Improve your coaching loop after every session
Generated from
content/lms/coaching-science/07-build-an-ethical-coaching-practice/03-improve-your-own-coaching-loop.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/coaching-science/07-build-an-ethical-coaching-practice/03-improve-your-own-coaching-loop.md
Course: Coach drivers with evidence, not instinct
Module: Build an ethical coaching practice
Estimated duration: 60 minutes
The skill you are building
Your coaching loop is the way you improve yourself while you are trying to help a driver improve. It is the sequence you repeat before, during, and after a session: choose what you are trying to learn, gather input, decide what caused the performance, choose the next coaching move, test it, and revise. If that loop is vague, your coaching will become vague. If that loop is disciplined, your coaching will become sharper every event.
This lesson sits inside an ethical coaching practice because the loop starts with you, not with the student. The Instructor Manifesto material is direct about the priority: the student is most important, and the instructor should keep improving and help the author learn as well. That gives you the ethic of the loop. You are not improving your coaching so you can sound smarter in the right seat. You are improving it so the student gets clearer help, develops fewer bad habits, and leaves with a usable strategy rather than a pile of disconnected tips.
The principle is simple: coach the cause, then coach your own coaching of the cause. A driver makes an error or has a good run. Your first job is to understand what caused that performance. Your second job is to understand what caused your coaching response. Did you observe the right thing? Did you ask the right awareness question? Did you give a usable strategy? Did the driver understand it well enough to practice it? Did the next session confirm your read, challenge it, or show that you were solving the wrong problem?
That second job is where many coaches get lazy. They debrief the driver but do not debrief themselves. They tell the student what happened, then treat the advice as finished. Ross Bentley's learning material points in the opposite direction: better performance starts with understanding the causes of both strong and weak performance, then developing better and more consistent performance strategies. That applies to the coach too. If you want to coach better, you need to notice what causes your good coaching days and your poor coaching days.
The core mechanism is practice. Practice is not neutral. Repeating a behavior programs it. If you repeatedly give scattered comments, you become better at scattered comments. If you repeatedly miss the same cue, you become practiced at missing it. If you repeatedly ask the driver what they noticed, connect that answer to one concrete strategy, and then verify the next run, you become practiced at coaching in a way that builds the student's own awareness. The loop matters because it turns your coaching into deliberate practice instead of habit.
The six-move coaching loop
Use this six-move loop for one session at a time. Do not try to fix your entire coaching identity in one day. The car, track, student, weather, traffic, and your own attention will already give you enough variables. The loop gives you a way to reduce the session to something you can actually improve.
Move one is to choose the learning target. Before the session, decide what you are trying to observe and improve. A target is not a result such as go faster. It is a performance behavior you can watch, hear, feel, or later check on video or data. The corpus repeatedly separates information from strategy. Information alone will not make the driver better. Your pre-run target keeps you from collecting random information and then turning the debrief into a loose highlight reel.
Move two is to gather quality input. Inner Speed Secrets emphasizes that performance depends on quality sensory input, including visual, kinesthetic, and auditory information. In coaching, that means you collect more than your opinion. You watch the hands, the timing, the line, the speed change, and the driver's breathing and tension where you can. You listen to throttle, brake release, tire sound, and the student's own description. You feel the car if you are in the passenger seat. When available and appropriate, you use video, data acquisition, trackside observation, and simple sketches. Bentley describes studying driving from the car, the side of the track, the passenger seat, video, data, and other perspectives. Your coaching input should be broad enough to keep you honest.
Move three is to name the likely cause. This is the interpretation step, and it is where you earn the right to give advice. A driver who turns in early might be looking too close, afraid of entry speed, carrying too much brake, copying a previous instructor's cue, or simply lost in traffic. Those are different causes and they call for different interventions. The learning material says the goal is not only to know what successful drivers do, but how to get it. Your coaching has to move from what happened to why it happened and how the student can change it.
Move four is to choose the smallest useful intervention. A useful intervention is one thing the driver can actually practice on the next run. If the driver needs a concept before they can act, teach the concept. If the moment requires immediate in-car direction, keep it short and operational. If the driver can discover the answer through awareness, ask the question that points attention at the right input. The Instructor Manifesto chunk names teaching, instructing, and coaching as distinct modes. Treat that distinction as a check on yourself. Are you explaining, directing, or building awareness? Match the mode to the moment rather than talking because silence makes you uncomfortable.
Move five is to test the intervention. The next session is not proof that you are a good coach. It is a test of the current coaching strategy. Did the cue change the behavior you targeted? Did it change a different behavior? Did the driver understand the cue but fail to execute it? Did the driver execute it but lose something else? Bentley's material warns that there will be peaks and valleys even when the work is sound. A single run can mislead you. Look for the pattern, not your preferred story.
Move six is to revise your coaching strategy. After the session, update the target, the input, the cause, or the intervention. This is where your own loop actually improves. If the driver improved, ask why that coaching move helped. If the driver did not improve, ask whether your read was wrong, your cue was too broad, your timing was poor, or the driver needed a different learning route. Do not treat failure as embarrassment. Treat it as information about the next strategy.
Principle: quality input before confident output
One of the most useful ideas in the bonded corpus is that quality output depends on quality input. For a driver, that means better sensory input creates better driving decisions and better skill execution. For a coach, it means better observations create better coaching decisions. If your input is poor, your output can still sound confident, but it will not be reliable.
This is why the coaching loop starts with observation rather than advice. The student may expect you to talk. You may feel pressure to prove your value by talking early. Resist that pressure when safety allows. A coach who talks before observing enough often gives generic advice. Generic advice can occasionally help, but it is not a loop. It does not teach you anything about that driver, that car, that session, or your own coaching.
Quality input has three layers. First, there is direct sensory input: what you see, hear, and feel. Second, there is driver-reported input: what the student saw, felt, believed, and intended. Third, there is recorded input: video, data, notes, sketches, and session patterns. The corpus supports all three without turning the lesson into a data class. Bentley repeatedly values hands-on experience, theory that can be pictured before driving, information that becomes strategy, and practical language the driver can use. Your goal is not to collect every possible input. Your goal is to collect the right input for the coaching question in front of you.
A practical rule: before you state a cause, state the input you are using. You do not have to say it formally to the student every time, but you should be able to say it to yourself. I saw the hands add steering after turn-in. I heard the throttle hesitate before exit. I felt the car take a late set. The driver reported looking at the apex cone instead of through the exit. The video shows the same timing three laps in a row. That discipline prevents you from confusing a guess with a read.
This also keeps you inside the scope of your expertise. You are not diagnosing a driver as a person. You are identifying a performance behavior, the input that supports your interpretation, and the next experiment. If the issue moves outside your competence, you honor the boundary lessons in this module. Your coaching loop improves partly by learning where your coaching should stop.
Principle: practice programs the coach too
The corpus is blunt about practice. Practice does not automatically create good performance. Repeating the wrong thing can program the wrong thing. Bentley points out that drivers often keep practicing mistakes because they do not have a good learning, practice, or coaching strategy. That sentence should make every coach uncomfortable in a useful way. You may be part of the student's practice strategy. If your coaching is poorly structured, the student may practice the wrong thing with more commitment.
The same is true for you. Every debrief programs your future coaching. If you always start by listing every flaw you noticed, you practice overwhelming people. If you always reach for your favorite drill regardless of the driver, you practice forcing the session into your script. If you always explain the theory but never check what the driver understood, you practice leaving the student dependent on you. If you consistently observe, ask, intervene, test, and revise, you practice a coaching loop that becomes more accurate over time.
This is why the loop has to be small. Coaches often try to improve by adding more information. The better path is to improve the strategy that turns information into action. After each run, pick one coaching behavior of your own to inspect. Did you interrupt too quickly? Did you ask a question that produced awareness or a question that only asked the student to agree with you? Did you give a cue that could be practiced immediately? Did you notice whether the driver was overloaded? Did your debrief end with one clear next action?
The point is not perfection. Inner Speed Secrets warns that expecting perfection is unrealistic and can make performance worse. You are not trying to become a flawless coach. You are trying to become a coach who can identify why a session went well or poorly and then adjust. That is a different standard, and it is much more useful.
Technique: build the loop before the first session
Start your day with a lightweight coaching plan. The plan should fit on a small notebook page or a phone note, not a formal report. Write the student's context, the session target, the input you will prioritize, the intervention you are likely to use, and the question you will ask afterward. If you cannot write those five things, you probably do not yet have a coaching plan. You have an intention to be helpful.
The context line is not a biography. It is the part of the student's situation that matters to this run. Intermediate driver working through a plateau. New-to-track driver who understands theory but has little experience. Road-course driver carrying habits into an oval. Driver who can describe the line but cannot reproduce the timing. These are coaching contexts because they shape what you watch and how you intervene.
The session target should be narrow enough to test. For example, you might target steering input rate in corner entry, because Bentley's cornering technique material says drivers can and should slow their steering inputs without slowing their entry, midcorner, and exit speeds. That does not mean every student needs a steering lesson. It means when the target is steering input, you have a concrete behavior to observe and a concrete performance mechanism to test.
The input priority tells you what evidence you need. If the target is steering input rate, you watch the hands and car response. If the target is visual awareness, you listen for what the student reports seeing and compare it to timing. If the target is debrief quality, you listen to whether the student can explain the cause of the lap or only repeat your words. The input priority protects you from gathering everything and learning nothing.
The likely intervention is your first experiment. It should be provisional. You are not committing your ego to it. You are choosing a way to help the driver test a strategy. If the driver needs to picture the theory, use a sketch or a simple explanation. Performance-Driving Illustrated notes that quick sketches can be useful because for many drivers a picture is worth a thousand words. If the driver needs sensory awareness, ask a positive awareness-building question. If the driver needs immediate timing, use a short in-car cue and then debrief after.
The after-session question turns the student's experience into input. Avoid questions that only reward agreement. Ask what changed, where they noticed it, what the car did, what they saw, or what they would repeat. The appendix material supports positive, awareness-building questions and the need to be aware of what you are doing. Your question should help the student notice cause and effect, not perform loyalty to your instruction.
Technique: debrief the driver without losing your own lesson
A useful driver debrief has three passes. First, get the student's account. Second, add your observation. Third, choose the next action. This keeps the student's awareness in the loop and keeps you from simply delivering a verdict.
On the first pass, ask the student what they noticed before you tell them what you noticed. Their answer tells you how much input they are gathering. Since the corpus emphasizes sensory information, the student's account matters. A driver who says the car just would not turn may have a very different learning need than a driver who says they turned the wheel quickly, felt the car take a set late, and then added more steering at midcorner. The first answer may need more sensory awareness. The second may be ready for a specific strategy.
On the second pass, share the observation that matters most. Use language the driver can understand and use in the car. Bentley says his goal is to make the material usable for the driver and acknowledges that engineering language can be different from coaching language. Follow that lead. Do not show how much you know. Show the driver the one relationship that changes the next run.
On the third pass, agree on the next action. The action should be small enough to remember under load. If the debrief produces four tasks, the driver may execute none of them cleanly. If it produces one strategy, you can test it. The next action should be phrased as a desired behavior, not a fear. The appendix principle is to focus on what you want, not what you do not want. That matters in coaching language. Give the student a target they can move toward.
After the student debrief, take thirty seconds for your own debrief. What did you learn about the driver? What did you learn about your coaching? What will you repeat? What will you change? This is the step that separates a growing coach from a coach who merely accumulates events.
Calibration: how you know your loop is improving
You know your coaching loop is improving when your notes become more causal. Early notes often read like a list of symptoms: early apex, late brake release, tense hands, missed turn-in. Better notes start connecting input, cause, intervention, and result. The driver looked too close, so entry timing compressed. The sketch helped them picture the later release point. The awareness question worked better than the command because the driver already understood the concept. That kind of note tells you what to try next.
You know the loop is improving when the student can describe the change in their own words. If the student can only repeat your cue, they may be compliant but not yet self-coaching. If they can describe what they saw, felt, changed, and would repeat, you have improved their input and strategy. The corpus repeatedly points toward awareness, sensory input, and the ability to understand causes of performance. Your student's language is one of the best signs that those pieces are developing.
You know the loop is improving when you intervene less but with more effect. This is not silence for its own sake. It is precision. A coach who observes well and chooses one useful strategy often needs fewer words than a coach who is searching out loud. Bentley's Performance-Driving Illustrated introduction says he returns to the same illustrations and information because they are the important stuff. Your loop should move you toward the important stuff for this student.
You know the loop is improving when you handle peaks and valleys without losing the process. A good session does not make your method perfect. A bad session does not make it worthless. Inner Speed Secrets says performance naturally has cycles of good and bad. The coach's job is to keep learning from both. If a driver has one strong lap, ask why. If they have one weak lap, ask why. If traffic ruins the run, ask what input you still gained. The loop survives imperfect conditions because the objective is learning, not proving.
You know the loop is improving when your own favorite explanations become less automatic. Every coach has phrases, drills, and stories that work often enough to become tempting. The loop does not ban them. It asks whether this driver, in this car, on this run, needs that tool. That is ethical restraint. You are making the student's learning more important than your own comfort.
Cross-references inside this module
This lesson deliberately does not replace the sibling lesson on recording evidence before claiming progress. Your coaching loop depends on evidence, but this lesson is about improving the loop that turns evidence into coaching decisions. Use the evidence lesson when you need stronger standards for what counts as proof. Use this lesson when you need a repeatable way to inspect and improve your own coaching behavior.
It also depends on the boundary lessons. A better loop will reveal areas where you are not the right coach for the problem. That is not failure. It is the loop working. When the evidence points outside your scope, you stop, refer, or narrow the session rather than filling the gap with confident language.
The lesson also connects to driver self-coaching. Bentley's books aim to give drivers tools to continue analyzing how to go faster. Your coaching loop should move the driver toward that same independence. A strong debrief does not just solve the next lap. It teaches the student how to observe, interpret, and practice when you are not in the car.
Worked example: the road racer learning an oval without old habits
Bentley gives a useful coaching situation: drivers with road-racing experience and little or no oval experience became strong oval racers because the coach was present before bad habits formed. Use that example as a model for your own loop.
Before the first oval session, your target is not to show the driver everything you know about ovals. Your target is to prevent unhelpful road-course habits from becoming the driver's first oval habit. The coaching loop starts with context: experienced road racer, new oval driver, high risk of importing familiar patterns. Your input priority is whether the driver is trying to solve the oval like a road course. You watch how they approach entries, how they settle into the corner, and whether they are rushing to familiar timing rather than learning the new track personality.
Your intervention should be early, simple, and habit-focused. Because the driver does not yet have a bad oval habit, you do not need a dramatic correction. You need a clean first program. Bentley's point is that a good coach can help the driver learn basics and develop the right habits before wrong habits take root. That is also the point of your self-coaching loop. After the run, do not merely ask whether the driver was faster. Ask whether your coaching helped them build the first habit you wanted.
Your self-debrief might sound like this in plain language: I expected road-course habits to appear. I watched entry timing and corner set. The driver stayed open to the new rhythm. My short pre-run explanation worked better than a long theory talk. Next run I will keep the target narrow and add only one new observation. If the driver instead fought the oval and repeated road-course timing, your debrief changes: I saw the wrong habit begin. My explanation was not concrete enough. Next run I need either a simpler visual picture or a more direct in-car cue.
This example teaches two coaching-loop lessons. First, timing matters. Coaching before the wrong habit is programmed can be more effective than correcting it later. Second, you improve by asking what your coaching caused. The driver's improvement is not just their talent. It is also feedback on whether your plan, input, and intervention matched the moment.
Worked example: the driver with quick hands in corner entry
Use the steering-input material as a concrete loop example. Bentley's cornering technique chunk says a driver can slow steering inputs without slowing corner entry, midcorner, and exit speeds, and it emphasizes that using less steering wheel is faster. Do not turn that into a slogan. Turn it into a coaching loop.
Before the session, your target is steering input quality in corner entry and midcorner. Your input priority is visual and kinesthetic: watch the driver's hands, feel how abruptly the car takes a set, and listen for whether the driver reports waiting, adding steering, or fighting the car. If video is available, review whether the hands make one deliberate input or several anxious additions.
During the session, do not start with a lecture on cornering technique unless the driver lacks the concept. If they already understand the idea but cannot execute it, the better intervention may be an awareness question after a lap or a short cue before the corner. The goal is not slower driving. The goal is slower steering input while preserving the actual corner speeds the driver can handle. That distinction matters because a student may hear slow hands and mistakenly slow the whole corner. Your debrief should separate input rate from pace.
After the run, get the student's account first. Ask where the car felt most settled and where they felt they had to add steering. Then add your observation. If you saw the steering wheel move quickly at turn-in and then saw a second correction at midcorner, state that relationship. Use a sketch if needed. Performance-Driving Illustrated supports simple pictures when they make the important information usable. Draw the corner, mark entry, midcorner, and exit, and show where the first input should become calmer rather than where the driver should merely wait longer.
Now debrief yourself. Did you observe enough before correcting? Did your cue cause the driver to slow the steering input or just slow the car? Did the driver understand the mechanism well enough to repeat it? Did you use too many words? The next session tests the answer. If the driver smooths the first input and maintains speed, your loop has useful signal. If they slow the whole corner, your cue was ambiguous. If they keep adding steering, your cause may be wrong or their sensory input may not yet be good enough. Revise the loop instead of repeating the same phrase louder.
Worked example: the plateaued experienced driver
The Ultimate Speed Secrets introduction describes experienced drivers who already know much of the information but may not understand why they use it, especially when they reach a plateau. That is a coaching-loop situation, not just a driver problem.
With a plateaued driver, the tempting coaching move is to add more advanced information. Sometimes that is correct, but often the better loop starts by returning to cause. Your pre-session target is not to impress the driver with novelty. It is to identify the gap between what they know, what they can picture, what they can feel, and what they can execute. The corpus says theory that can be pictured clearly before driving can make the driver more sensitive and able to relate to the experience. Use that idea.
In the debrief, ask the experienced driver to explain why they are using a technique. If they can name the rule but not the mechanism, teach the mechanism in practical language. If they can explain the mechanism but cannot feel it, shift to sensory input. If they can feel it but cannot repeat it, shift to practice strategy. This is where your coaching loop prevents you from treating every plateau as a need for more information.
Your self-debrief should ask what layer changed. Did your coaching improve understanding, sensory awareness, execution, or practice structure? If none changed, you may have merely had an interesting conversation. Interesting is not enough. The driver came to learn a skill. Your loop should turn the plateau into a clearer next experiment.
Common mistakes in the coach's own loop
The first mistake is the advice dump. It feels productive because you are giving the student a lot. It often fails because information alone does not create better performance. Good looks like one target, one cause, one next strategy, and a student who can repeat the action in their own words.
The second mistake is symptom chasing. You see a missed apex, a rough brake release, or extra steering and immediately correct the visible symptom. Sometimes that works, but often the visible symptom is downstream of a different cause. Good looks like naming the input that supports your interpretation, checking the student's account, and choosing an intervention that addresses the likely cause.
The third mistake is coaching for the result instead of the process. Lap time, pace, and clean laps matter, but the corpus warns that performance has peaks and valleys. If you only coach the result, one lucky lap can fool you and one messy session can make you abandon a sound strategy. Good looks like asking why the performance happened and whether the driver can repeat the process that produced it.
The fourth mistake is practicing your own bad coaching habits. If every debrief is long, every driver hears the same story, or every issue gets the same drill, you are programming yourself as much as the student is programming driving habits. Good looks like inspecting one coaching behavior after each session and changing it deliberately.
The fifth mistake is skipping the student's sensory account. You observed something useful, so you tell the driver. But if you never ask what they saw, felt, or heard, you miss the quality of their input. Good looks like asking an awareness-building question before the verdict, then using the answer to choose the next coaching mode.
The sixth mistake is treating a sketch, data trace, or quote as the lesson itself. Bentley's material values practical tools because they help drivers understand and act, not because tools are impressive. Good looks like using the simplest tool that makes the next run clearer. A sketch is good if it changes the picture in the driver's head. Data is good if it clarifies the performance behavior. A phrase is good if it becomes action.
The seventh mistake is protecting your ego from the loop. If a cue fails, you repeat it louder or blame the driver for not listening. Good looks like treating the failed cue as information. Maybe the cause was wrong. Maybe the cue was unclear. Maybe the driver needed a different learning route. Maybe the issue was outside the session boundary. A coach who can revise without drama is easier to trust and more useful over time.
Drill: three-session coaching-loop reps
Use this drill at your next HPDE or coaching day. Run it for three student sessions with the same driver if possible. If the format does not allow that, use three consecutive sessions with comparable students and keep the targets modest.
Before session one, write a five-line plan. Line one is the context. Line two is the target behavior. Line three is the input you will prioritize. Line four is the intervention you expect to try. Line five is the awareness question you will ask afterward. Keep the plan short enough that you can read it in thirty seconds.
During session one, collect input before you correct, as long as safety allows. Use one main intervention. After the session, ask the awareness question before you give your full view. Then write three sentences for yourself: what input mattered, what I think caused the behavior, and what my next coaching move will be.
Before session two, revise only one part of the plan. Do not rebuild everything unless the first plan was clearly wrong. If your input was weak, improve the observation. If your cause was wrong, change the hypothesis. If your intervention was unclear, simplify the cue. If the student could not describe the experience, change the awareness question.
During session two, test the revision. Afterward, ask whether the driver can describe what changed and where they noticed it. Your success criterion is not perfection. It is whether the driver and coach are both closer to knowing why the performance changed.
Before session three, choose the final test. Either repeat the successful strategy to see whether it holds, or test a corrected strategy if the first two attempts failed. After the session, write a four-part closeout: what the driver learned, what I learned about the driver, what I learned about my coaching, and what I would do next time.
The drill succeeds if by the end of three sessions you can point to one coaching behavior of your own that improved, one student behavior that changed or became clearer, and one next coaching decision supported by observation. The drill fails usefully if it exposes that your target was too broad, your input was poor, or your cue did not translate into action. That is still progress if you revise the loop rather than hiding the miss.
When the loop breaks down
The loop breaks down when the situation asks for something other than coaching improvement. If there is an immediate safety issue, you do not continue collecting input for the sake of a clean experiment. You intervene. The loop can resume after safety is restored.
The loop also breaks down when the problem is outside your scope. The boundary lessons in this module cover that directly. A better coaching loop should make you more willing to stop at the edge of your competence, not more tempted to improvise beyond it.
The loop can also be distorted by the normal peaks and valleys of performance. A student may suddenly drive better because traffic cleared, tires came in, anxiety dropped, or they simply had a strong lap. A student may drive worse because the session context changed. Do not overclaim from one run. Use the evidence lesson for stronger proof standards, and use this loop to decide what to test next.
Finally, the loop breaks down when you turn it into paperwork. The goal is not a perfect form. Bentley's work consistently pushes toward usable knowledge and putting ideas into practice. Your notes, sketches, questions, and debriefs exist to help the student drive better and help you coach better. If the loop becomes a ritual that does not change either person, simplify it until it becomes useful again.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ross Bentley The Instructor-Manifesto | 8364d9b3-e697-c22a-be9b-66dfed683932 | 46 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Inner Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 1f89d950-4532-a2f9-3f06-33a6a39f92d6 | 24 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Inner Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | d228ad67-02d0-59cc-e79a-36eaa2832e98 | 31 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Inner Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | faf47214-2619-0395-43b8-f1f6523e5a80 | 32 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Inner Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | a4147ea3-257f-67b9-5fef-f56d4cfb427f | 134 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Inner Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 42cd9797-25c1-9bbb-d1f4-7aa50b893094 | 189 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 4400491c-451f-86fc-590c-1fa83983aef9 | 12 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 0237a5bd-e2d4-724e-bc2e-ba13db924f66 | 11 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 9 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | c5248152-b735-b67e-670e-951b7e9081e1 | 17 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 10 | Ross Bentley The Instructor-Manifesto | d60e85fd-89e9-319f-f68b-a9b86c2db7a0 | 17 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 11 | Performance-Driving-Illustrated-Ross-Bentley | 5cff603b-5e0f-da4a-41ef-f711fa235e6b | 4 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 12 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 47f6de8d-9d56-5b6d-547a-f1e7bb92faaf | 152 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 13 | Performance-Driving-Illustrated-Ross-Bentley | 8cdd730a-d7f2-31fc-9c6e-31dde5de9d70 | 47 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |