Calibrate to a faster reference without copying it
Generated from
content/lms/data-interpretation-ii-advanced/05-from-data-to-adjustment/03-calibrating-to-reference.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/data-interpretation-ii-advanced/05-from-data-to-adjustment/03-calibrating-to-reference.md
Course: Read the data your hands can't feel
Module: Turn findings into session plans that work
Estimated duration: 45 minutes
Principle: the reference lap is a measuring tool, not a set of orders.
When you compare your data to a faster driver, the point is not to impersonate that driver. The point is to locate the part of the lap where the faster driver is doing less unnecessary work, losing less speed, or starting the next straight with a better car. The bonded material gives you a simple process for that: start with an overview, look for incongruencies, dig for details, use other channels when they are available, ask why, compare if you can, calibrate the finding to your own driving, imagine what the better version would look like, and set the objective for the next session. That is the whole skill in one sentence, but each verb matters.
The faster reference gives you a contrast. Without a contrast, your own lap can feel normal because every mistake arrives with its own explanation. You braked where you always brake, turned where you always turn, and used the same steering rhythm, so the lap feels internally consistent. A faster reference breaks that spell. If the speed difference between two drivers appears on the same section of track and is mainly created by one corner, you now have a useful question: what happened in that corner that made the rest of the section slower or faster? The comparison does not answer the question by itself. It points your attention to the right place.
This is why the best reference work begins wide and then narrows. First you identify where the time changed. Then you ask what kind of time change it was. Was the faster driver ahead before braking, only after turn-in, only after the apex, or only once the car was on the next straight? Did your speed trace fall below the reference because you entered too slowly, because you slowed the car for too long, because your minimum speed was lower, or because your exit did not recover? If you have steering, gear, brake, throttle, or other channels, you use them to check the story rather than decorate it. The data is not there to give you more squiggly lines. It is there to keep you honest.
The intermediate driver mistake is to treat the faster trace as proof that every difference is a target. It is not. The reference driver may be in a different car, on a different tire, carrying a different risk budget, or using a technique that only works because something earlier in the corner made it possible. Going Faster explicitly frames data acquisition as a way to show how the fastest drivers reduce lap times and even notes comparisons across different race cars, from Formula Dodge and Showroom Stock through higher-level cars. That range is a warning as much as an opportunity. A faster driver can show you where to investigate. Your car, your grip, your confidence, and your current skill decide what adjustment is appropriate.
The working rule is this: copy the question, not the answer. If the reference brakes later, the question is not automatically how do I brake later next lap. The question is why can that driver arrive there and still make the corner? Maybe the faster lap has a cleaner exit from the previous corner, so later braking is the consequence of higher approach speed rather than a bravery trick. Maybe the driver releases the brake earlier and lets the car carry speed, so the real change is brake release, not brake point. Maybe your early turn-in forces more steering, and the reference can brake later because the car is pointed with less scrub. Maybe the reference is simply using more of the track. The data has done its job when it makes you ask a better question.
Mechanism: reference comparison turns vague pace into a corner-phase diagnosis.
A lap-time deficit is too broad to be teachable. A corner-phase deficit can be practiced. When you overlay your lap with a faster reference, you are trying to sort the deficit into phases: approach, brake, entry, middle, exit, and the following straight. The source material does not provide a full channel-by-channel data-analysis textbook inside this packet, so keep this lesson at the level the corpus supports: use speed differences, visible control channels when available, and the driver process of asking why. That is enough to make useful changes.
Approach asks whether you arrived with the same opportunity. If the reference is already faster before the braking zone, do not call the braking zone the cause yet. The cause may be the previous exit. This is one of the most valuable habits in data interpretation: look upstream. A straightaway speed gain that begins at track-out usually belongs to the corner before the straight, not to engine power or courage halfway down the straight. If you only stare at the biggest mph difference, you may fix the wrong end of the problem.
Brake phase asks whether the car lost the right amount of speed in the right distance. The Going Faster material in the bond points to braking and entering as a major technique area, and the data-process chunk tells you to dig for details and use other channels. In practice, that means you do not merely notice that the reference slowed later. You check whether your own speed loss begins too early, continues too long, or bottoms out too low. If you have brake pressure, you compare the shape of the event, not just the first touch. If you do not have brake pressure, speed trace shape and your own debrief notes still give you a usable clue.
Entry asks how the car accepted turn-in. The bond includes a page that points you toward examining proper turn-in and early turn-in, and Bentley gives a clean steering economy principle: less steering tends to be faster. In reference work, that means a steering difference is not just a hand-motion difference. It may be evidence that one driver placed the car better, waited longer, turned once, or avoided asking the front tires to fix an earlier placement error. If your car needs more steering than the reference at the same place, ask whether you turned in too early, missed the track-out setup, carried the wrong speed, or pinched the radius.
Middle phase asks whether the car is free, bound up, or waiting. Many intermediate drivers lose time here without feeling dramatic error. The car is not sliding wildly. It is just rotated a little late, held on too much steering, or waiting for the driver to feel comfortable enough to release the car. Your faster reference may show a higher minimum speed, but do not stop at that phrase. Higher minimum speed can come from a cleaner entry, less steering scrub, earlier brake release, or simply using more road. The right data question is what made that minimum possible.
Exit asks whether the lap begins paying you back. A good exit is visible after the corner. If the reference opens a speed gap from track-out down the following straight, the exit probably deserves attention. That does not mean mat the throttle earlier without changing anything else. It means look at the car's attitude before throttle, the amount of steering still in the wheel, and whether you finished slowing early enough to go back to power without asking the tires for too many jobs at once. The bonded chunks point repeatedly toward the basics: line, corner-exit speed, braking, car control, steering economy, and asking what to do differently with the car or with your approach.
Following straight asks whether the corner actually improved. This is where reference calibration protects you from feel-good changes. A driver can make an entry feel more aggressive and still be slower at the next brake marker. A driver can gain a little minimum speed and lose the exit. A driver can brake later and then wait forever to turn. The faster reference gives you a check: after your adjustment, did the speed gap shrink where it matters, or did you only move the problem from one phase to another?
Technique: the seven-step reference calibration loop.
Step one: choose a reference that can teach this session's question. A faster lap is useful only if it is comparable enough to guide your next change. Best case, it is the same car, same day, same configuration, and a driver who is faster through the exact section you are studying. Next best, it is a similar car or a quicker driver you can watch on track. Bentley explicitly supports watching a quicker car, noting where it brakes and how it takes corners, then debriefing after the session. If the reference is unlike your car, use it for questions about sequence and track use, not for exact speed targets.
Step two: start with the overview. Before zooming into controls, find the lap-time story. Mark the section where the faster lap begins to separate. Then mark where the separation stops growing. A difference that begins at corner entry and continues through the next straight is a different problem than a difference that appears only at the brake point and disappears by exit. The Data for Drivers process starts with overview for a reason. Without the overview, you can spend twenty minutes explaining a channel wiggle that is not where the lap was lost.
Step three: look for incongruencies. An incongruity is something that does not fit the easy story. You think you are slow because you brake too early, but the reference is already faster before braking. You think the car lacks power, but the speed gap begins at corner exit. You think you carried too little minimum speed, but the reference used less steering and got to throttle earlier. These mismatches are valuable because they keep you from making the obvious but wrong change.
Step four: dig one layer deeper with supporting channels. Use other channels if available. The corpus mentions gear changing and steering input as examples in the context of data acquisition, and the process chunk tells you to check with other channels. If you have steering, compare where the big steering input starts, how quickly it arrives, and how long it stays in the car. If you have gear, check whether you are creating workload at a poor moment. If you have brake or throttle, use them to see whether the speed trace is caused by pedal timing or by earlier placement. If you do not have those channels, use video, driver notes, and on-track observation as the other evidence.
Step five: ask why until the change becomes driveable. Why is the reference faster there? Why can the car accept that speed? Why does your car need more steering? Why does your throttle wait? Why does the gap open after track-out? The corpus repeats the ask-why habit, and Bryan Herta's quoted page points toward the same driver question: whether something different needs to be done with the car or with the approach to the corner. Your goal is to translate the overlay into one action you can actually drive, such as release the brake earlier after the initial slowdown, delay turn-in by one car length, unwind the wheel before committing to power, or stop adding a downshift while the car is still loaded.
Step six: calibrate the answer to your driving. This is the part many data reviews skip. If the reference does something you cannot yet repeat safely, your objective is not the full reference behavior. Your objective is the next honest step toward it. Bentley's introduction frames driving as something learned through hands-on experience supported by theory, especially when a driver has reached a plateau. That is the right attitude here. Use the theory to become more sensitive behind the wheel, then practice a smaller change that your current skill can measure.
Step seven: set the next-session objective and collect evidence. This lesson sits beside sibling lessons on committing to one change, one objective, and writing the next session before you drive it. Do not duplicate those lessons by building a full session plan here. The cross-reference is simple: reference calibration feeds those lessons. At the end of the review, write one objective that names the corner phase, the action, and the evidence you expect. A weak objective is be more like the reference. A useful objective is in Turn 5 entry, finish the main speed reduction earlier, release enough brake to reduce steering hold, and check whether the exit speed gap shrinks by the next straight.
Sub-skill: choosing a reference without becoming a copycat.
The reference needs to be faster in a way you can learn from. A pro lap in a different car may be exciting, but it can also hide the useful lesson under differences in tire, aero, setup, and risk. A club racer in a similar car who is three tenths faster through one sector may be a better teacher for your next session. The Going Faster material mentions data used with different race cars, but your interpretation must respect that different cars handle differently and require driving modifications. Treat exact speed, brake point, and steering amount as car-dependent. Treat sequence, track use, and the location of the time gain as more transferable.
You also need a reference that solves the right problem. If your current objective is braking and entry, a reference that gains all its time on corner exit may not be the best lap for the next session. If your objective is corner-exit speed, a reference that simply arrives with more power or a better tow is not clean enough. Match the reference to the question. This is part of keeping the process simple and focused on basics.
Sub-skill: reading the delta as a story, not a scoreboard.
The fastest-looking part of the graph is not always the cause. If your speed trace is lower for the whole straight, the scoreboard says you are slow on the straight. The story may say you were slow at the previous apex. If the reference brakes later, the scoreboard says brake later. The story may say the reference needed less steering because it turned at a better point. If the reference has a higher minimum speed, the scoreboard says carry more speed. The story may say your line is too tight and the car is waiting.
A good data review therefore moves backward and forward from the visible loss. Backward asks what created the difference. Forward asks what the difference cost. The faster reference is useful when it helps you connect those two directions. If the loss begins at turn-in and costs speed all the way down the straight, you have found a high-value corner. If the loss appears for a moment but the traces rejoin before the next braking zone, it may be less important than it looks.
Sub-skill: translating data into physical driving language.
Intermediate drivers often leave a data review with graph language instead of driving language. Graph language sounds precise but can be hard to execute: later brake, higher minimum, earlier throttle, less steering. Driving language tells your body what to do: look earlier to the release point, make the first brake application decisive, begin easing off before turn-in instead of carrying the same brake pressure to the apex, wait half a beat before turning so the car opens the radius, or unwind your hands before adding the final throttle. The exact action depends on the evidence, but the translation step is mandatory.
This translation is where on-track observation still matters. Bentley's note about watching a quicker car, then debriefing and making notes, belongs directly beside data analysis. If the graph says the reference is faster at entry, watch how the quicker car approaches the corner. Does it brake at a different board, release earlier, use more road on entry, turn later, or make one calmer steering input? Your eyes can often give the physical picture that the graph only implies.
Sub-skill: separating car limitation from driver limitation.
A reference can show a real driver opportunity, but it can also reveal a car difference. If the reference car is in a different class, has a different tire, or carries different setup, you should not expect identical traces. The corpus names a range of cars and explicitly points to different handling, tire choices, chassis adjustments, and driving modifications. That supports a disciplined interpretation: use the reference to learn what is possible in principle, then check whether your car's response agrees.
The question is not whether your trace matches perfectly. The question is whether the adjustment you made moved your trace in the intended direction without creating a new problem. If you try to reduce steering and the car immediately runs out of road, the issue may be entry placement or speed, not your willingness to turn less. If you try to brake later and the car will not rotate, the problem may be that you added speed without changing release timing. If you try to copy a higher minimum speed and lose the exit, the reference behavior has not yet been calibrated to your driving.
Sub-skill: using simplicity as a performance tool.
Data can seduce you into complex explanations. The Data for Drivers chunks repeatedly pull the driver back toward simple basics: get hands dirty, keep learning, keep it simple, ask why. Simple does not mean shallow. It means you do not change five things because the overlay shows five differences. You identify the first high-value cause and test one driveable adjustment.
This simplicity matters because driving changes interact. A later brake point changes entry speed. Entry speed changes steering demand. Steering demand changes throttle timing. Throttle timing changes the whole following straight. If you change brake point, turn-in, gear choice, and throttle all at once, you may go faster without knowing why, or slower without knowing what failed. Reference calibration is strongest when it produces a clean test.
Calibration cues: what improvement looks like.
The first cue is that the time gap begins later or grows more slowly in the target section. If you worked on exit, the speed gap on the following straight should shrink. If you worked on entry, the deficit should not simply move from brake zone to apex to track-out. A better trace is not always identical to the reference, but it should show the expected directional change.
The second cue is that the driver workload feels lower, not higher. Bentley's steering-economy principle is useful here. If your improved lap requires frantic hands, a longer steering hold, or a rushed correction, you may have forced the speed rather than improved the corner. A good reference-based change often feels calmer after it becomes familiar: one cleaner brake event, one clearer release, one more patient turn-in, one earlier unwind.
The third cue is that the car gives you a clearer answer. A vague corner often becomes more legible when you fix the true cause. If you were turning too early, delaying turn-in may initially feel slower, but the exit opens and the next straight improves. If you were over-slowing, a cleaner release may make the car feel more alive at entry. If you were blaming power, a better exit may make the straightaway speed appear without any mechanical change.
The fourth cue is that your notes become more specific. After a poor review, the note says need more speed. After a good review, the note says reference gap starts after entry; my car holds steering too long; next session test later turn-in and earlier unwind, then check exit speed by the next straight. Bentley's debrief-and-notes habit matters because it converts a lap into a learning record.
Failure modes: what wrong looks like.
The first failure mode is copying the reference blindly. It feels bold because you are imitating the fast lap, but it is not analysis. If the reference brakes later and you simply move your brake marker later, you may arrive with too much speed, delay rotation, add steering, and lose the exit. The cost is usually not just one corner. It often pollutes the whole next straight.
The second failure mode is diagnosing too far downstream. You see a speed deficit on the straight and decide the engine, gear, or throttle is the problem. But if the gap began at corner exit, the straight is only reporting the earlier mistake. The recovery is to move the cursor backward to where the traces first separate.
The third failure mode is zooming in before you know the story. You compare tiny details in steering or speed without asking whether the corner matters to the lap. The recovery is the Data for Drivers order: overview first, details second.
The fourth failure mode is ignoring incongruencies. If your theory says one thing and another channel says something else, do not throw away the inconvenient evidence. A mismatch is often where the lesson is hiding. Use the other channel, the video, your notes, or a trackside observation to check the story.
The fifth failure mode is comparing unlike things as if they are equal. Different cars, tires, and setups can require different driving modifications. Use unlike references carefully. They can teach line logic and corner priority, but they may not give you exact braking, steering, or speed targets.
The sixth failure mode is leaving the review without a next action. Interesting analysis that does not change the next session is just entertainment. The process chunk ends with setting objectives for the next session because interpretation is not the finish line. The next lap is where the calibration is tested.
Cross-references inside this module.
Use this lesson before the sibling lessons on one objective, one change, and writing the next session. Calibration tells you what the objective should be. The one-objective lesson keeps you from turning the review into a scattered wish list. The one-change lesson protects the test. The write-before-you-drive lesson turns the conclusion into a session plan. In a clean workflow, you compare the reference, choose the corner-phase diagnosis, translate it into one driveable action, and then hand that action to the next-session planning lessons.
The boundary of this lesson is also important. This is not a full course on race data acquisition, sensor calibration, or every channel in a professional logger. The bonded corpus supports a driver-facing comparison method: compare where you can, look for incongruencies, use other channels to check, ask why, calibrate to your driving, imagine ideal, and set the next objective. Stay inside that method and it will make you faster without pretending that every faster trace is a command.
Worked example: the same-section speed gap
Start with a same-session speed overlay where the reference lap is faster through one section. The difference between the two drivers is visible on the same piece of racetrack, and the useful clue is that the gap is tied to one corner rather than spread evenly everywhere.
Do not begin by saying the faster driver is braver. Place three marks on the comparison. First, mark where the speed traces begin to separate. Second, mark where your speed is lowest relative to the reference. Third, mark where the reference advantage stops growing. Those three marks tell you whether the corner problem is approach, brake, entry, middle, exit, or the following straight.
Suppose the gap begins after turn-in and grows all the way down the following straight. Your first interpretation should not be more throttle. Look backward. Why did the reference reach track-out in a condition that let the car accelerate better? Check steering if you have it. If your steering stays in the car longer, Bentley's steering economy principle gives you the question: did you force a tighter radius or hold unnecessary steering? Check braking if you have it. If you carried slowing too deep, the exit problem may have begun before the apex. Check your notes. If you wrote that the car would not take throttle, the data is now explaining why.
The driveable objective might be: make the main speed reduction earlier, release enough to let the car accept turn-in, and unwind before asking for final throttle. That is not a blind copy of the reference. It is a calibrated response to the phase where the comparison says the lap was lost.
Worked example: watching a quicker car when the logger is not enough
The corpus supports an old-school reference method that still belongs beside the logger: watch a quicker car, note where it brakes and how it takes the corners, then debrief and write notes after the session. Use this when you do not have a perfect data reference, or when the graph gives you a question but not a physical picture.
Pick one corner, not the whole track. On the out-lap or in clean traffic, watch a quicker driver through that corner. Do not stare only at the brake marker. Watch the whole sequence: where the car is placed before braking, how settled it looks at brake release, how late or early it turns, how much road it uses at exit, and whether the driver seems to need a correction. Then compare that observation to your own data or notes.
If the quicker car brakes at about the same place but exits better, the lesson is probably not a later brake point. If it turns later and uses less steering, your early turn-in may be the cause. If it gives up a little entry drama and gains the straight, the reference is teaching corner priority. Your next session objective should name the observable difference, not the whole faster lap.
This example is especially useful for intermediate drivers because it prevents a common data trap. The trace may say the reference is faster after the apex. Your eyes may show that the real difference was patience before turn-in. The reference has now been translated from graph shape into a thing you can practice in the car.
Worked example: Formula Dodge logic versus Showroom Stock calibration
The bond mentions data work across cars ranging from Formula Dodge and Showroom Stock to higher-level cars, with tire choices, chassis adjustments, and driving modifications in the picture. That is enough to support a practical warning: an unlike-car reference can be useful, but only if you use it for the right kind of lesson.
If a Formula Dodge-style reference shows a later brake, quicker rotation, and earlier throttle than a heavier showroom-style car, do not treat the exact brake marker as your target. Use the reference to study sequence. Where does the fast lap finish the main slowing? How early is the car pointed? How little steering remains when power arrives? Those sequence questions can teach you even when the speed targets do not transfer.
For your own car, the calibrated objective must be smaller. You might test an earlier brake release shape, a later turn-in, or a cleaner exit unwind. You would not demand the same minimum speed or the same brake point without evidence that your car can accept it. Different cars handle differently, and the corpus specifically frames car handling, tires, chassis adjustments, and driving modifications as part of the picture. Respect that, and the reference remains useful instead of dangerous.
Common mistakes
Mistake 1: The bravery copy. You see the faster driver brake later, so you brake later. Good looks like asking why the reference can brake there and still make the corner. The answer may be cleaner previous exit, different release timing, less steering demand, or a car difference.
Mistake 2: The straightaway blame. You see lower speed halfway down the straight and blame power, gearing, or throttle. Good looks like moving backward to where the gap first opened. If it opened at track-out, the straight is only reporting an exit problem.
Mistake 3: The microscope-first review. You zoom into steering or gear changes before you know where the lap was lost. Good looks like overview, incongruity check, then details.
Mistake 4: The unlike-car trap. You compare your car to a different platform and copy exact speeds or markers. Good looks like transferring sequence and corner priority while calibrating speed, brake point, and steering amount to your own car.
Mistake 5: The interesting but unused analysis. You understand the graph but do not change the next session. Good looks like one objective with a corner, a phase, an action, and a success check.
Mistake 6: The everything-at-once fix. You change brake point, turn-in, gear, and throttle together. Good looks like one driveable adjustment that tests the reference diagnosis cleanly.
Drill: Three-lap reference calibration
Name: Three-lap reference calibration drill.
Do this at your next event with one target corner or one short section. The drill uses three driven laps and one between-session review. The success criterion is not that you match the faster reference. The success criterion is that you can identify where the gap begins, choose one calibrated adjustment, and then see whether the next session moved the trace or the feel in the expected direction.
Before the session, choose one reference. Best is a faster same-car or similar-car lap from the same day. If you do not have that, choose a quicker car you can observe on track and use your own data as the measured side. Write the target section before you drive. Keep it narrow.
During the session, drive three clean laps without chasing the reference in real time. Lap 1 is baseline feel. Lap 2 is your best normal version. Lap 3 is confirmation, not heroics. If you are using observation instead of overlay data, spend one safe opportunity watching the quicker car through the target corner and record the sequence mentally.
Between sessions, spend ten minutes only. Minute 1: find where the reference separates. Minutes 2 and 3: decide the corner phase. Minutes 4 through 6: check supporting evidence such as steering, gear, brake, throttle, video, or notes if available. Minutes 7 and 8: ask why until the finding becomes one physical action. Minute 9: write the objective. Minute 10: write the success check.
In the next session, test only that action for three clean laps. Do not add a second fix if the first lap feels strange. A calibrated change often feels unfamiliar before it feels faster. After the session, compare the same section again. You pass the drill if you can say one of three honest things: the gap shrank for the expected reason, the gap moved and revealed the next cause, or the change did not work and the evidence shows why.
When this principle breaks down
The principle breaks down when the reference is not comparable enough for the question you are asking. A different car can still teach broad sequence, but it may not teach exact speed or brake markers. A faster driver in traffic may not give you a clean lap. A lap with a mistake before the target corner can make the next corner comparison misleading. A sensor channel that disagrees with other evidence needs checking before you trust it.
It also breaks down when you use the reference to outrun your current skill. Bentley's introduction frames books and theory as tools that make hands-on learning faster, not replacements for experience. Data works the same way. If the faster lap asks for a behavior you cannot yet execute with control, scale it down. Practice the earlier release, the later turn-in, the calmer steering, or the better exit shape before you chase the full reference trace.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | bbb02386-778f-20ec-ad16-b9c016921743 | 16 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | fa01ec16-aace-9079-2afa-de127b8272a9 | 300 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 7f32498f-d9fd-bd02-17d6-a1aa8be21a50 | 501 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 0237a5bd-e2d4-724e-bc2e-ba13db924f66 | 11 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | b80dc634-a0a7-d6de-d470-353aed47e2a6 | 17 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | cb13d8c3-cc6b-28e9-246f-c3c64ae01efc | 1 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | f2410e4f-42d0-24db-af78-3d9940ff312d | 75 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 2cc8fb73-bf8b-6575-5167-9dbef050bdfe | 75 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 9 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 47f6de8d-9d56-5b6d-547a-f1e7bb92faaf | 152 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 10 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 591fe11f-29bf-4360-31eb-dce735a2b212 | 42 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 11 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | b25a5abe-55f5-bfe9-c7d7-d89151314400 | 47 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 12 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | f8e3be74-968a-a046-4ad6-3509a8108cfe | 91 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 13 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 132b7a24-40cb-abb1-5287-ba5b0971b786 | 120 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 14 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 3eba154c-b608-6792-bc01-300486abf0a5 | 121 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 15 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 0ea39b28-534c-0bc5-34e1-28ea462c56d5 | 300 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 16 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | d276269f-3631-7310-7146-524e58cef7fc | 5 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |