Use yaw rate as a balance thermometer
Generated from
content/lms/data-interpretation-ii-advanced/02-rotational-data/01-yaw-rate-basics.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/data-interpretation-ii-advanced/02-rotational-data/01-yaw-rate-basics.md
Course: Read the data your hands can't feel
Module: Use yaw, roll, and pitch to see the invisible
Estimated duration: 55 minutes
The purpose of yaw-rate analysis is not to give you one more squiggly line to stare at. It is to tell you whether the car is rotating more or less than the corner demands, and where that balance change begins. If you learn to read yaw rate this way, the trace becomes a balance thermometer. It shows the temperature of the car's rotation: too cold when the car is not turning enough for the path and speed, too hot when the rear is beginning to rotate faster than the corner requires, and stable when the measured rotation and the required rotation agree.
That thermometer is useful because balance problems are easy to misname from the seat. A corner can feel like understeer because you missed the line, turned too early, carried too much entry speed, released the brake poorly, or asked for throttle before the car was pointed. It can feel like oversteer because the rear actually stepped out, because you made a late steering correction, or because a bump or banking change changed the car's attitude. Yaw-rate data does not replace your judgment, but it gives you an objective rotational signal that you can compare against speed, lateral acceleration, steering, brake pressure, throttle position, curvature, GPS line, and sector time.
Start with the mechanism. Yaw rate is the vehicle's angular rate of rotation around a vertical axis through the center of gravity. In plain driving language, it is how quickly the car's heading is changing. A car that is beginning to oversteer shows an increase in yaw rate. A car that is understeering shows a decrease in yaw rate. That statement is the foundation, but it is not enough by itself, because a fast corner should have a lower angular rate than a slow tight corner, and a slow hairpin should have more rotation than a quick bend. The number only means something after you ask how much rotation the corner, speed, and radius require.
That is why the useful comparison is measured yaw rate against theoretical angular velocity. The theoretical value is the rate at which the car should be changing heading for its speed and corner radius. In data practice, the radius can be derived through lateral acceleration and speed, then expressed in a channel using the same units as measured yaw rate. The difference between measured yaw rate and theoretical angular velocity is commonly treated as attitude velocity. When measured yaw rate is greater than the theoretical angular velocity, the car has an oversteering tendency. When measured yaw rate is less than the theoretical angular velocity, the car has an understeering tendency. You are not trying to memorize the formula at the track. You are trying to learn the meaning of the comparison: actual rotation versus required rotation.
This is the main rule of the lesson: do not read yaw rate alone. Read the error between the car's actual rotation and the rotation the path requires, then locate that error in the corner. A positive spike in attitude velocity says the car rotated more than the path demanded at that moment. A negative section says the car rotated less than the path demanded at that moment. The timing of that positive or negative section tells you whether the imbalance belongs to entry, mid-corner, second-apex placement, throttle application, or exit unwind.
For an intermediate driver, the most important habit is to turn the trace into corner language. The data does not simply say oversteer or understeer. It says the car was reluctant to start rotating at turn-in, then the rear caught up too quickly as the car took a slip angle. It says the car was balanced through the first apex, then developed a positive attitude-velocity peak before the second apex. It says the exit steering correction appeared after throttle application. It says the car carried a long negative attitude-velocity section while you kept asking for more steering. Those are coachable, testable statements. A label is not enough. A location, timing, and likely cause are what let you improve the next session.
The channels you need are deliberately ordinary. A basic kit should already give you speed, RPM, throttle position, steering angle, lateral acceleration, and longitudinal acceleration. Brake pressure is strongly useful because brake shape tells you whether the car was being loaded, released, trailed, or dragged. Yaw speed from a gyroscope is the channel that makes this lesson direct. If you also have GPS line, G-sum, sector reports, throttle histograms, or curvature channels, they help you check the story. The best analysis process starts broad, looks for inconsistencies, uses other channels to verify, asks why, compares if possible, calibrates the trace to your driving, imagines the ideal shape, and turns the result into one objective for the next session.
Think of a corner in five rotational phases. First is approach and brake application, where the car is still mostly straight but longitudinal load is building. Second is initial rotation, where curvature leaves zero and the yaw trace begins to rise. Third is the support phase, where the car should be settled enough that actual rotation and required rotation make sense together. Fourth is apex and direction placement, where the car should be aimed well enough that the exit can begin. Fifth is unwind and power, where the steering comes out, throttle builds, and the car straightens. Yaw-rate interpretation is mostly the art of finding which of those phases contains the mismatch.
