. Track surface irregularities create noise, so filtering is part of the method. The dynamic-pressure skill is to make sure the deflection is compared at the same q. More compression at higher q is expected. More compression at the same q is evidence worth examining.

For drag measurement, the common low-budget technique is coastdown. You use a long, straight, flat, smooth road or equivalent test space and examine how the car decelerates. The caution is that total drag in such methods includes mechanical resistance as well as aerodynamic resistance. That means a coastdown result is not pure aero unless the mechanical component is accounted for. Dynamic pressure helps by giving you the air-load context, but it does not magically remove bearing drag, drivetrain losses, tire rolling resistance, or slope and wind errors. Treat coastdown as useful, but not more precise than the setup deserves.

For surface-pressure work, dynamic pressure is the reference that turns local pressure readings into useful aerodynamic information. Pressure taps or surface-mounted transducers can show how local static pressures change over wings, underbodies, diffusers, and other areas of interest. But the readings need a reference static pressure from air undisturbed by the car's motion, and the difference between total and reference static pressure gives the dynamic pressure. Without that reference, pressure maps can become interesting pictures without a stable scale. With it, configuration changes can be compared more meaningfully.

This is also where you should learn humility. The corpus points out that mapping static pressures over many locations can require many runs, and those runs can be affected by environmental fluctuations. That is a direct warning against overclaiming. If it takes several passes to gather the pressure map, the weather and tires may not stay fixed. Dynamic pressure helps you tag the conditions of each pass, but it cannot make a scattered test into a controlled one. Use local pressure work for focused questions, such as a wing or underbody area, before assuming you can map the whole car cleanly.

The in-car cues are useful when you know what they mean. In a headwind, you may feel what anyone feels pushing through air: the car resists more on the straight, yet the platform can feel more loaded in fast sections because downforce is up. In a tailwind, you may see a better top speed while the fast corner feels less supported. In a draft, you may carry speed differently but lose the clean-air relationship between ground speed and dynamic pressure. Those cues should push you to check the q traces, not to conclude from the seat alone.

A good instructor would listen for the way you describe the problem. If you say the car felt bad everywhere, the next question is where. If you say it pushed in the fast corner, the next question is whether entry, apex, or exit changed and whether the speed range was high enough for aero to dominate. If you say the wing worked because top speed fell, the next question is what happened in the high-speed corners and whether wind changed. If you say the car was faster in traffic, the next question is whether that lap belongs in an aero setup comparison at all.

The calibration signs are concrete. On the data side, calculated q should follow speed squared, so the trace grows sharply at high speed. A pitot-measured q trace should resemble the calculated trace in clean, still-air running and deviate when wind or slipstream changes the air the car sees. Suspension deflection used for downforce should become meaningful at constant high speed and should be calibrated back to known axle loads. Sector gains from aero changes should appear where dynamic pressure is high enough, not randomly in the slowest parts of the lap. On the driver side, the comment quality improves from good or bad to precise statements about high-q entry support, fast-apex balance, straight-line resistance, and whether the run was in clean air.

The common failure is treating dynamic pressure as a formula you once learned rather than a dial you actively use. The formula is only the entrance. The skill is to ask q questions every time you read an aero result. Was the car seeing the same air speed? Was the run in clean air? Was the wind different? Was the corner fast enough? Was the suspension measurement taken at constant high speed? Was the top-speed change a drag result, a tailwind result, or a drafting result? Was the baseline refreshed after the tires and weather changed? Those questions turn dynamic pressure from a textbook line into a trackside tool.

Use cross-references deliberately. When you want to know whether a change helped by reducing drag or increasing downforce, go to the sibling lesson on separating drag from downforce. When the car's high-speed balance changes front to rear, go to the center-of-pressure lessons. When the driver is reporting high-speed understeer or oversteer, connect this lesson to reading aero behavior through handling. When you are tempted to trim the car for top speed without a clear goal, connect to setting the aero objective before you trim. Dynamic pressure comes first because it tells you whether the aero system was turned up enough, and cleanly enough, for those other lessons to mean anything.

Your takeaway is this: do not ask what the aero did until you know what the air was doing. Dynamic pressure is the speed dial for the air load on the car. It rises with speed through the air squared. It can be measured directly with a pitot system or estimated from speed. It is distorted by headwind, tailwind, and slipstream relative to ground speed. It gives you the fair comparison window for drag, downforce, surface pressure, suspension deflection, and driver feedback. Use it before you judge the setup, and your aero notes will become less dramatic and more true.

Worked example: Ferrari F1 pitot logic in ordinary testing

The Ferrari Formula One pitot example in the corpus is not useful because you need a Formula One budget. It is useful because it shows the clean measurement idea. The pitot tube is mounted to measure the pressure relationship of the air the car actually sees. That direct dynamic-pressure trace can be compared with a calculated trace from vehicle speed.

Imagine you are reviewing two laps from the same car. On lap one, the calculated q from GPS speed and the measured q from the pitot tube rise and fall together down the straight. On lap two, the car reaches a similar ground speed, but measured q sits above the calculated estimate. The setup did not suddenly make the air denser. The more likely lesson is that the car saw additional air speed, such as a headwind. If you judged only ground speed, you might think the car was slower because of added drag from a setup change. If you include measured q, you can see that the car was pushing through more air load.

Now flip the case. The car records a better top speed, but measured q is lower than the calculated ground-speed estimate would lead you to expect. That is a warning against celebrating the aero package. A tailwind can raise top speed while reducing downforce at the same place on the track. The driver may report that the fast corner after the straight felt less supported. That is not a contradiction. It is the same dynamic-pressure dial explaining both sensations: less resisting air load on the straight and less vertical aero load in the corner.

The lesson for your own testing is to distrust top speed without air-speed context. If you have measured q, use it. If you do not, at least annotate wind direction, traffic, and whether the lap was in clean air. A clean slower-looking lap may be a better setup comparison than a faster lap helped by tailwind or slipstream.

Worked example: GT3 end-of-straight data point

One corpus chunk describes using a GT3 car configuration and an end-of-straight cursor point for aero calculations. You can turn that into a practical review habit even if you are not solving the full coefficient equations at the track.

Pick a repeatable end-of-straight point before braking, where the car is fast, stable, and not yet loaded by a steering or brake transient. At that point, record speed, calculated or measured dynamic pressure, longitudinal acceleration context, and suspension information if available. If your logger has pitot dynamic pressure, that point can show what the air load really was. If your logger has only GPS or wheel speed, it can still provide a calculated q estimate.

Now compare that same point across runs. If configuration B shows a lower top speed but similar or higher measured q, do not jump directly to a conclusion. It may have added drag, or the wind may have changed. If configuration B shows more suspension compression at the same q, the downforce evidence is stronger. If the driver says the car felt more secure in the fast entry after that straight, check whether the entry happened at a similar q. If the q is not similar, the driver may be comparing two different aero load levels rather than two different setups.

The discipline is the point. The end of the straight is attractive because dynamic pressure is high, but high q also magnifies bad assumptions. Use the same physical point, the same channel set, clean-air laps, and a refreshed baseline. Then the data point can support a useful conversation instead of becoming a single impressive number.

Worked example: two-wing comparison without fooling yourself

The corpus describes a practical wing comparison method based on running two configurations over five laps each, changing only the wing configuration, averaging lap times, discarding abnormal times, and returning to baseline when conditions may be moving. That is a strong template for club-level aero testing.

Here is how dynamic pressure fits into that template. Before the first run, identify the high-q analysis zones: the main straight, the fastest entry, the fastest apex, and the fastest exit. During the baseline five-lap block, log speed and calculated q, or measured q if available. Write driver notes only after each lap or immediately after the session, and tag them to the high-speed zones. Then change only the wing configuration and repeat the block.

In review, do not start with the single best lap. Average the usable laps and throw out clear abnormalities, just as the methodology suggests. Then compare the high-q zones. Did the test wing slow the car on the straight but improve entry and apex speed in a fast corner? That may be a real trade, but the related drag-versus-downforce lesson is where you classify it. In this lesson, you first ask whether both blocks saw similar dynamic-pressure conditions. If the second block had a headwind, added drag and added downforce may both be inflated. If the second block had a tailwind, a straight-speed gain may be contaminated.

The baseline return is what protects the conclusion. If you go back to the original wing setting and the baseline no longer matches, something changed besides the wing. Tires may have deteriorated, weather may have shifted, or track condition may have moved. The honest note is not that the test failed. The honest note is that the dynamic-pressure and baseline context no longer supports a clean conclusion.

Common mistakes and what good looks like

The GPS-only certainty error. The mistake is treating GPS or wheel speed as the air speed in every condition. That works as an estimate when the air is still and the car is alone, but it misses headwind, tailwind, and slipstream. Good looks like saying that calculated q is an estimate, checking measured q when available, and excluding draft-affected laps from clean-air setup judgments.

The top-speed trap. The mistake is declaring an aero change successful because the car gained top speed. A tailwind or slipstream can increase top speed while reducing true dynamic pressure and downforce. Good looks like pairing top speed with air-load context, sector behavior, and high-speed corner evidence.

The low-speed aero blame. The mistake is blaming slow-corner understeer or traction trouble on aero before checking whether dynamic pressure is high enough for aero to be a major contributor. Good looks like separating low-speed mechanical behavior from high-q aero behavior, then using the aero-handling lesson only where the speed range supports it.

The single-run conclusion. The mistake is making one change, running one pleasing lap, and calling the result proven. Good looks like repeated laps, averages, abnormal-lap rejection, and periodic baseline returns, especially when weather, track condition, and tires are changing.

The too-many-changes problem. The mistake is changing wing, ride height, tire pressure, and driving approach in one block. Dynamic pressure may be well measured, but the cause of the outcome is not. Good looks like one aero configuration change at a time, with the same high-q windows reviewed across runs.

The noisy suspension-read error. The mistake is reading damper travel at speed as pure downforce. Track irregularities create noise, and deflection must be calibrated against known axle loads. Good looks like constant high-speed running on suitable pavement, garage calibration through the travel range, and filtering before making a downforce estimate.

The coastdown overclaim. The mistake is treating coastdown deceleration as pure aerodynamic drag. The corpus warns that total drag includes mechanical resistance. Good looks like using coastdown carefully, controlling the road and wind conditions as much as possible, and stating the limitation when interpreting the result.

The pressure-map without scale problem. The mistake is collecting local pressure readings without a reliable reference static pressure and dynamic-pressure context. Good looks like measuring or defining a reference in undisturbed air, using the total-minus-static relationship, and keeping the question local enough that environmental fluctuations do not swamp the result.

Drill: the dynamic-pressure notebook progression

Do this over one event day if traffic and schedule allow, or over three separate sessions if your run groups are short. The count is three blocks. Each block needs at least four clean laps, and the success criterion is that you can identify your useful high-q windows and reject at least one misleading comparison for a specific reason.

Block one is the map. Run the car in its normal baseline setup. After the session, mark the parts of the lap where speed is high enough that aero may matter: the main straight, the fastest corner entry, the fastest apex, and the fastest exit. If you have data, calculate q from GPS or wheel speed. If you do not, use speed as the rough proxy and label the zones as low, medium, or high. Write one driver note for each high-q zone, not for the lap as a whole.

Block two is the clean-air check. Run the same setup again and try to create clean, repeatable laps. Mark any lap affected by traffic, draft, obvious wind shift, or a major driving error. Compare the q or speed shape from block one to block two. The success criterion is not a faster lap. The success criterion is being able to say which laps are valid for aero comparison and which are not.

Block three is the controlled change, only if your event rules and car preparation make a small aero change appropriate. Make one configuration change, such as a wing setting, and run the same high-q windows again. Do not change tires, pressures, alignment, ride height, and wing all together. Review the same segments. The success criterion is a written conclusion with three parts: what changed in the high-q data window, what the driver felt in that same window, and whether the dynamic-pressure conditions were comparable enough to trust the comparison.

If you have a pitot-based channel, add one extra requirement: compare measured q with calculated q. Note where they diverge. If divergence appears with wind or traffic, treat that as a lesson, not a nuisance. You have found exactly why dynamic pressure is the better aero dial.

When this principle breaks down or needs backup

Dynamic pressure is the aero speed dial, but it is not the whole car. It needs backup whenever another variable is large enough to hide the aero signal. Low-speed handling needs mechanical analysis first because the aero dial may be turned down. Ride-height sensitivity can change aerodynamic balance, so a setup that changes platform height may move more than just total load. Tire deterioration can change lap and sector times during an aero test, which is why baseline returns matter. Track-surface irregularities can contaminate suspension-deflection downforce estimates, which is why filtering and calibration matter.

Wind and traffic do not break the principle. They prove the principle. They break lazy use of ground speed. In headwind, tailwind, and slipstream, the car's speed over the ground is not the same as its speed through the air. That is when measured dynamic pressure becomes most valuable and calculated dynamic pressure must be treated as an estimate.

Instrumentation limits also matter. A standard logger can support useful estimates, but exact aerodynamic force magnitudes require a more advanced set of channels, including dynamic pressure, suspension load, and ride height alongside the basic signals. Surface-pressure maps can be powerful, but many measurement locations require many runs, and environmental fluctuations can affect the map. Coastdown can be practical, but total drag includes mechanical resistance. In all of these cases, dynamic pressure remains the organizing dial, but your confidence level must match the quality of the measurement.

Author Review

No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.

Sources

#	Document	Chunk	Pages	Score	Collection
1	Analysis Techniques for Racecar Data Acquisition	f7d29826-fd62-df90-5acd-3e6413b93790	17	1	uio_books_raw_v1
2	Analysis Techniques for Racecar Data Acquisition	2c1d3308-f7e2-c3a6-3b75-8d8b93b5f59c	17	1	uio_books_raw_v1
3	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	c7061e35-15c9-08fb-b0a9-b04116b1715c	348	1	uio_books_raw_v1
4	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	4adf8cb4-89c7-1b45-bd4d-9bb03634ecf3	345	1	uio_books_raw_v1
5	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	c0cd0f54-6d9c-7f08-e9af-37c31b3421d3	345	1	uio_books_raw_v1
6	Analysis Techniques for Racecar Data Acquisition	91886dcf-9cde-b60d-523e-865cfd7eb143	17	1	uio_books_raw_v1
7	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	0278f848-5839-0a5b-9776-f3dabc163310	350	1	uio_books_raw_v1
8	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	c87c89fe-58c4-8968-6248-4a307e39f9e2	346	1	uio_books_raw_v1