Use delta time to find the lap's biggest leak
Generated from
content/lms/data-interpretation-for-drivers/04-comparing-laps/01-delta-time-channel.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/data-interpretation-for-drivers/04-comparing-laps/01-delta-time-channel.md
Course: Data Interpretation for Drivers
Module: Comparing Laps
Estimated duration: 60 minutes
The purpose of delta time
A lap timer tells you which lap was faster. Delta time tells you where the lap became faster or slower. That is the skill in this lesson: you use the compare-time or time-lost channel to find the part of the lap that is leaking the most time, then you use the other channels to understand what driving behavior caused it. The channel is useful because it changes the conversation from general disappointment to a specific question. Instead of saying that you were off by three tenths, you can say that the largest loss appeared in one segment, then ask whether the trace points to braking, throttle, steering, line, traffic, a shift, or a mental picture problem.
That last sentence matters. The data channels in this bond are driver-facing channels, not engineering magic. The corpus repeatedly uses the same sequence: overlay two laps, look for differences, use delta or compare time to find the biggest differences, prioritize, identify the difference, ask why, confirm with other channels if available, compare with other laps, calibrate to your driving, imagine the ideal, and set an objective for the next session. That is the whole lesson in one process. The delta channel is the front door. It helps you decide where to look first. It does not finish the diagnosis by itself.
Stay inside this lesson's scope. The sibling lesson on choosing reference laps handles which lap or driver you should compare against. The sibling lesson on building a best possible lap handles how to combine possible segments without inventing a lap you cannot drive. Here, assume you already have two useful laps on screen. Your job is to read the compare-time trace as a leak detector, not as a trophy board.
The core rule
Start with the biggest useful movement in delta time, not with the part of the lap that looks most dramatic on the speed graph. A big speed number, a low minimum speed, or a fast-looking straight can mislead you. The corpus gives exactly that warning through the Lime Rock multi-lap example: the blue lap was much faster without losing much afterwards, the yellow lap had the highest front-straight speed starting a lap yet produced the worst lap time, and the yellow lap also had the lowest front-straight speed leading to the fastest red lap. If you only chase the biggest speed number, you can work on the wrong thing.
That does not mean speed is unimportant. Speed is usually the first companion channel you inspect because the speed trace shows acceleration rate, deceleration rate, coasting before brake, whether you were full throttle between turns, throttle lifts where they should not be, trail braking in slow to mid-speed corners, and shifting issues. But the compare-time channel tells you which of those speed differences mattered most to the lap. The sequence is priority first, cause second.
Think of delta time as a ranking tool. If the time-lost channel shows a visible loss near one braking zone and only tiny changes elsewhere, your first question is not whether every throttle pickup was perfect. Your first question is what happened in that high-loss area. Did the speed trace show a reduction? Did the brake trace show a longer or lighter stop? Did the throttle trace show coasting or hesitation? Did the lateral G trace show a spike or lower peak? Did the longitudinal G trace show less deceleration? If you have steering angle, RPM, gear, GPS line, segment reports, fastest rolling, or theoretical fastest, they can help. If you only have speed and Long/Lat G, you can still do useful work, because the corpus assumes at least speed and Long/Lat G and treats throttle and brake pressure as ideal but not mandatory.
What the delta channel can and cannot tell you
Delta can tell you where the lap changed. It can show that one lap lost time around a speed dip, that one corner generated a time-lost peak, or that a gain held up without being paid back later. It can help you prioritize the largest useful difference. It can help you compare your own laps, other drivers, other cars, or sessions. It can support consistency checks across multiple laps.
Delta cannot tell you everything. The corpus is blunt about that. In the Lime Rock example with a red and blue lap, the red lap has a reduction in speed and the time-lost graph shows 0.195 seconds near the same point. The first questions are obvious: was it throttle lift, braking, steering angle, or line? Brake pressure may identify a difference. But the next question is still why. The bond explicitly points to vision, mental image, bravery, and traffic as possible causes that the data alone may not answer. If your data shows a brake input where the reference lap stayed faster, you still have to decide whether you braked because your eyes were late, your picture of the corner was wrong, you lacked trust, you were avoiding traffic, or the car forced your hand.
So do not read delta as judgment. Read it as a prompt. The data is not there to call you slow. It is there to generate better questions. A good delta review ends with one next-session objective, not with ten vague wishes.
The basic workflow
First, overlay two laps. Use laps that are comparable enough for the question you are asking. For this lesson, do not spend the session arguing about the perfect reference. Put two laps on screen and synchronize them so the speed, throttle, brake, G, and time-lost traces line up across the same distance or time base. The supplied examples use Track Attack at Lime Rock Park with speed and time-lost channels, and other examples include throttle, brake pressure, steering angle, RPM, lateral acceleration, and longitudinal acceleration.
Second, scan the delta or compare-time channel before you start solving. Look for the largest useful difference, not the most emotionally interesting moment. A huge top-speed gap that disappears before the next brake zone may matter less than a smaller corner-entry error that carries loss through the following straight. The corpus does not ask you to collect every possible data product first. It says to use delta or compare time to look for biggest differences and prioritize.
Third, bracket the leak. Find the area where the time-lost trace begins to show the meaningful change, then find where it stops getting worse or where the gain is retained. Your practical question is: what was the car and driver doing during that segment? The bracketing step prevents you from blaming the wrong part of the corner. If the loss appears before brake pressure starts, coasting before brake or a throttle lift may be the first suspect. If the loss appears during brake pressure, braking shape, deceleration rate, or trail timing may be involved. If the loss appears after minimum speed, throttle application, acceleration rate, line, or steering demand may be involved. If the loss appears in a fast corner, look hard for throttle lifts, extra steering, lateral G spikes, and whether the driver is using the available peak consistently.
Fourth, identify the difference with the simplest channels first. Speed is usually the first confirmation channel. Then inspect throttle, brake pressure, Long G, Lat G, and steering if you have them. The corpus's overall process repeats the same command: ask why and confirm issues with other channels if available. Do not build a story from one trace when another trace can check it.
Fifth, decide whether the issue is a driver input, a vehicle response, a line or vision problem, or a context problem. The data may show a late throttle, a long brake tail, a lower Long G deceleration peak, a Lat G spike, or a speed trace that does not match the expected corner shape. But the cause might be traffic, a weak mental image of the corner, a conservative visual picture, or a shift problem. The right conclusion is the one you can test in the next session.
Sixth, turn the diagnosis into one objective. The overall process in the corpus ends with calibrating to your driving, imagining what ideal would look like, and setting objectives for the next session. For this lesson, the objective must be segment-specific. Do not write improve throttle. Write, in the target segment, remove the pre-brake coast and commit to the planned brake point, or in the target fast corner, maintain the throttle unless the car forces a correction, or in the target slow-to-mid-speed corner, release the brake more cleanly so the speed trace becomes the expected shape. The objective should be narrow enough that you can check it with the same delta review after the next session.
Sub-skill 1: read priority before cause
Intermediate drivers often open data with a diagnosis already in mind. Maybe the lap felt slow in one corner. Maybe an instructor mentioned a different corner. Maybe you remember a scary moment. That memory is useful, but the delta channel gives you a second opinion. Begin by asking where the largest meaningful time difference is. The comparison may confirm your memory. It may also show that the dramatic moment cost little while a quiet throttle hesitation cost more.
The Lime Rock examples make this concrete. One comparative-data image shows a speed trace difference between 112.71 mph and 112.42 mph and a time-lost difference of 0.088 seconds. Another zoomed image shows a speed dip around 1600 yards and a time-lost peak of 0.195 seconds. Those are not just graph decorations. They are priority calls. One difference may be worth filing away; another may be worth making the whole next session objective.
The sub-skill is to delay interpretation for a moment. First, find the biggest leak. Then ask what channel explains it. If you skip that order, you can spend your between-session review polishing something that is not moving the lap.
Sub-skill 2: use speed shape without worshiping minimum speed
The speed trace is your first view of how the lap was built. The corpus specifically tells you to look at acceleration and deceleration rate, coasting before brake, full-throttle use between turns, throttle lifts where they should not be, trail braking in slow to mid-speed corners, and shifting issues. It also gives a simple corner-shape guideline: faster corners above roughly 65 mph tend to show U-shaped speed traces, slower corners below roughly 65 mph tend to show V-shaped traces, with exceptions for aero cars above roughly 75 mph and diamond-style corners.
That guideline gives you a useful question after delta finds the leak. If the target segment is a fast corner and the trace is pointy and V-shaped, ask why. Was there a lift? A brake brush? Extra steering? Traffic? A mental image that made you turn the corner into a stop-and-go corner? If the target segment is a slower corner and the trace is a long lazy U, ask whether you coasted, braked too lightly for too long, or delayed the car's rotation and throttle.
Do not reduce this to minimum speed. The multiple-lap example includes minimum speeds such as Red 51.0, Purple 47.9, Yellow 47.1, and Blue 46.2 in one area, and Blue 109.5, Yellow 101.4, Red 99.8, Purple 97.1 in another. Those numbers are useful, but the lesson from the corpus is not that highest minimum speed always wins. The blue lap can be much faster without losing afterwards, and the yellow lap can start with the highest front-straight speed yet become the worst lap. Your job is to read the trace shape and the delta consequence together.
Sub-skill 3: confirm with throttle and brake
When a delta leak appears, throttle and brake traces often turn a vague speed difference into a specific driver behavior. The throttle process in the corpus asks you to look for coasting, hesitant application, early application leading to a lift, and lifts in fast corners. The brake process asks you to look at the shape of initial application, trail, and long tail; inconsistent pressure; light and long versus hard and short; and lifts in fast corners.
Use those questions directly. If delta shows loss before the brake zone, check whether the throttle came off early. If speed drops where the reference lap stays flat, look for a lift in a fast corner. If delta worsens through corner entry, check brake pressure shape and Long G. Was your brake input lighter and longer? Did pressure trail forever? Did you release and then create a secondary deceleration? If delta worsens after you went back to throttle, check whether throttle application was hesitant or whether early throttle forced a later lift.
The point is not to accuse yourself of one generic bad habit. The point is to name the input. A next-session objective that says no coasting before brake is much more useful than one that says be faster. A note that says brake shape too long and light in the target zone is more useful than one that says brake later. The data channel gives you the wording for a practice objective.
Sub-skill 4: use Long G and Lat G as honesty checks
Speed, throttle, and brake tell much of the story, but Long G and Lat G help you check whether the car actually used its capability consistently. The Long G process asks whether you are reaching peak G-loads consistently, whether there are braking issues in deceleration rate, whether there are acceleration issues, and whether the result is consistent lap to lap. The Lat G process asks whether you are using peak lateral loads consistently, whether there are spikes in either direction, and whether the shape is consistent lap to lap.
In a delta review, Long G can catch a braking story that the brake-pressure trace alone does not explain. Maybe you pressed the brake but did not decelerate as strongly as the reference. Maybe the blue lap shows less deceleration, which might be good or bad depending on the segment. In the supplied Lat and Long G example, the blue lap has less deceleration, then a zoomed view shows a secondary deceleration. The suggested suspicion is increased steering to stay on track, probably after running wide on a curb, with throttle and steering useful if available. That is the kind of second-order question that keeps you from oversimplifying. Less brake is not automatically better. If it creates a wide line and a correction, the delta channel may show the cost.
Lat G can catch a fast-corner problem that throttle alone hides. If the target segment loses time and Lat G has a spike, you may have added steering abruptly or corrected. If Lat G peaks are lower than your own better lap in a comparable segment, you may not be using the cornering load consistently. If the trace varies from lap to lap, you may be chasing one lucky lap instead of a repeatable technique. Again, ask why and confirm with other channels.
Sub-skill 5: separate inconsistency from a real pattern
A single lap can fool you. The corpus repeatedly asks you to compare with other laps, other drivers, other cars, and sessions. It also includes a specific lesson from looking at multiple laps: if you had only looked at the fastest lap, you would have missed important information. The red and blue laps together contained more learning than the fastest lap alone.
For delta-time work, that means you should check whether the leak repeats. If the same delta loss appears in the same segment across several laps, it is probably a real driving pattern. If it appears only once, look for traffic, a shift, a mistake, or an outlier. If one lap gains time in the segment but gives it back immediately after, be cautious. The blue-lap example matters because it was faster without losing much afterwards. That phrase is the standard. A useful gain stays useful.
This is where intermediate drivers get more disciplined. You stop asking whether one trace can make you feel better and start asking whether the pattern would survive another lap. Consistency is not glamorous, but it is how data becomes a driving plan instead of a one-lap story.
Sub-skill 6: convert data into a next-session action
The corpus's overall process ends by setting objectives for the next session. That is the point of a driver-facing data review. You are not trying to become a data engineer between run groups. You are trying to drive the next session with one clearer instruction.
A good objective has four parts. It names the segment. It names the behavior. It names the channel you expect to change. It names the success check. For example: in the Lime Rock segment where the red lap lost 0.195 seconds around the speed dip, remove the unexplained speed reduction by checking for early brake or throttle lift, then look for the time-lost peak to shrink while speed stays closer to the better lap. Or: in the fast-corner segment, eliminate the throttle lift unless the car demands it, then check throttle and speed together and make sure delta does not show a later payback. Or: in the slow-to-mid-speed corner, improve trail-brake release so the speed trace shape matches the expected V or U pattern for that corner speed, then check brake pressure, Long G, and delta together.
Do not set five objectives. The source material says keep it simple, focus on the basics, ask why, and get your hands dirty with the data. For an intermediate driver, the discipline is to pick the largest leak you can actually practice and leave the smaller leaks for later.
Calibration cues
You are improving when the delta-time loss in the target segment shrinks and you do not immediately pay for the gain afterward. The phrase without losing much afterwards is important because it keeps you from rewarding a corner entry that is fast only because it ruins the exit. A real improvement in this lesson shows up as a better compare-time result through the target segment and a stable or improved trace downstream.
You are improving when the cause channel changes in the predicted direction. If the diagnosis was coasting before brake, the throttle trace should show less dead space before braking. If the diagnosis was hesitant throttle, throttle should come in more decisively and not create a later lift. If the diagnosis was light and long braking, the brake trace and Long G should show a cleaner deceleration shape. If the diagnosis was a fast-corner lift, the throttle trace should stay more committed, the speed trace should avoid the unnecessary dip, and Lat G should not show a wild correction.
You are improving when the pattern repeats across laps. One good trace can be luck. A cleaner trace across multiple laps is a skill. The corpus keeps returning to consistency lap to lap because driver improvement is not just producing one heroic lap. It is producing a repeatable lap that you can understand and improve.
You are improving when your notes become more precise. At first, you might write lost time in Turn X. After using this lesson, your note should sound more like lost time began before brake pressure; likely early lift or coast; next session objective is stay committed to brake marker and remove the coast. The data review has changed the language of your practice.
Failure modes
The first failure mode is starting with ego instead of delta. If you open the file to prove that one corner felt good, you may ignore the largest loss. Let the compare-time trace choose the first suspect.
The second failure mode is chasing top speed. The yellow-lap example is the warning. Highest front-straight speed at the start of a lap did not produce the best lap. Lowest front-straight speed leading to the fastest red lap also warns you that straight speed out of context is not the whole story.
The third failure mode is diagnosing from one channel. Speed can show a loss, but not always the cause. Brake pressure may show an input, but not always why it happened. Long G may show less deceleration, but less deceleration could mean more efficient entry or a wide-line problem that creates secondary deceleration. Lat G may show a spike, but you still need steering, throttle, line, and driver context if available. The process says confirm with other channels because one trace can make a convincing but wrong story.
The fourth failure mode is treating data as complete truth about the driver. The data can show a brake input, lift, speed dip, or G spike. It may not show that your vision was late, your mental image was wrong, traffic interrupted the line, or you simply did not trust the corner. The right review keeps the data honest without pretending it contains every answer.
The fifth failure mode is turning a review into a channel safari. There are many possible channels and reports: steering, RPM, gear, GPS line, segment reports, fastest rolling, theoretical fastest, G-sum, total steer angle, throttle histogram, and more. Those can help, but this lesson's process is simple. Find the biggest leak, identify the difference, confirm with available channels, ask why, and set one objective. More channels do not help if they keep you from deciding what to practice.
Worked examples, common mistakes, and a drill follow as added subsections. Use them as practice patterns, not as rules to memorize. The repeated pattern is the lesson: delta finds the leak, supporting channels name the behavior, and your next session tests one change.
Worked example: Lime Rock speed dip and 0.195 seconds of time lost
In the supplied Lime Rock Park comparison, the red and blue laps are overlaid with GPS speed and time lost against distance. Around the highlighted area near 1600 yards, the red lap shows a reduction in speed and the time-lost graph shows 0.195 seconds. That is exactly what the delta channel is for. It does not merely say that one lap is slower. It points you to a segment where the difference is large enough to deserve the first question.
Work it in order. First, mark the segment where the time-lost channel shows the peak. Second, look at the speed trace and confirm that the red lap slowed relative to the blue lap. Third, ask what could have created that speed reduction. The corpus offers the correct menu of first questions: throttle lift, braking, steering angle, or line. Fourth, look at brake pressure if it is available. If the red lap shows brake pressure where the blue lap does not, or a different pressure shape, you have identified a behavior difference. But the job is not finished. The source explicitly pushes the next question: why did the brake event happen? The answer may be vision, mental image, bravery, or traffic. Data does not give every answer.
A weak review would stop at brake less. A stronger review turns the finding into a testable objective. If the trace says the speed loss came from an unnecessary brake or lift, the next-session task is to arrive at that segment with the same visual plan, the same reference point, and no pre-emptive speed reduction unless the car or traffic requires it. The success check is not whether the driver felt brave. The success check is whether the time-lost peak is smaller, whether the speed trace stays closer to the better lap, and whether the lap does not give the gain back immediately afterwards.
Worked example: Lime Rock multi-lap comparison and the trap of top speed
The multiple-lap Lime Rock example is a useful antidote to lazy data review. The corpus points out that the blue lap was much faster without losing much afterwards. It also points out that the yellow lap had the highest front-straight speed starting the lap and still produced the worst lap time. Then it adds a second twist: the yellow lap had the lowest front-straight speed leading to the fastest red lap. If you review by top speed alone, that example will lead you in the wrong direction.
Use delta time to decide what mattered. If one lap has a higher speed at the start of the straight but loses more through the following corner or segment, the straight speed was not the leak to fix first. If a lap enters a straight slower but becomes the fastest lap because the prior segment was better built, the delta channel helps you see the actual trade. The point is not to ignore speed. The point is to read speed inside the lap's time story.
The minimum-speed numbers deepen the warning. One area lists Red at 51.0, Purple at 47.9, Yellow at 47.1, and Blue at 46.2. Another lists Blue at 109.5, Yellow at 101.4, Red at 99.8, and Purple at 97.1. Those numbers are real clues, but they are not a scoring system by themselves. The right question is whether the speed profile created a gain that stayed useful. The blue lap being faster without losing much afterwards is the model. If your lower minimum speed helps the car finish the corner and pays off downstream, delta will show it. If your higher minimum speed ruins the exit, delta will show that too.
Worked example: U-shaped and V-shaped speed traces around a smaller 0.088-second difference
Another comparative-data example uses overlaid speed and time-lost traces at Lime Rock Park, with a smaller time-lost difference of 0.088 seconds and speed values around 112.71 mph and 112.42 mph. This is a different kind of review moment. A tenth here or there may still matter, but the same process applies: use compare time to decide whether the difference deserves attention, then use speed shape to decide what question to ask.
The corpus gives a practical speed-shape guideline. Above roughly 65 mph, a corner will usually look more U-shaped. Below roughly 65 mph, it will usually look more V-shaped. Aero cars above roughly 75 mph and diamond-style corners are exceptions. That guideline is not a law. It is a question generator. If the target segment is fast but your trace is sharply V-shaped, ask whether you lifted, brushed the brake, added steering, or used a line that turned a flowing corner into a stop. If the target segment is slow but your trace is a long shallow U, ask whether you coasted, braked too lightly for too long, or delayed the phase where the car can point and accelerate.
The important calibration is proportionality. A 0.088-second difference may be worth noting, but it may not outrank a 0.195-second loss elsewhere. This is why delta-time priority comes before diagnosis. You are not looking for every imperfect corner shape in one sitting. You are looking for the biggest actionable leak.
Common mistakes
Mistake one: reviewing the fastest lap only. The corpus says that if the driver had only looked at the fastest lap, important information would have been missed. Good looks like comparing multiple laps and asking where a stronger segment from one lap could inform the next objective without pretending the whole theoretical lap already exists.
Mistake two: chasing the highest speed number. The yellow lap with the highest front-straight speed and worst lap time is the warning. Good looks like asking whether the speed actually improved delta through the segment and whether the gain stayed useful afterwards.
Mistake three: treating minimum speed as the answer. Minimum speed is a clue, not a verdict. Good looks like reading minimum speed with the full speed shape, throttle, brake, G traces, and downstream delta. A lower minimum that leads to a cleaner exit may beat a higher minimum that creates a later loss.
Mistake four: stopping at the first cause channel. If brake pressure explains a speed dip, you still need to ask why the driver braked. The corpus names vision, mental image, bravery, and traffic as possible reasons. Good looks like separating what the trace shows from what caused the driver to create that trace.
Mistake five: using every channel before making a decision. Steering, RPM, gear, GPS line, segment reports, fastest rolling, theoretical fastest, G-sum, total steer angle, and throttle histograms can all help, but the driver-facing process stays simple. Good looks like finding the biggest leak, checking the few channels most likely to explain it, and setting one next-session objective.
Mistake six: turning delta review into blame. Data for Drivers is aimed at drivers, not data engineers, and the material reminds you to know the limitations of your data tool. Good looks like using the trace to generate a better practice question, not to punish yourself for the last lap.
Drill: three-session delta leak triage
Run this drill at your next event across three sessions. The count is three data-review cycles, one after each session. Each review should take 10 to 12 minutes. The success criterion is that by the third review you can name one segment, one cause channel, one driving behavior, and one visible delta-time result without hunting through the whole file.
After session one, overlay two comparable laps. Do not spend more than two minutes choosing them. Scan the delta or compare-time channel and mark the largest useful time difference. Then inspect speed, throttle, brake pressure, Long G, and Lat G if available. Write one sentence that names the likely behavior. Examples include pre-brake coast, hesitant throttle, long brake tail, fast-corner lift, lower deceleration rate, lateral spike, or shift issue. End the review by setting one objective for session two.
During session two, drive normally except for that one objective in the target segment. Do not try to fix the whole lap. If the objective was to remove coasting, keep your attention on the approach and the planned brake point. If the objective was a fast-corner lift, keep your attention on the visual plan and throttle commitment, while staying within the car's safe limit and the session context. If the objective was brake shape, focus on initial application and release shape rather than simply braking later.
After session two, compare the target segment again. The first success check is whether the delta loss got smaller in that segment. The second is whether you avoided losing the gain afterwards. The third is whether the cause channel changed in the predicted direction. If all three are true, keep the objective for one more session and make it repeatable. If delta improved but another channel looks worse, such as a Lat G spike or secondary deceleration, refine the objective. If nothing changed, ask why again. The issue may be vision, mental image, traffic, or a wrong diagnosis.
After session three, decide whether the leak is now smaller enough to move on. If it is, choose the next largest useful delta movement for the next event or later session. If it is not, do not add more objectives. Return to the same segment and confirm with more laps, another driver or session if available, and the simplest channels first. The point of the drill is not to produce a heroic lap in three sessions. It is to learn the habit: delta prioritizes, channels confirm, the driver tests one change.
Cross-references and boundaries
This lesson connects directly to reference-lap selection, best-possible-lap building, brake/throttle trace reading, and Lat G consistency work. Use the reference-lap lesson when the comparison itself is questionable. Use the best-possible-lap lesson when you are trying to combine compatible segment strengths into a realistic target. Use brake/throttle analysis when the delta leak clearly points to pedal behavior and you need a deeper look at timing, pressure, coasting, hesitation, or early application leading to lift. Use Lat G and Long G review when the leak points to how consistently the car is using cornering or braking load.
The boundary is important. This lesson does not teach a full data-engineering workflow, brand-specific software operation, or a complete race-engineering report. The supplied corpus is intentionally driver-facing. You need enough data to find a priority and set a better objective. A system with speed and Long/Lat G can support the basic process. Throttle and brake pressure make the diagnosis stronger. Steering angle, RPM, gear, GPS line, segment reports, fastest rolling, theoretical fastest, G-sum, total steer angle, and throttle histograms can deepen the review when available. But the central skill remains the same: use delta time to decide where the lap is leaking most, then ask why with the channels you have.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | fffb9a6c-a16c-115d-f335-b680b9202b47 | 10 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | c76265b3-e38e-d9dd-45b1-10446beb0a9b | 11 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | c10154dc-b033-8e12-98ae-b40ab858909d | 11 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | d623e34d-3ab2-0eeb-73dc-e2b770ccdd05 | 10 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | ec2b5633-0f92-b587-99f2-6f5044efc092 | 1 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | c440bd03-cdb9-90b2-ddf1-f8335740fa28 | 1 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | 6ba94a9e-3b49-804d-875a-5266e6625e49 | 1 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | ba11efce-fa7b-39cf-f1bf-2bbfddb3acaa | 1 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 9 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | 96a12794-6a20-0aa3-31d3-f6f0a4a1c964 | 15 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 10 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | ba9a10fd-f74a-5561-6dd6-463e44efe09a | 1 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 11 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | bbb02386-778f-20ec-ad16-b9c016921743 | 16 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 12 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | 52455f14-f041-c6e8-43ff-78ef03da060b | 7 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 13 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | 3de928a8-266d-5ee3-2c05-21f47142125a | 7 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 14 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | 18c6ae55-6164-b80e-92de-65e4e994b375 | 8 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 15 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | c493f39d-9ba1-5829-3168-d38e471cc061 | 9 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 16 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | d87ecb53-8198-0bd4-5280-ae1d7275e436 | 11 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 17 | Data for Drivers | d631abbb-2f0e-2c19-352a-be07deb00c4d | 1 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 18 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | c32e7c50-7d5a-817a-2ca4-6ed348f718aa | 16 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 19 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | cb13d8c3-cc6b-28e9-246f-c3c64ae01efc | 1 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |