Make yourself the reference lap
Generated from
content/lms/race-car-engineering-and-operations/03-testing-and-development/03-driver-consistency-as-a-test-tool.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/race-car-engineering-and-operations/03-testing-and-development/03-driver-consistency-as-a-test-tool.md
Course: Run the paddock like a race engineer
Module: Test like you mean it
Estimated duration: 65 minutes
Principle - the driver is part of the test instrument.
When you test a race car, the car is not the only thing being tested. You are also in the measurement chain. Your braking point, release rate, turn-in path, steering speed, throttle pickup, and willingness to use the same piece of pavement all change what the car does. If those pieces move around from lap to lap, the car cannot tell the truth cleanly. A rear slide on lap three might be a setup symptom, a tire symptom, or simply the result of you turning in earlier, snapping off the throttle, or asking the car to follow a different radius.
The core rule is simple: before you ask the car to reveal itself, make yourself repeatable enough that the car has something stable to answer against. The bonded Prost material states the idea directly: consistency makes the driver a reference point in himself, and repeating the same procedure lap after lap is what turns a driver into a useful test driver. For this lesson, that is the whole job. You are not trying to be heroic. You are trying to become a reliable reference.
This does not mean driving slowly, timidly, or mechanically. It means choosing a procedure, executing it with attention, and then listening for what changes while your procedure stays fixed. If the rear breaks away more quickly on one lap than it did on the previous lap, that observation only matters if your entry, line, throttle, and correction habits were close enough to compare. If you changed the question, do not pretend the car changed the answer.
That is why this lesson sits beside, but does not duplicate, the sibling lessons on baselining and changing one thing. Baseline work asks what state the car is in before a test. One-change testing asks how to isolate a setup variable. This lesson is about the human variable. You can establish a baseline and change only one mechanical item and still ruin the test if your driving pattern wanders. The car needs a repeatable driver before it can give a repeatable answer.
What same line really means.
Same line does not mean a vague intention to be smooth. It means you can identify the path through a corner before you arrive, drive that path again, and know when you missed it. Lopez emphasizes that you have to know the line before you can safely go fast, and another Going Faster chunk frames the task as finding the route around the course that takes the least amount of time. In a test session, the line is more than a speed technique. It is the measurement path.
Think of the line as the route on which you will ask the car the same question repeatedly. If you enter a corner from a slightly different width, turn in at a slightly different place, clip a different part of the apex, or release the car to a different exit lane, you have changed the geometry of the question. A car that feels tight on a shallow entry may feel neutral on a later, wider entry. A car that feels loose when you ask it to rotate early may feel planted when you slow the rotation request and wait for a later apex. Neither response is fake. They are answers to different questions.
For an intermediate driver, the first step is to make the line visible in your own mind. Before the session, pick the entry lane, braking zone, release point, turn-in reference, apex reference, and exit target for the corners you are evaluating. You do not need an elaborate data system to begin. You need a stable mental map and enough discipline to notice when you leave it. Bentley's mental-programming material matters here: he describes high-level driving as building a clear program for every inch of track and then trusting that program at speed. Testing consistency is exactly that, but with a diagnostic purpose.
Same line also means you treat the straight as part of the corner. Going Faster frames straightaways as the majority of the circuit and asks how to drive down them in minimum time: as fast as possible. The practical testing point is that corner exit determines how much of that straight you get to use. If your exit path changes, your throttle timing and straightaway speed change. Then the next braking zone changes. Then the next corner entry changes. One missed exit can contaminate the next half-lap.
So your reference lap is not a collection of isolated heroic corners. It is a connected route. You choose the route, then you drive it as consistently as you can. When you miss a reference, you mark that lap in your mind as dirty for diagnostic purposes. You can still learn from it, but you do not give it the same weight as a lap where the procedure stayed intact.
Same procedure beats same lap time.
A common trap is to judge repeatability by lap time alone. Lap time matters, but lap time is only the outside skin of the lap. Two laps can be close on the stopwatch while being very different inside the corners. One lap may give away entry speed and regain time on exit. Another may charge entry, wait too long for the car to settle, and still land near the same total time. For testing, those are not equivalent laps.
Your procedure is the sequence of actions that creates the lap: lift or brake timing, initial brake pressure, brake release, steering start, steering rate, minimum-speed zone, throttle pickup, unwind, and exit placement. The chunks from Going Faster around braking and entering, throttle-brake transition, and the transition from the straight to throttle application all point toward the same reality: the car's behavior is shaped by how you move it from one phase to the next. If those transitions vary, the car's response varies.
The throttle matters especially because the supplied Going Faster material warns that an abrupt snap off the gas upsets balance. That one sentence is a test-driver warning. If you snap off the throttle on one lap and roll out of it on the next, you have created two different load-transfer events before the corner has even begun. If the rear feels nervous after the abrupt lift, the first suspicion should not be a setup change. The first suspicion should be your input.
The brake release matters for the same reason. The chapter material identifies braking and entering as its own area of concentration, and the visible section heading on throttle-brake transition is a useful reminder that the switch from one pedal state to another is a skill. You are not just choosing a brake marker. You are choosing how the car is loaded as it turns. A sudden release, a dragged release, and a calm release can all produce different front grip, rear stability, and rotation timing. For a test lap, pick the release you are trying to execute and compare only the laps where you actually did it.
Steering matters because it is the most obvious place a driver hides inconsistency. A later turn-in with a faster steering rate is not the same test as an earlier turn-in with a slower build. More steering angle at the same speed asks more from the front tires. If the car under-responds after you add steering more aggressively, that may be a car balance issue, but it may also be you over-asking the front axle. The correct test-driver question is the Bryan Herta question from the bonded chunks, paraphrased without pretending to quote it: did the car need something different, or did your approach to the corner need something different?
The reference lap has a hierarchy.
You do not make every detail perfect at once. You build the repeatable lap in layers. The first layer is safety and track placement. You keep the car on the racetrack, you do not use spins as a measuring device, and you do not let the test become an ego exercise. The Herta material in Going Faster is blunt on this theme: he did not push to the point of spinning to find the limit, and the Indy example makes the point harder because the consequences there leave no room for that style of discovery. A professional test lap begins with keeping the car available for the next lap.
The second layer is line. You make the entry, apex, and exit path repeatable enough that you can tell when you missed one. This is where knowing the line before going fast matters. You are not required to drive a perfect racing line on the first try, but you are required to drive an intentional one. If you do not know what path you meant to drive, you cannot know whether the car failed to follow it.
The third layer is phase timing. The lap has phases: straight, brake, enter, rotate, pick up throttle, exit, and repeat. The exact vocabulary can vary, but the sequence matters. Your goal is to make each transition occur at a similar place and with a similar shape. If your braking point moves by a car length, your release point moves, and your turn-in speed moves, the corner has changed. If your throttle pickup comes earlier because you were braver rather than because the car accepted it, you have changed the test.
The fourth layer is effort level. You want enough pace for the car to show its handling, but not so much desperation that every lap becomes a rescue. Bentley's material on the pursuit of the perfect corner and the subconscious execution of great drivers is useful here. The best drivers are not consciously wrestling every movement in isolation. They have practiced the program until it runs under load. For testing, you want the same direction: enough mental bandwidth remains that you can feel and report what the car did.
The fifth layer is language. After the run, you need to describe what changed without mixing it with what you changed. A useful driver report separates car behavior from driver behavior. It sounds like this in plain terms: I used the same entry and throttle pickup for three laps, and the rear stepped out earlier on the last one. Or: I cannot call that a car change because I missed the apex and picked up throttle late. The difference between those two reports is the difference between test evidence and paddock noise.
How the car reveals itself.
The car reveals itself through contrast. You drive the same procedure and notice differences in response. The response might be earlier rear breakaway, slower front response, more hesitation before throttle, a longer wait before the car accepts steering, or a cleaner exit than before. The key is not the specific symptom alone. The key is the symptom relative to a repeated question.
If you drive a stable line through a corner for several laps and the rear begins to break away sooner while your entry and release stayed familiar, the car is giving a stronger signal. It might be tire condition, fuel load, track surface, or setup, but it is at least less likely to be random driver variation. If you change your entry width, turn in earlier, add speed, and then report that the rear is worse, your report has less value. It may still be true that the rear moved, but you cannot cleanly say why.
This is where the lesson connects to test operations. The car does not need you to diagnose the whole setup from the cockpit. It needs you to provide clean observations. You are allowed to say you do not know. You are allowed to say the lap was not comparable. You are not allowed to convert a messy lap into a confident setup conclusion. The more disciplined you are about classifying your own laps, the more useful your feedback becomes.
The bonded Bentley material on performance versus competition also applies. Testing rewards focus on your own performance, not on what other drivers are doing. If you spend the session chasing a car ahead, defending a mirror, or copying someone else's corner in real time, you are no longer holding the test conditions steady. There are race sessions where compromises are required, and Bentley notes that the ideal line can vary because of rubber, oil, competitors, fuel load, and tire condition. But in a test session, those variations should be noted as disturbances, not silently folded into the result.
The compromise rule is this: if the track, traffic, or car condition forces you to change the line, acknowledge the change and protect the test. You can still learn, but you should not compare that lap as if it were clean. A lap spent offline in traffic can tell you about racecraft or adaptability. It is a weak lap for judging whether the last setup change improved steady corner balance. A lap affected by oil, rubber buildup, or fading tires is not useless, but it belongs in a different mental bucket.
The mental program is not optional.
Many drivers imagine consistency as a stiff, conscious act: think harder, grip tighter, force the car through the same marks. The Bentley chunks point the other way. His Senna example describes a driver performing beyond conscious step-by-step control because the program was developed and trusted. For this lesson, do not copy the drama of that Monaco qualifying story. Copy the preparation principle: build a clear program for the track and trust it enough that your attention can move from merely surviving the lap to sensing what the car is doing.
You create that program before the speed arrives. Walk through the lap in your head. Name the corners where you are testing. Pick the references. Decide where the lap begins for diagnostic purposes. Decide what counts as a miss. Then drive the first laps with the purpose of confirming the program, not proving your bravery. As pace rises, the program gives you something to return to.
This mental program also prevents over-driving the test. If you are consciously inventing the lap corner by corner, you will tend to make emotional changes: brake a little later because the previous lap felt slow, turn in a little sooner because the car ahead disappeared, pick up throttle early because you want the stopwatch to approve. Those changes may produce speed, but they muddy diagnosis. A programmed lap gives you a plan that resists impulse.
The program should be specific but not brittle. You still watch the track. You still respect flags, traffic, debris, and changing grip. Bentley's compromise material makes clear that track and race conditions can change from lap to lap. The test-driver skill is to know the difference between a disciplined adjustment and an unconscious variation. If you moved offline because there was traffic, say so. If you changed the entry because the prior line was unsafe or clearly wrong, say so. If you changed it because you were chasing time without noticing, that is the habit this lesson is trying to remove.
The feedback loop during the session.
During a consistency session, you run a short internal checklist each lap. First, did I place the car where I intended on entry, apex, and exit? Second, did my brake and throttle transitions feel like the previous lap? Third, did the car's response change anyway? Fourth, did that change repeat? Fifth, is the change important enough to report, or is it just one messy moment?
The checklist should run quietly. You are not writing a novel at speed. You are tagging laps as comparable or not comparable. A comparable lap is not necessarily a perfect lap. It is a lap where the important parts of the test question stayed intact. A non-comparable lap is not a failure of your worth as a driver. It is simply not clean evidence for the specific question.
Between laps, do not make a dozen experiments. If the purpose is to let the car reveal itself, hold the procedure long enough to hear the answer. The sibling lesson on changing one thing handles the mechanical side of that discipline. Here the same rule applies to inputs. If you change entry speed, brake release, apex, and throttle pickup all at once, you changed several driver variables. The car may feel better or worse, but the result is hard to interpret.
After the session, your debrief should begin with the quality of your repetition. Say which corners were clean enough to compare and which were not. Then describe the repeated car behavior. Then separate the laps affected by traffic, surface changes, or driver error. This is not self-criticism for its own sake. It is how you protect the team from acting on bad evidence.
A useful report might say: turns two and three were clean for four laps, same entry and exit targets, and the car needed more steering before it would point. A less useful report says: the car understeers everywhere. The first report gives the engineer or instructor a place, phase, and repeated condition. The second may be emotionally true, but it does not yet identify whether the car, tires, surface, or driver procedure changed.
Calibration cues - how you know the skill is improving.
Your first cue is visual. You arrive at the same part of the track without last-second correction. Your eyes find the same entry, apex, and exit references without panic. You stop needing to search for the corner after braking begins. This aligns with the line material from Going Faster: you know the line before you try to safely go fast.
Your second cue is physical. The car takes a similar set at the same phase of the corner. The brake release produces a familiar pitch change. The steering build feels like the same shape. The throttle pickup does not surprise the rear. You can feel when the car is different because your own body has made the previous laps familiar.
Your third cue is mental bandwidth. At first, consistency consumes attention. Later, the program starts to run, and you have room to notice. Bentley's subconscious-performance material is not asking you to become Senna overnight. It is pointing toward the state where the basic lap is programmed well enough that you can sense detail. When you can report the car instead of merely report survival, you are becoming useful in testing.
Your fourth cue is debrief quality. Your feedback moves from broad judgments to phase-specific observations. You stop saying the car is bad and start saying the car asked for more steering after turn-in, or the rear stepped out sooner at throttle pickup, or the entry was not comparable because you released the brake differently. That is the language of a driver who is separating car behavior from driver input.
Your fifth cue is restraint. You become more willing to throw out your own bad laps. That restraint is a skill. Danny Sullivan's chunk acknowledges that mistakes still happen even when good drivers and instructors know a great deal. The mature test driver does not pretend mistakes vanish. The mature test driver recognizes them quickly and prevents them from becoming false conclusions.
Failure modes - what wrong looks like.
The first failure mode is the moving target. You vary the line each lap, then treat the car's changing response as a setup trend. It feels like you are gathering information, but you are mostly gathering noise. The cost is wrong changes, wasted track time, and a car that may be tuned around your inconsistency rather than its own needs.
The second failure mode is the lap-time chase. You decide the stopwatch is the only judge, so you keep changing your driving to make the next lap faster. That can be useful in a performance session, but it is not the same as a diagnostic session. Testing needs enough speed to expose the car, but it also needs enough repetition to compare responses. If every lap is a new experiment, no single answer has authority.
The third failure mode is the heroic slide. You push until the car spins or nearly spins, then call that finding the limit. The supplied Herta material rejects that approach, especially with the Indy example. A spin may teach you something, but it is an expensive, risky, and sloppy way to gather information. It also interrupts the session and can damage tires, confidence, and the car.
The fourth failure mode is the abrupt unload. You snap off the throttle, dump brake pressure, or add steering faster than the tire can accept, then blame the chassis for the response. Going Faster's warning that an abrupt snap off the gas upsets balance is enough to make this a named error. If you create the upset, do not hand it to the car as evidence.
The fifth failure mode is the conscious fight. You believe a good driver should wrestle the car into submission every inch of the lap, so you micromanage every input under tension. Bentley's mental-programming material challenges that picture. Consistency comes from programmed execution, not frantic correction. You still drive actively, but you do not want every lap to be a fresh argument.
The sixth failure mode is copying without foundation. Bentley supports learning by observation and imitation, but he also warns against copying advanced techniques before mastering basics. In this context, do not watch a faster driver use a different line, immediately copy one fragment, and then report that your car changed. Observation is useful when it helps you build a better program. It is harmful when it creates untracked variables mid-test.
Recovery rules.
When you catch yourself varying the procedure, recover by simplifying. Pick one corner and one phase. For the next several laps, make only that piece repeatable. If the whole lap is too much, make the entry lane and turn-in repeatable. If the entry is stable, add brake release. If the release is stable, add throttle pickup. A test driver is not someone who never misses. A test driver is someone who can return to the procedure after a miss.
When the car surprises you, recover without turning the surprise into a story too soon. Keep the car on track first. Then ask whether your input changed. Then ask whether the response repeated. Then report it with the uncertainty intact. If you are not sure whether you caused the moment, say that. Honesty is more useful than confidence without evidence.
When traffic or surface change interrupts the lap, do not force the comparison. Bentley's compromise material gives you permission to recognize that conditions change. In a race, you may have to adapt immediately. In a test, you tag the lap as affected. That one habit protects the value of the cleaner laps.
The standard for this lesson.
By the end of this lesson, you are not expected to be a professional factory development driver. You are expected to understand that your repeatability determines the quality of the car's feedback. You should be able to choose a reference path, repeat the main procedure for several laps, identify laps that are not comparable, and debrief car behavior separately from driver variation.
The practical standard is this: if an instructor or engineer asks what changed, you can answer in two layers. First, you can say what you did. Second, you can say what the car did in response. If you cannot describe the first layer, be careful with the second. The car may have revealed itself, but you may not have asked the same question clearly enough to understand the answer.
Worked example: Monaco 1988 as a mental-programming lesson
The Bentley chunk on Ayrton Senna's 1988 Monaco qualifying drive is not included here so you can imitate the danger or the mythology. It is useful because it shows what happens when a driver has programmed the lap so deeply that conscious step-by-step control is no longer the main operating mode. Senna was driving a McLaren against Alain Prost, and Bentley uses the story to explain trust in mental programming.
For a test driver, the takeaway is more modest and more practical. You do not want to arrive at each corner inventing the lap under pressure. You want a clear program for every inch of track you intend to evaluate. Before the session, you define the reference path. On the out lap and first build laps, you confirm it. On the test laps, you trust the program enough that attention becomes available for sensing the car.
Use the Monaco story as a warning against two opposite errors. The first error is overthinking every motion. If you are consciously debating each input at speed, the lap will vary and your feedback will be noisy. The second error is treating instinct as magic. The instinct Bentley describes is not random. It comes from programming, practice, and trust. In a Tracky test session, that means you earn the right to rely on feel by first building repeatable references.
Worked example: Indy and the no-spin standard
The Going Faster chunk around Bryan Herta uses Indy as the hard example for why spinning is not a valid method for finding the limit. The lesson for testing is direct. A spin is not just a safety problem. It is also poor measurement. It changes tire condition, driver confidence, session rhythm, and often the car itself. It may end the run before you collect the laps you needed.
Imagine you are evaluating a car that feels nervous on entry. One approach is to keep pushing until the car rotates too far and you claim to have found the limit. A better test-driver approach is to repeat the same entry and release, staying inside a margin that keeps the car available, and watch whether the rear breakaway arrives earlier, later, or with the same warning each lap. That method gives you comparison. The spin gives you drama.
This is especially important for intermediate drivers because the desire to prove pace can masquerade as test commitment. The professional habit is the opposite: preserve the car, preserve the tires, preserve the session, and preserve the evidence. If you cannot keep the car on the racetrack while asking the question, simplify the question.
Worked example: a front or all-wheel-drive entry check
The bonded Going Faster material includes front and all-wheel-drive context, braking control, and the reminder that steering, throttle, and brake moves are typical of how a car is driven at the limit in corners. The specific platform details are thin in this bond, so keep the example narrow: you are not diagnosing every drivetrain trait. You are checking whether your entry procedure is consistent enough to make a front-end complaint meaningful.
Choose one medium-speed corner where you can safely repeat the same entry lane and turn-in reference. For three comparable laps, use the same brake point, the same release shape, and the same turn-in timing. Do not add a new earlier turn-in on lap two and a later brake release on lap three. If the car asks for more steering at the same point each lap, the complaint is more credible. If the first lap pushed after you over-slowed, the second pushed after you turned in early, and the third pushed after you released the brake differently, you do not yet have a clean car finding.
The value of this example is the separation between platform behavior and driver demand. A front-end complaint may be real, but the test driver has to remove the obvious driver-side causes first. That does not mean blaming yourself for every handling issue. It means asking the car one clear question before asking the crew to answer it with setup.
Drill: reference-lap lock-in
Do this drill in one normal HPDE or test day session when traffic is manageable. The count is three sets of three comparable laps, with a cool-down or mental reset between sets if the session format allows. The total working time is usually 15 to 25 minutes inside one session, depending on lap length. The success criterion is not your fastest lap. The success criterion is that you can identify which laps were comparable, describe the repeated procedure, and name one car behavior that repeated or failed to repeat.
Set one is path only. Pick two corners, preferably one that leads onto a meaningful straight and one that exposes entry balance. For three laps, hold the same entry lane, turn-in reference, apex target, and exit target. Leave speed slightly below your maximum so you can see the path. After each lap, tag it clean or not clean. If you miss the path, do not fix five things. Return to the path.
Set two is transition shape. Keep the same path, then add brake release and throttle pickup as the focus. The task is to make the lift, brake, release, and pickup feel like the same sequence each lap. If the car changes while that sequence stays familiar, the signal matters. If the sequence changes, mark the lap as less comparable.
Set three is car response. Keep path and transitions stable, then listen. Does the car point at the same moment? Does the rear accept throttle the same way? Does the front need the same steering? Does the exit open at the same place? After the session, write a two-layer debrief: what you repeated, and what the car did. If you cannot write both layers, repeat the drill before making setup conclusions.
Common mistakes and what good looks like
Moving-target line: You enter from a different width, clip a different apex, and use a different exit, then call the changing response a car trend. Good looks like a named entry, apex, and exit path that you can repeat and audit.
Stopwatch-first testing: You keep changing your driving to make the next lap quicker. Good looks like enough pace to load the car, but enough restraint to hold the question steady for several laps.
Spin-to-learn thinking: You believe the limit is only real once the car has spun. Good looks like Herta's standard from the bonded material: keep the car on the track and approach the limit without using a spin as the measurement tool.
Abrupt unload: You snap off the gas or release the brake in a way that upsets balance, then blame the car. Good looks like a repeatable transition that lets you compare the car's response instead of your own disturbance.
Conscious wrestling: You try to control every inch by force and tension. Good looks like a rehearsed program that frees attention for sensing the car.
Untracked imitation: You copy a faster driver's line or technique in the middle of a test run without marking the change. Good looks like observation used before the session to improve your plan, not random copying that contaminates the comparison.
When this principle bends
There are times when the ideal line should not be identical from lap to lap. Bentley's compromise material names several reasons: rubber buildup, oil, competitors, handling changes as fuel load drops, tire condition, and race strategy. In traffic, you may have to drive off line. In a race, you may have to protect position or set up a pass. In changing conditions, the old reference may become the wrong reference.
The test-driver rule is not to ignore those changes. The rule is to record them mentally and stop pretending those laps are the same. If traffic forced an early turn-in, that lap is affected. If the track surface changed, that lap may still teach something about adaptability, but it should not be weighed like a clean reference lap. If the fuel load or tires changed enough to alter balance, the car may be revealing a real trend, but your report should say that the condition changed.
This is why consistency is not rigidity. Rigidity drives through oil or traffic as if reality has not changed. Consistency keeps the test question stable when conditions allow and clearly labels the laps when conditions do not. The better you get at that distinction, the more the car can tell the truth.
Cross-references inside the testing module
Use this lesson before you lean hard on the sibling lessons. Establishing a baseline before you change anything depends on a driver who can repeat the baseline procedure. Changing one thing so the car tells the truth depends on a driver who is not changing several driver inputs at the same time. If the car is changed once but the driver changes the entry, line, and throttle pickup every lap, the test still has multiple variables.
The clean workflow is driver reference, car baseline, one change, then comparison. The driver reference does not have to be perfect, but it has to be honest. You need to know which laps asked the same question and which laps did not. That honesty is what turns a track session from impressions into useful development work.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Competition driving Prost Alain 1955- Rousselot etc. | cbb9212a-0be6-867f-5b96-f2e6df66afef | 124 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | f6a4287f-9d98-107f-37ab-f70f3f63b71b | 511 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 66b6208c-a670-90ae-176f-99ab35426aee | 376 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 4e5da4b9-9759-43f4-6f55-67017525d3a9 | 120 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | cc57a48c-dcf2-7477-8b3b-db30df3737bc | 33 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 2f73ae72-43a2-df54-1740-391456bba7d1 | 74 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 2cc8fb73-bf8b-6575-5167-9dbef050bdfe | 75 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | f2410e4f-42d0-24db-af78-3d9940ff312d | 75 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 9 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | d52d4a9a-3dc8-6c7d-7001-fbcbac3a1957 | 187 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 10 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | da6988b7-0a6f-1749-9c29-b943e7922284 | 36 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 11 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 06a160fb-3b2a-e539-9ffc-8741bf0bd18d | 91 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 12 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 53875165-a508-60f1-b97e-6666a130b8b7 | 23 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 13 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | d9b414ad-6b6b-0429-25c5-55bae13ba395 | 484 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 14 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 3a1eb430-d7a4-2e33-191a-b9e6dd55ce8e | 89 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 15 | Speed Secrets Professional Race Driving Techniques Ross Bentley | 8b546b81-602a-e872-facb-d67640333134 | 6 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |