Use data as your coaching witness

Generated from content/lms/coaching-science/02-diagnose-performance-before-prescribing/03-use-data-as-a-coaching-witness.md; edit the source file, not this page.

Source path: content/lms/coaching-science/02-diagnose-performance-before-prescribing/03-use-data-as-a-coaching-witness.md

Course: Coach drivers with evidence, not instinct

Module: Diagnose performance before you prescribe

Estimated duration: 60 minutes

Data is not the coach. Data is the witness you call after you have listened to the driver.

That distinction matters because a coaching session is not a trial where the computer wins and the driver loses. It is a diagnosis. The driver brings perception: where the car felt secure, where it felt nervous, where confidence went away, where the hands or feet got busy, where the lap felt fast. The logger brings recorded behavior: where braking began, what the throttle did, what speed did over distance, where lateral and longitudinal acceleration changed, what rpm and gear were doing, and what happened lap after lap. Your job is to make those two stories meet.

When they agree, you have confidence. When they disagree, you have the beginning of a useful coaching question. The disagreement is not an excuse to ignore the driver and point at the screen. It is the reason to investigate. A driver may report that a fast sweeper was flat, while the throttle trace shows a small lift. A driver may report that the brake release felt smooth, while the speed trace into a group of corners shows a square transition and the brake-pressure shape shows a long tail. A driver may believe the problem is power, while the throttle histogram and acceleration rate suggest time spent below full throttle. In each case the data is not the whole answer. It is the witness that keeps the debrief honest.

The principle: use data to locate, confirm, and test, not to replace coaching judgment.

At the intermediate level, your mistake is usually not that you lack data. It is that you either trust it too little or too much. If you trust it too little, you keep coaching from memory, emotion, and favorite fixes. You hear the driver say the car would not rotate, so you immediately prescribe later apexes, more trail brake, softer hands, or a setup change. If you trust it too much, you stare at squiggly lines and forget that the driver still has to feel the car, trust the car, and execute the next lap with confidence. The useful middle ground is to use the trace as a coaching witness.

A witness answers narrow questions. Did the driver actually stay at full throttle? Where did braking begin? Was the brake application hard and short, or light and long? Was there coasting between brake release and throttle pickup? Did early throttle lead to a lift? Did the speed trace show a square drop into the corner, or a smoother transition? Was the issue in one corner, a whole section, or a repeated habit? Were two laps different in the same place, or did the driver repeat the same input pattern every lap? Those are coaching questions. They are small enough to answer, and once answered, they give you a specific next-session objective.

The mechanism: data anchors the story to place and sequence.

Most drivers remember laps as moments. The car pushed in Turn 7. The exit felt lazy. The fast corner felt committed. The brake zone felt late. That memory is useful, but it floats unless you tie it to location and sequence. Distance-based traces, segment times, speed curves, throttle position, brake pressure, steering, rpm, gear, GPS line, lateral acceleration, longitudinal acceleration, g-sum, fastest rolling, theoretical fastest, and throttle histograms all help turn a feeling into a timeline.

The timeline is the coaching value. If the driver says the car would not take throttle at exit, the trace lets you ask what happened before exit. Did the driver brake too long? Did the minimum speed happen too early? Did throttle arrive before the car was pointed enough, causing a lift? Did the lateral trace show the car still loaded when the driver asked for acceleration? If the driver says the corner was slow because the car lacked power, the speed and throttle traces let you ask whether the driver reached full throttle early enough, held it, and accelerated consistently. If the driver says the entry was fine, the brake-pressure shape may show a soft initial hit, a long trail, or inconsistent pressure lap to lap.

This is why data becomes powerful in coaching. It makes the problem sequential. Instead of debating whether the driver is brave enough, smooth enough, or aggressive enough, you ask what input came first, what the car did next, and what the driver did in response. That order prevents lazy prescriptions.

The driver still matters more than the trace.

A data system can record exactly what it is designed to record, but it cannot replace the driver's feedback. The driver is the person making the next input. If the driver perceives the car as edgy, vague, or hard to read, that perception changes how close they can get to the limit. A technically faster car that the driver cannot trust may be slower in that driver's hands than a car that gives clearer messages. The same logic applies to coaching. A technically correct prescription that the driver cannot feel, understand, or commit to will not create performance.

So your first step is not to open the laptop. Your first step is to ask for the driver's version while it is still fresh. Have them describe the lap before the screen edits their memory. Where did it feel good? Where did it feel slow? Where did they think they gave up time? Where were they confident? Where did they hesitate? Then use the data to confirm, challenge, or refine that report.

If the driver says the car was flat through a sweeper, and the throttle trace shows a small lift, do not start with blame. Start with curiosity. Was the lift a deliberate confidence lift? A correction after the car moved? A response to traffic? A habit the driver did not notice? A reaction to steering angle? A consequence of entering too fast or too shallow? The trace proves the lift happened. It does not automatically prove why.

The basic witness loop.

A clean data debrief follows a simple loop. First, record the driver's claim. Second, choose the channel that should confirm or challenge it. Third, locate the exact place on the lap where the claim lives. Fourth, check at least one other channel before prescribing. Fifth, compare if you can. Sixth, ask why until the trace and the driver story make sense together. Seventh, set one objective for the next session.

The driver claim is the plain-language version of the issue. I was flat there. I could not get back to throttle. I am braking too early. The car will not rotate. I am losing time in that section. I am inconsistent. Do not clean the statement up too quickly. The rough wording contains perception, and perception is part of the evidence.

The first channel is the most direct witness. For a full-throttle claim, read throttle position and speed. For a braking claim, read brake pressure and speed. For a corner-speed claim, read speed over distance and lateral acceleration. For a consistency claim, overlay laps and compare the same section. For a line claim, use GPS line if available. For a gear or acceleration claim, check rpm and gear if the system records them. For an overall time-loss claim, use segment or section reports to find the section before digging into inputs.

The second channel protects you from overreading one trace. A throttle lift in a fast corner is more useful when you also look at speed, lateral acceleration, and GPS line. A long brake trace is more useful when you also look at speed shape and where throttle begins. A slow acceleration rate is more useful when you also check throttle position, gear, rpm, and whether the driver had to lift after asking for power too early. The Data for Drivers process says to look for incongruencies, dig for details, use other channels if available, ask why, compare if you can, calibrate to your own driving, imagine what the ideal would look like, and set objectives for the next session. That is the witness loop in compact form.

What you should read first.

Start with the minimum set that can answer the question. You do not need to inspect every channel after every session. In fact, that habit often makes coaching worse because the driver leaves the debrief with six half-prescriptions instead of one clear experiment.

For most driver coaching, the first useful trace is speed over distance. Speed tells you where the lap changes character. It shows braking zones, minimum-speed points, acceleration zones, and fast-corner commitments. It also shows whether a section is smooth or jagged. A square transition into a corner can point toward a braking and release-timing issue. A flat or slow acceleration rate can point toward missing full throttle, wrong gear, hesitation, or a line that delays throttle. A repeated speed dip in a fast corner can point toward a lift the driver may not have noticed.

Throttle position is the next witness because it exposes courage, patience, and timing without moralizing them. Coasting shows up. Hesitant application shows up. Early application followed by a lift shows up. Lifts in fast corners show up. Time spent near full throttle, partial throttle, or closed throttle can be summarized in a throttle histogram. That histogram is useful when the coaching objective is global, such as increasing full-throttle commitment across the lap, but the trace is still needed to find where the change should happen.

Brake pressure, if available, is the witness for entry technique. The shape matters. Initial application, trail, and the tail of the release all affect what the car is asked to do before turn-in, at turn-in, and toward apex. Inconsistent pressure shows inconsistent commitment or inconsistent references. Light and long braking can preserve comfort while giving away distance. Hard and short braking can be effective when the driver can release at the right time, but it can also create a square speed trace if the release is abrupt or late. The trace does not tell you which prescription is right until you relate it to the corner, the speed shape, and the driver's confidence.

Steering, GPS line, lateral acceleration, longitudinal acceleration, and g-sum are secondary witnesses for many coaching questions. They become primary witnesses when the claim is about line, car placement, cornering load, or combined loading. GPS line can show whether two laps used the same path. Lateral and longitudinal acceleration can show how the car was loaded. G-sum can help reveal whether the driver is using the available combined grip more completely or leaving a gap between braking and cornering or between cornering and acceleration.

Segment times, section reports, fastest rolling, and theoretical fastest are triage tools. They help you decide where to spend the debrief. A driver may feel that one dramatic moment cost the lap, while the section report shows the real time loss is a quieter habit across three corners. A theoretical fastest number can be motivating, but it should not become the prescription by itself. Its coaching value is that it points toward repeatable pieces that already exist somewhere in the driver's own data.

Comparison is useful, but only when the comparison is fair enough.

Bentley points out the value of comparing with a teammate or another driver in a similar car. The similar-car part matters. If you compare an intermediate driver in a street-based car against a faster driver in a very different car, you may teach the wrong lesson. The goal is not to shame the driver with an impossible trace. The goal is to reveal where a different driver, in a comparable machine, solved the same section with a different input sequence.

Comparison should answer one narrow question. Did the faster lap brake later, brake harder, release earlier, release more gradually, carry more minimum speed, get to full throttle sooner, avoid a lift, use a different line, or shift differently? If the faster driver simply has more power, more tire, or a clearer track, the comparison can still be interesting, but it is not a clean coaching witness. Treat it as context, not proof.

The most useful comparison for an intermediate driver is often against their own best sector or best rolling section. If the driver already performed the desired behavior once, you can coach from evidence inside their ability range. The message becomes practical: you have already done this in one section or one lap; now we are going to make it repeatable.

Turn data into a prescription only after it survives the why test.

The central coaching question is why. A lift in a fast corner is not a prescription. It is an event. The prescription depends on why the lift happened. If the driver lifted because they turned in too early and ran out of track, the prescription may be line and vision. If they lifted because they entered above their trust limit, the prescription may be a progressive commitment drill. If they lifted because the car moved and they did not trust the rear, the prescription may involve smoother input, setup confidence, tire condition, or a different entry speed. If they lifted because traffic changed the corner, the prescription may be no prescription at all.

A long brake tail is not a prescription either. It may mean the driver is dragging brake out of fear. It may mean they are correctly trailing into a corner that needs rotation. It may mean they missed the release point. It may mean they are compensating for too much entry speed. It may mean the car is not giving confidence. Without the driver report and the other channels, the brake trace is only a shape.

This is where coaching discipline shows. Do not prescribe from a single squiggle. Use the single squiggle to form a question. Then use the driver, the other channels, and the next session to answer it.

How to set the next-session objective.

The Data for Drivers example gives the right scale of prescription. One objective is an experiment with brake-release timing and rate in Turns 6, 7, 8, and 9. Another is spending three percent more of the lap at full throttle. Those are measurable, small enough to remember, and tied to traces you can check later. That is the standard.

A weak objective sounds like be smoother or carry more speed. The driver cannot execute that precisely, and the data cannot verify it cleanly. A strong objective has a place, an input, and a success criterion. Release the brake five to ten yards earlier in Turn 7 while keeping the car on the same line. Begin throttle pickup only after the car is pointed enough that you do not have to lift. Hold full throttle through the fast sweeper for three laps only if the car remains on the intended line. Reduce coasting between brake release and throttle in Turns 6 through 9. Spend a small, measured amount more of the lap at full throttle without adding a corrective lift.

For intermediate drivers, the objective should not be maximum attack. It should be a controlled experiment. You are training diagnosis as much as speed. The next session asks one question, and the post-session trace answers whether the change happened and whether it helped.

Calibration cues: what improvement looks like.

Improvement is not only a lower lap time. A lower lap time is useful, but data-as-witness coaching looks for cleaner evidence. The driver should be able to describe the objective before the session and report whether they executed it after the session. The trace should show the intended input change in the intended place. The second channel should not show a hidden cost. If the objective was earlier throttle, the throttle trace should show earlier application, but the speed trace should not show an immediate lift or a slower exit. If the objective was a different brake release, the brake-pressure trace should change shape, and the speed trace should show a smoother corner-entry transition rather than a chaotic one. If the objective was eliminating an unnoticed lift, the throttle trace should stay open through the target zone while the line and speed remain controlled.

Lap-to-lap consistency is another cue. A driver who can produce one heroic trace but cannot repeat it may have found speed without ownership. A driver who repeats a slightly better release shape, throttle pickup, or full-throttle section across several laps is learning. Segment reports can show this before the whole lap time changes. Sometimes a driver loses a small amount of time while practicing the new input, then gains it back once the input becomes natural. The witness loop keeps that from being misread as failure.

Instructor feedback should also change. Instead of saying you are early to throttle in a generic way, the instructor can say that in the target section the earlier throttle attempt still leads to a lift, so the next test is to delay the initial pickup until the car is pointed. Or the instructor can say that the brake-release experiment changed the trace in Turns 6 and 7 but not 8 and 9, so the driver is only applying the objective where the corner feels comfortable. That is better coaching because it is specific, observable, and testable.

Common failure modes in data-led coaching.

The first failure mode is using data as a weapon. This happens when the coach points at the trace to prove the driver wrong. The driver says the sweeper was flat, the trace shows a lift, and the debrief becomes a gotcha. That may be accurate, but it is poor coaching. The useful response is to identify the lift, ask why it happened, and build the next test around the answer. The driver needs ownership, not humiliation.

The second failure mode is channel fixation. You love throttle, so every problem becomes throttle. You love brake pressure, so every problem becomes release shape. You love GPS line, so every problem becomes placement. The process protects you by requiring another channel and the driver's perception before prescription. If throttle is the first witness, speed or line may be the second. If brake pressure is the first witness, speed shape and driver confidence may be the second.

The third failure mode is global prescription from local evidence. One corner shows hesitant throttle, so the coach tells the driver to be more aggressive everywhere. One brake zone shows a long tail, so the coach tells the driver to stop trailing the brake. That is not diagnosis. Data is most useful when it lets you localize the fix. If the issue appears in Turns 6 through 9, coach Turns 6 through 9. If the issue appears only in fast corners, coach fast-corner commitment. If the issue appears only after early throttle attempts, coach throttle timing, not general bravery.

The fourth failure mode is ignoring confidence. The trace may show time available, but the driver's perception determines whether they can use it. If the driver cannot sense the limit, does not trust the car, or feels the car is edgy, the next objective may need to build confidence before it builds speed. A driver who feels what the car is telling them can usually extract more than a driver who is technically told the car should be faster but cannot read it.

The fifth failure mode is overloading the driver. Data systems can show speed, throttle, brake pressure, g-forces, rpm, gear, engine functions, steering, GPS line, histograms, segment reports, fastest rolling laps, and theoretical fastest laps. That does not mean the driver should leave with twelve assignments. The better debrief is narrower. Show enough evidence to make the point, then give one experiment.

The sixth failure mode is owning data without learning to interpret it. The bonded corpus is blunt about this: many people spend real money on equipment and never learn to get the most from it. The cure is not a more complicated system. The cure is a repeatable process: look for incongruencies, dig for details, cross-check channels, compare if you can, calibrate to your driving, imagine the target trace, and set a next objective.

The coaching boundary: this lesson is not data engineering.

This lesson is about driver diagnosis. It is not about sensor installation, data-system setup, math-heavy data reduction, or race-engineering workflow. Those are valuable, but they are not the skill here. The skill here is the debrief move: you hear a driver claim, you ask the data to witness it, you compare the stories, and you prescribe only what the evidence can support.

That boundary also keeps this lesson separate from the sibling lessons. Read the driver before prescribing is about understanding the person behind the mistake. Turn fuzzy feedback into a testable hypothesis is about changing vague language into a test. Protect against your favorite fix is about coach bias. This lesson sits between them. It gives you the evidence habit that keeps those skills honest.

The standard you are training.

After a session, an intermediate coach or self-coaching driver should be able to say five things. First, here is what the driver thought happened. Second, here is the channel that confirms or challenges it. Third, here is the location on track where it matters. Fourth, here is the other channel that checks the interpretation. Fifth, here is the one objective for the next session.

If you cannot say those five things, you are probably not ready to prescribe. You may need to ask the driver a better question. You may need to inspect another channel. You may need to compare laps. You may need to admit the data is too thin. That restraint is part of the skill. A witness can tell you what it saw. It cannot tell you more than it saw.

The practical result is better coaching and better driving. The driver learns to connect feeling with evidence. The coach learns to prescribe from the actual lap rather than habit. The next session becomes a test instead of a hope. Over time, the driver becomes better at sensing what the data will later show, and the data becomes better at revealing what the driver did not yet feel. That is the point of using data as a coaching witness.

Worked example: the fast sweeper that was not actually flat

A common intermediate-driver debrief starts with confidence language. You ask about the fast sweeper, and the driver says they were flat. They may believe it honestly. From inside the car, a tiny lift can disappear into steering load, noise, and adrenaline. The driver remembers commitment because the corner felt committed.

The witness loop starts with the claim. The claim is full throttle through the sweeper. The first channel is throttle position over distance. The trace shows a brief reduction in throttle in the middle of the corner. At this point, the only proven fact is that the driver was not actually full throttle for the whole sweeper. That is useful, but not enough.

Now check the second channel. Look at speed through the same distance. Did speed flatten or dip when the throttle lifted? Look at lateral acceleration if available. Was the car already near its cornering load? Look at GPS line if available. Was the car running out of road, pinching the exit, or turning more than usual? Overlay another lap from the same driver. Does the lift happen in the same place each time, or only once? If you have a teammate or similar-car comparison, check whether the faster trace holds throttle because the line is different, because entry speed is different, or because the driver has more confidence in the same line.

The coaching prescription changes depending on what the second witness says. If the driver lifts at the same point every lap while staying on the intended line, the next session objective may be a progressive commitment test: hold throttle a little longer or reduce the size of the lift, then verify that line and exit speed remain controlled. If the driver lifts because they run wide, the objective is not bravery. It is line and entry placement. If the driver lifts after an early throttle attempt that overloads the car, the objective is throttle timing. If the lift appears only in traffic or on one messy lap, it may not deserve a technique prescription at all.

The success criterion is not simply no lift. A driver can force full throttle and make the corner worse. The better criterion is that the target lap shows steady throttle through the sweeper, no line penalty, no corrective lift afterward, and a speed trace that does not hide a cost before or after the corner. That is data used as a witness, not as a dare.

Worked example: Turns 6 through 9 brake-release diagnosis

The Data for Drivers packet gives a compact coaching example around Turns 6, 7, 8, and 9. The observed issues are a slow acceleration rate or large speed adjustment that may indicate lack of full throttle, plus a square transition of the speed trace into corners. The coaching objectives are to experiment with brake-release timing and rate in those turns, and to increase the amount of the lap spent at full throttle by a small measured amount.

That is a useful model because the prescription is neither vague nor oversized. It does not say drive harder. It does not say be smoother everywhere. It identifies a section, an input family, and a measurable follow-up. The section is Turns 6 through 9. The input family is brake release and throttle use. The measurable follow-up is whether the trace changes and whether full-throttle time increases without creating a new lift or line problem.

Here is how you would run that debrief. Start with the speed trace through the section. A square transition into the corner suggests the driver may be separating braking and cornering too abruptly, carrying the wrong speed shape, or holding brake too long before asking the car to turn. Do not prescribe yet. Pull the brake-pressure trace if available. Look at initial application, trail, and tail. Is the driver light and long? Hard and short? Inconsistent? Is there a long release tail that delays the car from settling? Is the release different in Turn 6 than in Turn 9?

Next, pull throttle. Is there coasting after brake release? Is throttle pickup hesitant? Does the driver apply throttle early, then lift? Does the driver fail to reach full throttle where acceleration should begin? This matters because the speed-trace problem might begin at brake release, but its cost may appear as delayed throttle or slow acceleration.

Now ask why. If the driver reports that the car feels unstable when the brake comes off, the objective may be to change the rate of release, not simply release earlier. If the driver reports that they are trying to protect the exit, the objective may be to clean up the transition before adding throttle. If the driver does not realize they are coasting, the objective may be to reduce only the coast zone, not attack the whole corner.

For the next session, give one instruction: in Turns 6 through 9, experiment with when and how quickly the brake is released, then report which release gives the clearest path to throttle. After the run, judge the result with speed, brake pressure, throttle, and the section report. The win is not just a faster section. The win is a trace that shows the intended experiment happened.

Drill: the two-session witness loop

Use this drill at your next HPDE, test day, or coaching session when you have at least speed and throttle data. Brake pressure, GPS line, lateral acceleration, and segment reports make it stronger, but do not wait for a perfect system.

Session 1 is the witness baseline. Before the session, choose one section of track, preferably a three-to-four-corner sequence or one fast corner that the driver already cares about. Tell the driver that the goal is not to set a hero lap. The goal is to produce three representative laps and remember what the section felt like. Immediately after the session, before opening the data, write down the driver's claim in one sentence. Use plain language. Examples: I am flat through the sweeper, I am slow getting back to throttle in Turns 6 through 9, I think I am braking too early, or I think the car will not accelerate out.

Now open only the channels needed for that claim. For a throttle claim, use throttle and speed. For a brake-release claim, use speed and brake pressure if available, then throttle. For a line claim, use GPS line and speed. Find the target section. Mark one place where the data confirms the driver and one place where it challenges the driver. If nothing challenges the driver, confirm that too. The witness is allowed to agree.

Before Session 2, set one objective with a place, an input, and a success criterion. Do not set more than one. A good objective might be to reduce the coast zone between brake release and throttle pickup in Turns 6 through 9, or to hold full throttle through the sweeper only if the car remains on the same exit line, or to change the brake-release rate in Turn 7 and compare the speed shape. The driver should be able to repeat the objective from memory before leaving pit lane.

After Session 2, inspect the same section with the same channels. The count is three laps from Session 1 and three laps from Session 2. The duration is two normal track sessions plus ten minutes of debrief after each. The success criterion is not automatically lap time. The success criterion is that the intended input change appears in the trace in the target section, the second channel does not show a hidden cost, and the driver can describe what the change felt like. If all three happen, the driver learned. If the trace changed but the driver cannot feel it, repeat with a smaller target. If the driver felt a change but the trace did not change, ask why and choose a more observable objective.

Common mistakes

Mistake one is skipping the driver story. Bad coaching opens the laptop first and lets the screen frame the whole debrief. Good coaching gets the driver's perception first, then checks it. The reason is simple: the driver has to execute the next session, and confidence, fear, hesitation, and trust do not live cleanly in a single channel.

Mistake two is treating the first visible difference as the cause. A slower lap may show less throttle, but the cause may be entry line, brake release, confidence, traffic, or a car response that made the driver lift. Good coaching treats the first difference as a lead, then checks another channel and asks why.

Mistake three is comparing unfairly. A faster driver in a very different car can create an impressive overlay that teaches little. Good comparison uses a teammate, a similar car, or the same driver's own best section when possible. The comparison should reveal an executable behavior, not just a performance gap.

Mistake four is prescribing globally from a local trace. A lift in one fast corner does not prove the driver needs more aggression everywhere. A long brake release in one corner does not prove all trailing brake is wrong. Good coaching localizes the prescription to the section and input the data actually supports.

Mistake five is chasing theoretical fastest as if it were a lap plan. Theoretical fastest can show that the driver's best pieces contain more potential than the full lap, but it does not explain how to assemble them. Good coaching uses it as a triage clue, then returns to speed, throttle, brake, line, and driver perception.

Mistake six is leaving the debrief with too many objectives. Data makes it easy to find ten things. That does not mean the driver can learn ten things in the next session. Good coaching chooses one objective that can be verified afterward.

Mistake seven is using data to embarrass the driver. The trace may prove that the driver lifted, coasted, braked early, or missed full throttle. The coach's job is to turn that fact into learning. Good coaching makes the driver curious about the evidence rather than defensive about being caught.

When this principle breaks down

Data as a witness breaks down when the witness is not relevant to the question. If you only have speed and throttle, do not pretend you can fully diagnose brake-pressure shape. If GPS line is noisy or unavailable, do not build the whole prescription around exact placement. If rpm or gear is not recorded, do not overstate a shift diagnosis. The correct response to thin data is a thinner claim.

It also breaks down when the coach ignores the driver's perception. A driver who feels the car is hard to read may not be ready for the trace's most aggressive suggestion. The next objective may need to improve confidence or repeatability before chasing the largest time delta. Bentley's data-acquisition guidance strongly supports both sides of that balance: data is one of the most important driver tools, and it still cannot replace driver feedback.

The principle also breaks down when the data is used after the useful coaching moment has passed. If the driver leaves the debrief unable to name the next experiment, the analysis was too large. The point is not to admire the trace. The point is to improve the next run. Stop when you have a supported objective that the driver understands, can execute, and can verify afterward.

Author Review

No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.

Sources

#	Document	Chunk	Pages	Score	Collection
1	Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley	48f39d4b-df22-6fb5-3f40-6c8a40d11e8e	554	1	uio_books_raw_v1
2	Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley	7212e525-6587-a46d-1fab-5d027a6e940e	553	1	uio_books_raw_v1
3	Data for Drivers	cabda699642b26311b0a7ef998da2c71	15	1	uio_books_raw_v1
4	Data-for-Drivers-PRINT	aa7bcbb5-2779-03e4-6c08-74f08c4b0023	14	1	uio_books_raw_v1
5	Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley	3d142f9f-7c75-7fdb-3c25-0edaa29d9600	554	1	uio_books_raw_v1
6	Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley	ae9a5143-85ce-5853-3e1b-658e5ff5e73a	554	1	uio_books_raw_v1
7	Analysis Techniques for Racecar Data Acquisition	d0db9128-dc9a-aec3-14a8-5f101654753f	3	1	uio_books_raw_v1
8	Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley	e9e41348-ec0c-ba17-d1c1-7debe83787fa	553	1	uio_books_raw_v1