On entry, the first question is whether the car begins rotating when the driver asks it to. Curvature is useful here because it tells you how much the car is turning, not how much the steering wheel is turned. The transition from zero curvature marks where the car starts turning. The slope of that channel shows how quickly the car is being turned. If the driver adds steering but the car's curvature and yaw response build slowly, you may be looking at entry understeer, excessive entry speed, poor brake release, or a line that asks the front tires for too much too soon. The yaw trace alone cannot choose among those causes. The brake-pressure trace, steering trace, speed trace, and GPS line are how you decide.
A clean entry usually has a deliberate build of rotation rather than a long pause followed by a rescue. In data terms, you want the yaw response to begin where the turn begins and build in proportion to the corner's required angular velocity. If attitude velocity goes negative right as the car starts to yaw, the car is rotating less than required. That can happen when the front tires are saturated, when the driver is still asking too much braking and turning at the same time, when the line pinches the entry, or when the car setup gives the driver an understeering platform. You do not fix that by simply telling yourself to turn harder. More steering is not the same thing as more car rotation.
Entry oversteer looks different. The trace shows actual rotation exceeding the theoretical demand, often as a positive attitude-velocity peak. If the positive peak appears immediately after a release, a steering input, or a surface change, it tells you the rear is rotating faster than the corner requires. That is the data version of the rear wanting to step out. The important question is whether the rotation is useful or disruptive. A small, controlled rotation that helps point the car may be fast for one driver. A sharp peak that forces a catch, costs lateral G, or delays throttle is a problem. The trace should make you more precise than simply saying the car was loose.
Mid-corner, the thermometer becomes a stability tool. You are looking for agreement between the car's measured yaw rate and the theoretical angular velocity required by the path. If the car holds a negative attitude-velocity value while speed and lateral acceleration show the car is loaded, the car is not rotating enough. If it holds a positive value or produces repeated positive peaks, the rear is contributing too much rotation or the driver is making corrections that keep disturbing the car. Mid-corner balance matters because it determines whether you can begin unwinding steering and adding throttle on schedule.
Exit is where many drivers misread the data because they care about the straight that follows. The trace that matters is not only the yaw trace. It is yaw rate next to throttle, steering, speed, lateral G, and exit speed. Hasty steering corrections following throttle application can signify corner-exit oversteer. A hesitant throttle trace, an early throttle application followed by a lift, or a lift in a fast corner can point to a balance or confidence problem. A higher corner-exit speed matters most when the corner is followed by a significant acceleration zone, because time gained at exit carries down the straight. That means you should prioritize yaw-rate work on corners that lead onto meaningful straights before spending energy on corners where exit speed does not pay back as much.
There is a second rule: do not confuse balance with trajectory. Curvature helps you see the path. It is a measure of how much the car is turning, not a measure of how much the driver is turning the steering wheel. That difference is central. Steering angle is a driver input. Curvature is the car's path response. Yaw rate is the car's heading-rate response. Attitude velocity is the mismatch between actual heading-rate response and the theoretical demand. If you collapse those into one idea, you will blame the car for line problems and blame yourself for setup problems.
The practical workflow is simple enough to use after a session. Pick one corner, not the whole track. Choose laps that are worth comparing, ideally one lap that felt good, one that was fast, and one that clearly had the symptom. Align the laps on distance so the same part of the corner lines up. Start with speed and line so you know whether the laps are genuinely comparable. Add yaw rate, angular velocity, and attitude velocity if your software has them. Then add steering, brake pressure, throttle, lateral acceleration, and longitudinal acceleration. Your job is to identify the first place where the rotational story stops matching the desired path.
Do this in order. First, identify where the car starts turning. Use curvature, GPS, steering, and yaw-rate rise. Second, mark the main apex or apexes. Third, mark where throttle begins to build. Fourth, mark where steering begins to unwind. Fifth, compare measured yaw rate to angular velocity through those marks. Finally, check whether the imbalance appears before or after the driver input you suspect. If the attitude-velocity spike appears before throttle, do not blame throttle. If it appears after a throttle step and is followed by steering corrections, exit power application is a stronger suspect. If the negative section begins before the apex and carries through the point where you wanted to release steering, the car or line did not rotate enough soon enough.
A useful yaw-rate diagnosis is written as a sentence with four parts: where, sign, evidence, next test. For example: At the first apex, attitude velocity goes positive while throttle begins and steering correction follows, so the rear is rotating more than the path demands on initial power; next session, build throttle more progressively from the same minimum speed and check whether the positive peak and correction reduce. Another example: From turn-in to mid-corner, attitude velocity stays negative while curvature builds slowly and steering remains high, so the car is rotating less than required; next session, test a slightly later and more deliberate release or a less pinched entry and look for earlier curvature rise with no exit-speed loss. This sentence structure keeps you from turning data into vague complaint.
The thermometer is especially powerful when you compare laps. Single-lap analysis can show an event, but wider-angle analysis shows trends. Run charts can show a statistic for every lap in a session, test day, race weekend, or season. Average understeer angle is one example. It can reveal whether the car or driver is developing toward more oversteer or more understeer over time. That matters because balance is not always fixed from lap one. Tires, fuel, track condition, weather, brake balance, driver confidence, and driving style can all change the way the car rotates.
A good example is a race chart with three drivers in the same car. One driver and another developed toward more oversteer over time, while a second driver developed toward more understeer. The point for you is not that one trace is automatically better. The point is that the thermometer can reveal direction over time. If your first three laps show stable rotation and your last four show a growing positive attitude-velocity tendency on entry, the car or your driving is moving toward oversteer. If the reverse happens and negative attitude-velocity sections grow, the car or your driving is moving toward understeer. That is a better conversation than simply saying the car went away.
Driver style complicates the idea of a perfect target. In the Saleen S7R GT1 test example, two drivers responded differently to average understeer angle. Driver A was quicker overall and achieved fastest laps when average understeer angle was very low. Driver B became quicker as understeer angle increased. In an endurance setting with both drivers sharing the car, the setup decision had to balance confidence and speed for both. For you as a developing driver, this example matters because yaw-rate analysis is not a hunt for one universal balance number. It is a way to find the balance state that lets you produce repeatable, fast, confident laps in the car you are driving.
This is where the sibling skill of correlating rotation before blaming the car connects. A positive yaw mismatch does not automatically mean the setup is wrong. A negative mismatch does not automatically mean the front tires are bad. You must correlate the rotation with the input channels. Brake pressure shows whether your release shape is abrupt, long, light, hard, or inconsistent. Throttle position shows whether you coasted, hesitated, applied early and lifted, or lifted in a fast corner. Steering angle shows whether you made a sudden input or a correction. Speed and lateral acceleration show whether the tires were being asked for a realistic job. GPS line and curvature show whether the path itself caused the demand.
Calibration begins with consistency. If every lap shows the same negative attitude-velocity section from turn-in to mid-corner, you have a repeatable problem to work on. If the sign and timing change every lap, your first objective is not setup. It is repeatable inputs and repeatable placement. Data analysis is strongest when it can compare patterns. Without consistency, a yaw trace becomes a record of scattered experiments.
A second calibration cue is the shape of the correction. A clean corner tends to have one intentional build of rotation and one intentional release of rotation. The car starts turning, reaches its maximum turning demand, and then straightens. Curvature peaks where the car is turning at maximum. The transition back to zero tells you how the driver straightens the car. If the yaw and curvature traces show a second unplanned event after throttle, or a sharp positive peak that is followed by a steering correction and a delay in throttle, the car did not simply rotate. It forced you to manage a balance event.
A third calibration cue is time consequence. Minimum cornering speed and corner exit speed help evaluate different lines and rotational strategies. A higher minimum speed is not automatically better if it delays rotation and hurts exit. A higher exit speed is especially valuable when the following straight is significant. Sector time can help you decide whether the yaw signature that felt dramatic actually cost time. Some cars and drivers are fast with a lively rear. Others need a calmer understeering platform to commit to throttle. The thermometer should be tied to time, not ego.
A fourth cue is throttle confidence. A throttle histogram can show how much time you spend at full throttle, part throttle, and off throttle. More time at full throttle can indicate improved chassis balance and driver confidence, but only when the rest of the lap supports that interpretation. If your yaw trace shows that a positive exit spike disappeared and your throttle trace now builds without a lift, that is stronger evidence than either channel alone. If full-throttle time rises because you used throttle in the wrong place and then lost time elsewhere, the histogram alone will mislead you.
Worked example one: Bahrain double apex left. The source example uses speed, yaw rate, angular velocity, and attitude velocity through a double-apex left-hand corner at the Bahrain Grand Prix track. The important feature is not merely that the corner has two apexes. It is that the attitude-velocity trace separates two balance events. On corner entry, the car starts to yaw and develop slip angle. Attitude velocity initially goes negative, then produces a significant positive peak. That means the car first rotates less than required, then the rear wants to step out. Just before the second apex, a similar positive peak appears. In driver language, the car is not simply understeering or oversteering for the whole corner. It changes balance within the corner.
That example teaches a crucial habit. Do not stop reading at the first sign. If you saw only the initial negative movement, you might call the entry understeer and ask for more front response. If you saw only the positive peak, you might call it oversteer and ask for more rear security. The full trace says the corner has sequence: initial reluctance, then excess rotation, then another excess-rotation event before the second apex. The next analysis step is to overlay brake, steering, throttle, speed, and line. Did the positive entry peak follow a brake release or steering rate? Did the second-apex peak follow a throttle brush, a line pinch, or a steering correction? The yaw thermometer identifies the balance events. The other channels tell you what likely created them.
The next-session objective for that Bahrain-style pattern should be narrow. If the first positive peak is the repeated problem, work on the input immediately before it. If the second-apex peak is the repeated problem, work on placing the car so the second apex does not require a late extra rotation. Success is not simply a smaller yaw number. Success is a cleaner attitude-velocity shape, less correction, no loss of required rotation, and better minimum or exit speed where that corner pays back.
Worked example two: Saleen S7R GT1 driver fit. In the three-day test session, average understeer angle varied from slightly negative to about 1.2 degrees. Driver A's fastest laps came with very low average understeer angle, while Driver B's times improved as understeer angle increased. That is a strong warning against copying another driver's target. If you are Driver A, a car that is too stable at the rear may feel slow because it will not rotate enough for your preferred style. If you are Driver B, the same low-understeer or twitchy rear platform may reduce confidence and make you slower. In a shared car, the engineer must compromise. In your own HPDE or club-racing work, you must separate the car's balance state from your ability to use it.
The lesson for yaw-rate interpretation is that fastest does not always mean neutral by the same definition for every driver. You are trying to find the rotational behavior that produces speed and repeatability for you. If the car shows positive attitude-velocity peaks but your fastest, most repeatable laps use a small controlled amount of that rotation without correction or throttle delay, it may be productive. If the same peak causes a catch, a lift, or a confidence drop, it is not productive for you. The data tells you the rotational fact. Lap time, exit speed, and input quality tell you whether that fact helps.
Worked example three: trend spotting across a run. A run chart can show average understeer angle lap by lap. In the example with three drivers in the same car, two drivers trended toward more oversteer while another trended toward more understeer. Imagine reviewing your own session this way. Your fastest single lap may not show the whole problem. If lap-by-lap balance moves more positive on entry as the session continues, you may be creating or experiencing a growing oversteer tendency. If it moves more negative, you may be losing rotation. This kind of view helps you decide whether to change driving, tire management, brake balance, or setup only after you know the trend is real.
Common mistake one is diagnosing balance from yaw rate alone. Measured yaw rate rises in tight corners and falls in faster corners because the required angular velocity changes with speed and radius. The cure is to compare measured yaw rate with angular velocity or attitude velocity. Good looks like saying the car rotated more or less than the corner required at a specific point, not saying the yaw number was high or low.
Common mistake two is blaming setup before checking input timing. The data process requires you to use other channels to check. If a positive attitude-velocity peak follows a sharp steering input, abrupt brake release, or throttle application, the driver may have created the event. If the same event happens with clean repeatable inputs across comparable laps, setup becomes a stronger suspect. Good looks like a diagnosis that names both the balance event and the input context.
Common mistake three is treating one lap as proof. Single-lap overlays are useful, but wider-angle views catch trends and abnormal situations. If you change your driving based on one weird lap, you may chase noise. Good looks like comparing laps, checking whether the sign and timing repeat, and using run charts when the question is about a session-long trend.
Common mistake four is confusing steering with turning. Steering angle is what you asked. Curvature is how much the car turned. Yaw rate is how quickly the car's heading changed. Balance lives in the gap between request, path, and response. Good looks like comparing steering to curvature and yaw response rather than assuming more steering means more rotation.
Common mistake five is optimizing the wrong corner. Line and balance analysis should concentrate on corners that matter, especially corners followed by significant acceleration zones. A prettier yaw trace in a low-payoff corner may not be worth a compromised exit from a corner that leads onto a straight. Good looks like tying the yaw work to minimum speed, exit speed, and sector time.
Common mistake six is erasing useful rotation. Intermediate drivers often learn that oversteer is bad and understeer is safe, then overcorrect the car or their driving toward dullness. The Saleen example shows that some drivers are faster with very low average understeer angle, while others need more understeer to go faster. Good looks like separating useful rotation from disruptive rotation. Useful rotation points the car without a catch, lift, or delayed throttle. Disruptive rotation creates corrections and time loss.
Common mistake seven is using the thermometer without calibration to your driving. A channel can be mathematically correct and still be interpreted poorly. You need to connect the trace to what you felt, what the instructor said, what the car did, and what the lap time showed. Good looks like reviewing data soon after the session while you still remember the corner, then setting one objective for the next session.
Drill: two-corner balance thermometer. Use this at your next event for three sessions. Before the first session, choose two corners. Pick one medium-speed corner where entry rotation matters and one exit-priority corner followed by meaningful acceleration. Do not choose the whole lap. Your success criterion is to identify one repeatable yaw-rate imbalance, test one driving change, and confirm whether the attitude-velocity shape and time consequence improve.
After session one, overlay three laps: your fastest lap, your most comfortable lap, and one lap where the corner felt wrong. For each chosen corner, mark turn-in, first yaw response, apex or apexes, throttle pickup, and steering unwind. Add speed, yaw rate, angular velocity, attitude velocity, steering, brake pressure if available, throttle, lateral acceleration, and GPS or curvature. Write one sentence for each corner using the where, sign, evidence, next test structure. Do not make a setup change from this first review unless the pattern is extreme and repeatable.
In session two, change only the driver action named in the sentence. If entry attitude velocity was negative and curvature built slowly, test a cleaner release or a line that asks less of the front at turn-in. If a positive peak followed throttle pickup, test a smoother throttle build from the same placement. If a second-apex positive peak appeared, test whether earlier placement reduces the need for late extra rotation. The goal is not to drive around the whole lap differently. The goal is to create a clean before-and-after comparison.
After session two, check whether the sign, peak size, timing, correction, and speed consequence changed. A successful change reduces the unwanted mismatch without creating a new one. If the positive exit peak shrinks but exit speed also falls because you simply waited too long for throttle, that is not a complete win. If the negative entry section shrinks but the car now produces a positive catch before apex, you moved the problem rather than solving it. If the trace improves and sector or exit speed improves, keep the change for session three and try to make it repeatable.
In session three, repeat the improved technique for at least three comparable laps. Your success criterion is consistency. You want the same cleaner rotational shape to appear lap after lap, with no new lift, no hasty steering correction, and no time loss in the relevant segment. If the trace is cleaner but not faster, keep studying the line and speed context. If the trace is faster but harder to repeat, the balance may be productive but above your current consistency level. That is still useful information.
When this principle breaks down, it usually breaks because you asked the yaw trace to answer the wrong question. Banking, bumps, grip changes, rain, and line choice can influence apex placement and rotational demand. A yaw-rate channel can identify a balance change, but it does not know why the track surface changed under the car. That is why you cross-check with line, speed, lateral and longitudinal acceleration, steering, brake, throttle, and sector time. It is also why you focus on specific needs. More channels are not automatically better unless you know what question you are asking.
Another limit is sensor and math-channel confidence. Extended vehicle-dynamics analysis can use many channels, including suspension movement, tire temperatures, wheel speeds, ride height, vertical acceleration, and yaw speed. But teams usually start with basic signals and extend step by step as they gain experience. You should do the same with interpretation. If you do not yet trust the yaw sensor, distance alignment, or math channel, do not make a confident balance claim from it. Verify that the trace behaves sensibly in known corners, compare it with lateral acceleration and curvature, and use obvious events to calibrate your reading.
The final habit is to end analysis with an objective. Data review that does not change your next session is just entertainment. A good objective is small, observable, and linked to the trace. Reduce the positive attitude-velocity peak before the second apex while keeping exit speed. Make the first curvature rise earlier without adding a steering correction. Remove the throttle lift after a positive exit spike. Make three laps show the same stable yaw shape through the priority corner. These are objectives you can actually drive.
Read this lesson narrowly. It is not a complete lesson on body attitude, tire loading, or every cause of balance change. It is the rotational-data skill: use yaw rate, theoretical angular velocity, attitude velocity, curvature, and supporting channels to identify where the car rotates too little, too much, or just enough. When you can do that, you stop treating balance as a feeling you argue about and start treating it as a pattern you can test.
Worked example: Bahrain double apex left
The Bahrain Grand Prix track example uses speed, yaw rate, angular velocity, and attitude velocity through a double-apex left-hand corner. The key lesson is sequence. On entry, the car starts to yaw and develop slip angle. Attitude velocity first goes negative, then produces a significant positive peak, which means the car first rotates less than required and then the rear wants to step out. Before the second apex, a similar positive peak appears. You should not name the whole corner understeer or oversteer from one moment. The trace says the balance changes inside the corner, so the next step is to check brake, steering, throttle, speed, and line around each peak.
Worked example: Saleen S7R GT1 driver fit
The Saleen S7R GT1 test shows why yaw-rate and understeer-angle analysis must be tied to the driver. Driver A was faster overall and set his fastest laps with very low average understeer angle. Driver B became quicker as average understeer angle increased. The same balance direction did not serve both drivers equally. For your own review, this means the goal is not a universal neutral number. The goal is a rotational signature that produces speed, confidence, and repeatability for you in that car.
Common mistakes
The most common mistake is reading yaw rate without comparing it to the required angular velocity of the corner. A second mistake is blaming setup before checking brake, throttle, steering, speed, and line. A third is treating one lap as proof instead of checking whether the sign and timing repeat. A fourth is confusing steering angle with actual turning, even though curvature is the car's path response and steering is only the driver's request. A fifth is improving a low-payoff corner while ignoring a corner that leads onto a significant straight. Good analysis names the location, sign, supporting evidence, and next test.
Drill: two-corner balance thermometer
For three sessions, choose one entry-rotation corner and one exit-priority corner. After session one, overlay three laps and mark turn-in, first yaw response, apex, throttle pickup, and steering unwind. Write one diagnosis sentence for each corner using where, sign, evidence, and next test. In session two, change only the driver action named in the sentence. After session two, check whether the attitude-velocity peak, correction, and speed consequence improved. In session three, repeat the improved technique for at least three comparable laps. Success means the cleaner rotational shape repeats without a new lift, catch, or segment-time loss.
When yaw rate is not enough
Yaw rate identifies a rotational mismatch, but it does not explain every cause by itself. Banking, bumps, grip changes, rain, and line choice can change the required path and apex placement. Sensor confidence and math-channel quality also matter. When the yaw-rate story is unclear, use curvature, GPS line, speed, lateral and longitudinal acceleration, brake pressure, throttle, steering, sector time, and run charts to check the hypothesis before changing driving style or setup.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Analysis Techniques for Racecar Data Acquisition | b7b13d94-9957-a36a-44ed-4d92a9fddcbe | 11 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Analysis Techniques for Racecar Data Acquisition (Jorge Sergers) | 7d3cef4dd672415d2689e44d15deb966 | 10 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Data for Drivers | cabda699642b26311b0a7ef998da2c71 | 15 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Briefing on High-Performance Driving and Event Operations | d91cd52a-c875-8a59-4539-4257a7b4d757 | 1 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Analysis Techniques for Racecar Data Acquisition | f283c211-228e-e2d7-1c5f-9fd276068a07 | 18 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Analysis Techniques for Racecar Data Acquisition | 3e957c6f-b3fb-a8ce-c62a-9d23b7660a9f | 6 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Analysis Techniques for Racecar Data Acquisition | f6dc9cae-392f-1151-15c6-df8acd9a8ec5 | 5 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Analysis Techniques for Racecar Data Acquisition | ad559d04-3651-61c2-d02b-5455aba0d7cc | 7 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |