Record the change before the next session
Generated from
content/lms/platform-specific-spec-miata/06-translate-miata-feedback-into-legal-next-actions/04-record-the-change-before-the-next-session.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/platform-specific-spec-miata/06-translate-miata-feedback-into-legal-next-actions/04-record-the-change-before-the-next-session.md
Course: Race a Spec Miata by the rulebook
Module: Translate Miata feedback into legal next actions
Estimated duration: 55 minutes
Purpose and boundary
This lesson starts after you have already done the judgment work from the sibling lessons. You have named the feedback, separated your inputs from the car balance, decided what is legal, and chosen one experiment. This lesson is about the next step: recording that experiment before the next session so it becomes a real test instead of a paddock guess.
The skill is simple to state and harder to practice under event pressure. Before you go back on track, your notebook or digital log must show five things: what you felt or saw, what evidence supports it, what legal change or driver action you selected, what you expect to happen, and how you will judge the result. After the session, the same record must show what actually happened. If you cannot read the note later and understand the test, you did not really record the change.
This is not paperwork for its own sake. The driver-record material in the corpus treats the log book as part of the driving system. You use it before a session to set objectives and plans. You use it after a session to capture track conditions, car changes, needed changes, and results. You use it months later when you return to the same track or run into the same driving problem. The point is to avoid learning the same thing twice.
For an intermediate Spec Miata driver, this matters because the useful window between sessions is short. You come in hot, people ask questions, tire pressures are checked, fuel is added, grid is called, and your memory starts turning a clear sensation into a vague story. The car may have oversteered, but where? On entry, at the apex, or under power? You may have changed the car, but from what baseline? You may have found time, but was it from the change, the conditions, a cleaner lap, or a different line? A written record does not answer every question, but it preserves the questions accurately enough that you can keep learning.
The principle: the next session begins on paper
The rule for this lesson is: record the experiment before the next session, not after the next result. If the note is written only after you have already driven again, the experiment is contaminated by memory, emotion, and the new session. You may still learn something, but you have made the learning loop weaker.
A good record creates a clean before-and-after. Before the session, you state the objective, the plan, the selected change, and the expected evidence. After the session, you record the conditions, the execution, the result, and the next action. That is the loop. Objective, change, evidence, result, next action.
The mechanism is the same whether you use a paper notebook, a Tracky session note, a spreadsheet, or data software. You are turning a driving impression into a testable statement. The corpus repeatedly points toward this habit. Driver notes should include session objectives and the techniques or plans needed to achieve them. After the session, they should include track and condition comments, changes made, changes needed, and results. Data work follows the same pattern: overview first, look for incongruencies, dig into details, check against other channels, ask why, compare if possible, calibrate to your driving, imagine the ideal, and set objectives for the next session.
That sequence is the heart of the lesson. You are not collecting trivia. You are building a record that lets you know whether the next action is repeat, revert, adjust, or stop and gather better evidence.
What counts as a recorded change
A recorded change is more than the name of a part, setting, or driving idea. It has context, intent, and a success criterion.
Context answers what session this was, in what car, at what track, and under what conditions. The driver-record guidance calls for the date, car, lap time information, and weather conditions. It also calls for notes on the track and conditions after each session. Without context, you can mistake a condition change for a setup or technique change. A note from a cool morning session should not be treated the same as a note from a hotter afternoon session without at least acknowledging the condition difference.
Intent answers what problem you are addressing. Do not write only that the car was loose, tight, slow, or better. Write where the problem showed up and what part of the corner it affected. If your data shows that you slowed too much in the first half of a corner, the intent is different from a problem in the exit phase. If your throttle trace shows hesitation, coasting, or an early application followed by a lift, the intent is different from a pure car-balance adjustment. If the brake trace shows a long tail, inconsistent pressure, or a light-long pattern rather than a hard-short pattern, the intent should name that braking behavior.
The selected change answers what you will do differently next. In this module, the legal-change decision belongs to the earlier sibling lessons. Here, you document the chosen action so it survives the paddock. If the change is a driver technique, record the technique in concrete terms. If the change is a car adjustment that has already been verified as legal, record the setting before and after. If the change is to keep the car the same and drive a targeted experiment, record that too. No change is still a test if the driver plan is specific.
The expected evidence answers what improvement should look like. The corpus gives you several useful evidence families. A speed or rpm trace can give corner speed, straight speed, elapsed time, section times, and braking deceleration. Throttle data can show coasting, hesitation, early throttle that leads to a lift, and lifts in fast corners. Brake pressure can show the shape of the application and release, including the initial hit, the trail, and whether there is a long tail. Other available channels include steering, rpm, gear, segment times, fastest rolling lap, theoretical fastest, G-sum, GPS line, total steer angle, and throttle histogram. You do not need all of them for every note. You need the one or two that match the experiment.
The result answers what happened. A result is not just faster or slower. A useful result says whether the change was executed, what the relevant data or sensation showed, and what next action follows. If the lap time improved but the trace still shows a lift after early throttle, the result is mixed. If the section time improved but the straight speed fell, the result may still need a net-gain check. The aerodynamic testing chunk makes this point in another context: gains in one part of the lap can be set against losses elsewhere, and the overall elapsed time is the measure of net gain or loss. The same thinking helps a driver avoid falling in love with a change that only moves the problem.
The notebook page that matters
For this lesson, build each note around a one-page session record. It does not need to be beautiful. It needs to be repeatable.
Start with the header. Record the date, event, track, car, session number, weather, and any obvious condition change. Add best lap time if you have it. If you are racing or comparing within a group, include the relevant fastest reference only when it helps you interpret the day. The point is not ego. The point is context for later.
Next write the objective before the session. The objective should be narrow enough that you can remember it on grid. A useful objective might be to test whether a later throttle commitment removes a lift in a fast corner, whether a cleaner brake release improves the first half of the corner, or whether a chosen legal setup change changes the corner phase you are targeting. A weak objective is to go faster everywhere. That gives you no test.
Then write the plan. The plan is the action you will take in the car. It should include the place, the input, and the restraint. Place means the corner or section. Input means brake, throttle, steering, gear, or line. Restraint means what you are deliberately not changing. In this module, that restraint is essential because the sibling lesson already narrowed you to one legal experiment at a time. If you change the car, change your braking point, change your line, and change your throttle timing all in the same session, the next note will not know what produced the result.
Then record the expected evidence. If you have data, name the channel you will review. If you do not have data, name the sensory or timing cue you will use. The data process material encourages starting simple and focusing on the basics when all else fails. That is the right standard here. It is better to record one clean expected signal than to drown the note in channels you will not actually inspect before the next session.
After the session, finish the page immediately. Record whether you executed the plan. Record the result. Record any condition change. If the test created a new question, write the next question instead of forcing a conclusion. The next-session note is not a verdict machine. It is a learning machine.
Build the track map into the record
A session log is stronger when it includes your own map. The driver-record guidance recommends drawing your own track map because the useful map is the track as you see it, not only the geometry printed by the facility or the data system. That does not mean your drawing must be accurate like a survey. It means it must preserve your reference system.
On that map, record the gears you use in each turn, the reference points that matter to your driving, elevation changes, surface changes, good passing places, and the sections that challenge you. If a crack in the pavement is your turn-in reference, note it. If the end of a curb is your apex reference, note it. If a surface change is where the car starts to feel different, mark it. If a passing zone affects how you enter or exit a corner in traffic, mark it.
This matters for recording changes because most driver feedback is location-specific. A car that feels stable in one corner and nervous in another may not need the same response as a car that behaves the same everywhere. A brake-pressure problem in one downhill entry is not the same as a global braking problem. A throttle hesitation after a slow apex is not the same as a lift in a fast corner. The map forces your language to become precise.
The map also helps when you come back to the same track. The corpus explicitly points to using records when returning to a track or when having a problem with a specific area of driving. Your old map gives you a starting point. It reminds you what gear you used, what reference points mattered, what conditions were present, and where you were working. That saves you from using the first session of every return visit just to rediscover your own notes.
Use data as evidence, not decoration
Data can make your record stronger, but only if it is attached to the question. The data chunks in the corpus are practical, not mystical. They point you toward speed, rpm, throttle, brake pressure, steering, gear, segment times, GPS line, total steer angle, throttle histogram, fastest rolling lap, theoretical fastest, G-sum, and section reports. They also tell you to look for incongruencies, use other channels when available, compare if you can, calibrate to your driving, imagine what ideal would look like, and set objectives for the next session.
That is a process, not a treasure hunt. Start with the question. If the feedback is that you are losing time in the first half of a corner, the speed trace and segment time are more relevant than a general lap-time complaint. If the feedback is that the car rotates too much on entry, brake release shape, steering, and speed may be more relevant than a throttle histogram. If the feedback is that you are slow to power, the throttle trace may show whether you coasted, hesitated, applied throttle early and then lifted, or lifted in a fast corner.
A basic speed or rpm trace can already teach a lot. The aerodynamics testing discussion notes that speed or rpm versus time can be used to infer corner and straight speeds, elapsed time, split times, and braking deceleration rates. It also points out that such records can be kept permanently for later inspection. In driver terms, that means your note can move from a feeling to a pattern. You can write that the car felt better, but the speed trace showed no net gain. You can write that the braking zone felt safer, but the segment time got worse. You can write that a change raised midcorner speed but cost straight speed, then decide whether the total elapsed time supports keeping it.
Do not try to use every channel every session. The Data for Drivers process says to keep it simple and focus on the basics when all else fails. For this lesson, the basic data habit is enough: pick the channel that matches the change, look for the expected signature, and write the result before choosing the next action.
Separate feeling, evidence, and conclusion
One of the most important sub-skills is keeping three lines separate: feeling, evidence, and conclusion.
Feeling is what you experienced in the car. The car rotated earlier. The front did not bite. You hesitated before throttle. The brake release felt long. The car felt easier to place. Feel matters because you drive through feel, and the driver-record material is written for drivers, not only engineers. The goal is usable language.
Evidence is what you can point to outside the feeling. It may be a data trace, a segment time, a lap-time pattern, a map note, or a consistent comment over multiple laps. The Data for Drivers process tells you to use other channels if available to check, compare if you can, and calibrate to your driving. Evidence is how you keep a single emotional lap from becoming a setup direction.
Conclusion is the next action. It may be to keep the change, revert the change, repeat the test, or choose a different legal experiment. Conclusion comes last. If you write the conclusion first, the rest of the note tends to become a defense of the decision. If you write feeling and evidence first, the next action is more likely to fit what actually happened.
This is especially useful when the evidence conflicts. Suppose the car felt more secure, but the segment time was worse and the throttle trace shows coasting. The conclusion should not automatically be that the car needs more of the same change. The conclusion might be that the change improved confidence but the driving plan created a delay. Suppose the lap time improved, but the expected channel did not change. The conclusion might be to repeat the test because the improvement may have come from traffic, conditions, or a better lap elsewhere. Your record should leave room for that honesty.
Write objectives that a driver can execute
A session objective should be written for the version of you sitting in grid with gloves on. That version of you cannot execute a paragraph. It can execute one sentence.
Use a clear structure: in this place, perform this action, while holding these other variables steady, then check this evidence. For example, in the target corner, keep the same line and braking marker, focus only on smoother brake release, then check first-half minimum speed and brake-pressure tail. Or in the target fast corner, keep the car unchanged, commit to a single throttle application, then check whether the throttle trace shows a lift.
The important part is the restraint. A driver can easily turn one objective into five changes once the helmet goes on. You feel the car, chase the line, adjust the brake, try a different throttle timing, and then come in with a lap time. The lap time may be useful, but it is not a clean test. The earlier sibling lesson on one legal experiment exists for that reason. This lesson records that restraint so the session has a fair chance of teaching you something.
A good objective also includes what not to do. If the test is a car change, do not also redesign your corner entry unless the plan says so. If the test is a driver technique, do not also make a car change because the first lap felt odd. If the track changes, record the condition change instead of pretending the test was clean. The record is allowed to say that the result is inconclusive. Inconclusive is better than a confident wrong answer.
The five-minute post-session capture
The most valuable note is often the one you write while the session is still alive in your body. You do not need to perform a full data review before you write anything. Capture first, analyze second.
Immediately after the car is safe and the required checks are handled, write the raw capture. What changed? Where did it show up? What did the car do? What did you do? Was traffic involved? Did the condition change? Did the problem repeat every lap or only once? Did you execute the plan? This is the part you cannot reliably reconstruct later.
Then add the quick evidence. If you have a timer or logger, note the best lap, relevant split, or target segment. If you have throttle or brake data available quickly, add the one signature that matches the objective. If data is not available until later, write the channel you need to inspect. Do not leave the record blank while waiting for perfect evidence.
Finally write the provisional next action. Use simple action labels: repeat, revert, keep, adjust, or review. Repeat means the result was promising or unclear and the test needs another clean run. Revert means the change failed or created the wrong behavior. Keep means the change worked well enough to become the new baseline. Adjust means the evidence supports the direction but not the amount or execution. Review means the evidence is conflicting and you need data, video, instructor input, or a better comparison before changing again.
This five-minute capture is what protects the next session. Even if you later do a deeper review, you have preserved the original feedback before it was edited by paddock conversation.
How you know the record is improving
You are improving at this skill when your notes become more useful before you go on track, not just more detailed afterward.
The first cue is that each next session has a clear objective. You do not sit in grid trying to remember what the plan was. You can state the target corner or section, the input you are working on, the change you are testing, and the evidence you will check.
The second cue is that your notes become location-specific. Instead of writing that the car was bad, you write which phase of which corner created the issue. Your track map gains reference points, gears, surfaces, elevation notes, and problem areas. You can tell whether a problem is global or local.
The third cue is that your notes separate the car from the driver. The corpus does not tell you to blame the car or blame the driver. It tells you to keep records, understand adjustments, use data, and calibrate the data to your driving. That means your note can say that the car change helped but your throttle application was hesitant, or that the setup stayed the same but your brake-release shape changed. That separation is what makes legal next actions cleaner.
The fourth cue is that your data questions become simpler. You stop opening every channel hoping for an answer. You begin with the objective, inspect the relevant trace or split, look for incongruencies, and then decide whether to dig deeper. You use data to support the next objective instead of using it as a pile of interesting squiggles.
The fifth cue is that your old notes are useful when you return to a track. You can open the record and find your references, gears, conditions, best lap, problem sections, and previous experiments. You do not have to relearn the same thing twice.
What to do when the record and the result disagree
Disagreement is not failure. It is one of the main reasons to keep records.
If the car felt better but the relevant segment got slower, do not erase the feeling. Record both. Then ask whether the plan changed a different part of the corner, whether conditions changed, whether traffic affected the lap, or whether your confidence improved before your speed did. The aerodynamic testing discussion gives a useful model: a gain in one place can be set against a loss elsewhere, and the net elapsed time matters. For a driver, the same logic applies to corner phases and segments.
If the lap time improved but the target evidence did not, record that too. A faster lap may come from a cleaner sector, better traffic, or a mistake elsewhere disappearing. The result may still be good, but it does not prove the change. Your next action may be to repeat the same experiment with the same objective rather than stacking another change on top.
If the data shows a problem you did not feel, treat it as a calibration opportunity. The Data for Drivers process includes calibrating to your driving. That means learning what a trace shape feels like in the car. A long brake-pressure tail, a throttle hesitation, a lift after early application, or a steering pattern becomes more useful when you can connect it to a sensation and a place on the track.
If the feeling says one thing and multiple channels say another, slow down the conclusion. Use other channels if available. Compare if you can. Ask why. Then set a narrower objective for the next session. The goal is not to win the argument against the data or against your body. The goal is to make the next test cleaner.
Cross-references inside this module
Use this lesson after Choose experiments that fit the rules and Choose one legal experiment at a time. Those lessons decide what you are allowed to try and how to keep the experiment narrow. This lesson preserves that decision so the next session actually tests it.
Use this lesson with Name oversteer without overreacting when your feedback is about rotation or balance. Naming the behavior keeps the note precise. Recording the change keeps the next action disciplined.
Use this lesson with Separate your inputs from chassis balance and Separate your inputs from the car's balance when you are unsure whether the issue came from your driving or the car. Your record should include the driver input you plan to hold steady and the car change or technique you plan to test. That is how you avoid turning every balance complaint into a setup change.
The deeper habit is continuous analysis. One of the Speed Secrets introductions frames the aim as giving the driver tools to keep analyzing how to go faster, and another passage emphasizes that information only helps if it is used in practice. Your session record is where that idea becomes operational. It is the bridge between learning, driving, data, setup understanding, and the next lap.
Worked example: brake-trace feedback before the second session
You come in from the first session with a complaint that the car will not settle in the first half of a medium-speed corner. The old version of this note would say only that the car was nervous on entry. That is not enough to guide the next session.
Start by separating feeling, evidence, and conclusion. The feeling is that the car did not settle as you approached the apex. The first evidence to check is the brake-pressure trace because the Data for Drivers material specifically points to brake-pressure shape, initial application, trail, long tail, inconsistent pressure, and light-long versus hard-short patterns. If the trace shows that you carried a long tail of brake pressure into the corner, the note should not jump straight to a car change. It should record that your entry balance complaint may be connected to the release shape.
Your pre-session record for the next run might say this in plain language: same car baseline, target the same corner, keep the same braking marker and line, change only the brake release shape, and check whether the first-half speed and brake trace improve. The expected evidence is not just a lap time. It is a shorter or cleaner release trace, less entry disturbance, and a better first-half corner speed or segment time.
After the session, write whether you executed the plan. If you changed the brake release and the car settled, but the segment was no faster, that is a mixed result. The next action may be repeat, because the driver input improved but the speed did not yet follow. If the trace still shows the same long tail, the result is not a setup conclusion at all; it is an execution conclusion. If the trace improved and the segment improved, the next action may be to keep that driver plan as the baseline before trying any legal car change.
The lesson is that the recorded change protected you from treating an input problem as a car problem too early. The next session had a target, a restraint, and an evidence channel.
Worked example: a Showroom Stock speed difference in the first half of a corner
One of the Going Faster chunks describes data acquisition being used to show a speed difference between two drivers in the same section of a race track, with the difference coming from one driver slowing too much in the first half of the corner. Treat that as the model situation.
If you came in from a Spec Miata session and saw the same pattern, the weak note would say that you were slow in the corner. The better note says that the loss is in the first half of the corner, not necessarily the exit. That distinction changes the next action.
Before the next session, record the specific experiment. If the selected legal action is a driver experiment, the plan might be to keep the car unchanged, use the same gear, hold the same exit priority, and work only on carrying appropriate speed into the first half without adding steering input or delaying the car. If the selected legal action is a car change from an earlier sibling lesson, record the exact baseline and exact new setting, then still hold the driving plan stable enough that the data can mean something.
The expected evidence should match the original problem. You would check minimum speed, first-half segment time, and whether the later part of the corner or straight speed suffered. The aerodynamics testing chunk gives the useful principle that a gain in one area can be compared against losses elsewhere and set against overall elapsed time. In this driving example, a first-half gain that ruins exit speed may not be a real improvement. A first-half gain that preserves exit and improves the segment is stronger evidence.
After the session, do not write only that the lap was faster. Write whether the first-half loss changed. If the first half improved but exit fell, the next action is not automatically more of the same. If the first half stayed slow but the lap improved elsewhere, repeat the test rather than claiming the change solved the target issue. The record keeps the experiment honest.
Worked example: returning to the same track with your own map
Imagine you return to a track after several months. You have a printed map from the facility and a logger map from your data system, but the most useful document is the map you drew yourself during the previous event.
That map shows the gears you used in each turn, the references that mattered to you, elevation and surface changes, good passing places, and the sections that were challenging. It also has your old session notes: date, car, weather, best lap, and the experiment you were running. This is exactly the kind of record the driver-notes material recommends.
Before the first session, you do not need to invent a new plan from memory. You read the old map and decide what still applies. Maybe the old note says that a specific surface change made the car feel different on entry. Maybe it says that your reference for turn-in was a pavement mark and your apex reference was the end of a curb. Maybe it says that you were working on a throttle hesitation in one corner, not a global car-balance problem.
Your next-session record starts from that baseline. The objective can be conservative: confirm the old references and determine whether the previous problem still exists under today's conditions. The expected evidence can be simple: compare current segment time, throttle trace, or brake trace to the old pattern if available. If conditions are different, write that. If the reference point has changed or is no longer usable, write that. If the car behaves differently, write where and under what input.
The win is not that the old map makes you fast by itself. The win is that it prevents you from spending a session rediscovering what you already learned. The record turns the first session back from a memory exercise into a focused confirmation run.
Common mistakes
The first mistake is the memory-only change. You come in, talk through the issue, decide on a legal next action, and then trust yourself to remember it on grid. What good looks like is a written pre-session objective with the exact action, the restraint, and the evidence channel.
The second mistake is recording the conclusion but not the evidence. A note that says the car was better does not tell future you why. Good looks like separating feeling, evidence, and conclusion. The car felt better, the target segment improved, the throttle trace no longer showed a lift, and the next action is to keep the change. Or the car felt better, the target evidence did not improve, and the next action is to repeat.
The third mistake is changing the car and the driver at the same time without saying so. That destroys the learning value of the session. Good looks like writing the one chosen legal experiment and the variables you will hold steady. If you fail to hold them steady, good notes admit that the result is inconclusive.
The fourth mistake is using data as decoration. Opening every channel after the session can feel serious while still avoiding the actual question. Good looks like choosing the channel that matches the objective: speed or segment time for a corner-speed question, throttle trace for coasting or hesitation, brake pressure for release shape, steering or GPS line when line and input are the suspected issue.
The fifth mistake is ignoring conditions. A note without weather, track condition, session number, or traffic context can make a normal condition change look like a successful adjustment. Good looks like recording the conditions and any obvious changes before judging the experiment.
The sixth mistake is using only a printed map. A printed map is useful, but it does not show the track as you drive it. Good looks like your own map with gears, references, surface and elevation notes, passing areas, and problem sections. That map is where vague feedback becomes location-specific.
The seventh mistake is forcing certainty. Some sessions do not prove the change. Traffic, poor execution, changing conditions, or conflicting data can make the result unclear. Good looks like writing repeat or review instead of pretending the answer is settled.
Drill: the three-session record loop
Use this drill at your next event. It takes three consecutive sessions and requires one notebook page or Tracky note per session.
Before session one, spend three minutes writing the page header, one objective, the selected legal experiment, one restraint, and one expected evidence channel. Keep it narrow. The goal is not to solve the entire car. The goal is to test one next action cleanly.
After session one, spend five minutes on raw capture before doing a deep review. Record whether you executed the plan, where the car or driver behavior changed, what the conditions were, and what quick evidence is available. Choose one action label for the next session: repeat, revert, keep, adjust, or review.
Before session two, write the second objective from the first result. If the first session was inconclusive, repeat with a cleaner restraint. If the first session supported the change, keep the new baseline and choose the smallest next question. If the first session failed, revert or adjust, but record the reason before you go out.
After session two, repeat the same five-minute capture. This time, add one comparison to session one. It can be a segment, a speed trace, a throttle event, a brake-pressure shape, a lap-time pattern, or a map note. The comparison must be tied to the objective, not just to general curiosity.
Before session three, write the cleanest version of the test. This is the calibration pass. You should now know what you are testing, what evidence matters, and what would count as success. After session three, write the final result and the next event baseline.
The success criterion is concrete: at the end of three sessions, you can hand the notes to another driver or instructor and they can tell what you tested, what stayed constant, what evidence you checked, what happened, and what you will do next. If they cannot, the drill did not fail because you were slow. It failed because the record was not clear enough.
When this principle breaks down
This lesson breaks down when the current evidence cannot support a responsible next action. That can happen when the data is missing, the driver did not execute the plan, traffic interrupted the target corner, conditions changed sharply, or the selected change was not actually held to one variable.
When that happens, do not invent certainty. The Data for Drivers process gives the right recovery path: start with an overview, look for incongruencies, dig for details, use other channels if available, ask why, compare if you can, calibrate the data to your driving, imagine the ideal, and set the next objective. In practical terms, that means the next note may be a review note rather than a change note.
The other breakdown is lack of rule or setup knowledge. The chassis-adjustment chunk says that understanding chassis and suspension adjustments and what they mean to the driver is a critical part of the driver's job, and that drivers should go learn or ask when they do not understand. In this module, that means you do not write a vague legal setup action if you do not understand what it is meant to change. You either return to the legal-experiment lesson, ask for clarification, or choose a driver-technique experiment that you can define cleanly.
A third breakdown is over-complex data work. If your analysis expands until you no longer know what the next session is testing, simplify. The data process material explicitly supports keeping the work simple and focusing on the basics. A clean note with one objective and one relevant channel beats a complicated review that never becomes an executable plan.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 1dbf972c-aef7-3111-aa9c-9fec3776319f | 567 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Speed Secrets Professional Race Driving Techniques Ross Bentley | a009c9a4-cb8d-b3b5-063d-33e44ea0b5cb | 76 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Data for Drivers | cabda699642b26311b0a7ef998da2c71 | 15 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | bbb02386-778f-20ec-ad16-b9c016921743 | 16 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | ac2b13c4-51bb-bcb1-cbe4-e7f34da7f114 | 344 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | cd94958f-1042-ceff-8d99-06fa06ac633b | 504 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Speed Secrets Professional Race Driving Techniques Ross Bentley | 26bc8e35-76a6-4f72-ea86-df10ba43a636 | 14 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 4285b990-c3e7-880e-5596-99af145b469c | 300 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 9 | Data-for-Drivers-PRINT | b80dc634-a0a7-d6de-d470-353aed47e2a6 | 17 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 10 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 0237a5bd-e2d4-724e-bc2e-ba13db924f66 | 11 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 11 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 4400491c-451f-86fc-590c-1fa83983aef9 | 12 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 12 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 7816dd86-ce80-1320-b6ed-b34e005cc98f | 16 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |