Establish the baseline before you change the car
Generated from
content/lms/race-car-engineering-and-operations/03-testing-and-development/01-baselining-the-car.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/race-car-engineering-and-operations/03-testing-and-development/01-baselining-the-car.md
Course: Run the paddock like a race engineer
Module: Test like you mean it
Estimated duration: 60 minutes
Principle: a baseline is the truth you can return to.
The skill in this lesson is simple to say and hard to practice: before you change the car, establish a known reference condition that you can repeat. A baseline is not a warm-up lap, a guess, or the lap that felt good. It is the car in a documented condition, driven by a settled driver on usable tires and brakes, with lap, segment, corner, straight, speed, and driver-feedback evidence that is stable enough to compare against the next run.
Without that fixed reference, a setup change cannot tell the truth. If the car goes quicker after a suspension change, the gain may be the change, but it may also be the driver learning the track, the tires coming in, the brake pads bedding, the racing line getting cleaner, the wind shifting, or the driver simply concentrating better. If the car goes slower after a change, the loss may be the change, but it may also be tire deterioration, a green surface, a bad lap, or a driver who has not settled into the car. The baseline is how you separate car behavior from everything else that moves during a test day.
This lesson sits before the sibling skills of changing one thing and driving the same line every lap. Those matter, but they are downstream of this one. One-change discipline only works after you know what the original condition was. Repeatable driving only matters as a test tool after you define what repeatable enough looks like for this session. Your first job is to make the original state real enough that you can go back to it and trust the comparison.
Why baselining matters more than the clever part.
Testing is not the glamorous part of car development, but it is often the part that decides whether the car becomes fast. A sophisticated design that has not been tested and developed can be beaten by an older design that has been worked through carefully. That is not because old parts are magic. It is because a developed car has fewer unanswered questions. Its team knows what the car does, what it responds to, and which changes actually move the stopwatch rather than just moving the driver confidence meter.
For an intermediate driver, this changes your role. You are not only trying to drive fast. You are trying to make the car readable. A single very fast lap among scattered times does not prove that the car is better. It proves that one lap happened. For testing, the useful driver is the one who can produce a narrow enough pattern that the crew can see whether the car changed. That does not require you to be a professional development driver, but it does require you to treat your laps as measurement tools, not personal expression.
A baseline has three layers. First is the mechanical state: setup, tires, brakes, fuel load when relevant, gear ratios if they are part of the question, aero configuration if it is an aero test, and any other condition that could affect the result. Second is the environmental state: track cleanliness, rubber, dust, oil, temperature, wind, and weather. Third is the driving state: the driver is fitted, comfortable in the moving car, using a planned line and control sequence, and no longer improving lap by lap simply because the session is new. All three have to be good enough before you start calling the next change better or worse.
What counts as a usable baseline.
A usable baseline is not perfect. It is known, repeatable, and recoverable. Known means you can describe the car and conditions without relying on memory. Repeatable means the car and driver can run a small group of laps that agree well enough to compare. Recoverable means you can put the car back to that condition after a change and run it again to see whether the day itself has moved.
Start with the car in a reasonable condition, not a fantasy condition. The driver must be properly fitted in the moving car, not just in the shop. The tires must be hot enough and good enough to evaluate chassis performance. The brakes must be bedded or at least brought through the correct warm-up for the pad being used. If the car needs obvious brake-bias or gear-ratio corrections after the first running, make those necessary corrections before you start treating chassis or aero changes as evidence. A test that asks the chassis a subtle question while the brake balance or throttle response is still wrong is not really a chassis test.
The baseline also needs time data that tells you where the car is doing the work. Lap time alone is too blunt. You need segment times, and when possible corner and straight times. For aerodynamic testing you may also care about high-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds, plus straight-line speed, because those are where aero configuration changes are most likely to show up. Driver feedback still matters, especially for handling balance, but it should be paired with timed evidence. If the driver says the car has more high-speed understeer and the sector data shows the loss in high-speed corners, you have a more useful baseline than either statement alone.
A usable baseline also has a rule for abnormal laps. In a five-lap comparison, a lap that is obviously damaged by traffic, a missed shift, a mistake, a yellow, or an outlier condition should not be averaged as though it represents the car. That does not mean you throw away any lap you dislike. It means you classify laps honestly before you use the numbers. The point is to measure the car, not to rescue a preferred conclusion.
The pre-track baseline: make the day testable before you unload.
Baselining starts before the first lap. If the objective is development rather than simple seat time, you need a program before you reach the circuit. List the questions in a logical order. Put the work in an order that makes mechanical sense and learning sense. Pack the parts and tools required for the planned changes. Arrive early enough that the car can be unloaded, warmed, checked, and ready to run when the track opens.
This is not administrative fussing. Lost morning time changes the quality of the test. If you spend the first usable hour bleeding brakes, changing jets, setting timing, fitting the driver, or hunting for sway bars, you are not baselining the car. You are burning the most stable part of the day and forcing later conclusions into a hotter, dirtier, more worn, more pressured window. A test program that starts late often becomes a sequence of rushed impressions, and rushed impressions are the enemy of a baseline.
Your written pre-track baseline should answer six questions. What is the starting setup? What is the first thing being evaluated? What data decides whether the baseline is accepted? What conditions would make the baseline invalid? What parts or tools are needed to return to the baseline? What change, if any, happens only after the baseline has been confirmed? If you cannot answer those six questions, you are probably going to improvise, and improvisation tends to mix variables.
The morning baseline: every day starts over.
Even at a track you know, you baseline the car every morning. The car may not have changed. The driver may not have changed. The track has. Surface dust, sand, oil, rubber, ambient temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and the amount of rubber down can all change the grip and speed picture. You cannot control those features. You can only re-establish the reference for the day you actually have.
On a green track, do not waste your best tires proving that the surface is dirty. The first laps may simply clean the track with the car. That can be a sensible time to bed pads if the pad manufacturer procedure allows it. Once the track is cleaner and the car is ready for meaningful running, put on the tires you intend to evaluate and begin the baseline sequence. The driver may complain that the car felt poor on the track-sweeping tires. That complaint is information about those tires and that surface, not about the setup you are about to test.
The morning baseline also protects you from false confidence. If yesterday afternoon the car was balanced and quick, that does not make this morning identical. If the first run today is slower, the car may not have gotten worse. The track may be cold or dirty. If the first run today is faster, the setup may not have improved overnight. The surface may be better, the driver may be sharper, or the wind may be helping. The baseline run is the price of knowing.
The driver baseline: make yourself a measuring instrument.
A testing driver has to be more consistent than a driver who is only chasing a lap. Your steering arc, brake release, throttle application, shift points, and line need to be planned enough that the car sees the same request each lap. The driver in a test is part of the measuring system. If your inputs drift, the car will appear to drift with them.
Going faster is not instinct alone. A good driver knows the planned work at every point: brake there, shift there, turn there, reach that apex, apply power in that shape, and use that exit reference. In early development, you may still be spending conscious thought on these decisions. That is fine. What matters is that the decisions become deliberate rather than random. The more stable your plan, the more useful your feedback becomes.
Smoothness is not decorative. It is how you keep the car balanced enough to repeat the same test condition. Smooth, consistent braking, squeezed and eased throttle, and steering that arcs into and out of the turn are not only fast-driving techniques. They are baselining techniques. If you cannot brake and steer the car consistently at modest speed, you should not expect your high-speed laps to become a clean measurement of suspension or aero changes.
You also need to know when to stop a baseline attempt. If you start repeating an error, losing concentration, or driving casually, pause the test. A tired or casual driver creates bad data quickly. Continuing just because track time is available can turn one messy run into a false setup direction. Reset yourself, then go again. A shorter clean baseline is worth more than a long run full of unclassified mistakes.
The tire and brake baseline: do not ask cold or worn parts to judge the car.
Chassis evaluation on cold or worn-out tires is unreliable. Tires change as they warm, wear, and deteriorate. A car that understeers on cold tires may become balanced when the tires are in range. A change that looks good only because the old baseline tires were worn is not a real improvement. Before you evaluate chassis performance, establish that the tires are appropriate for the question and that their condition is part of the record.
Brakes need the same discipline. New pads may need bedding, and racing brakes need to reach a representative operating temperature before brake tests mean much. If the first laps are used to bed pads or scrub tires, label them that way. Do not quietly merge them into the chassis baseline. For most brake pads, the general idea is gradual heating through significant braking followed by easier laps to cool, but pad-specific procedures differ and some pads arrive pre-bedded, so the manufacturer procedure governs.
Brake capability can itself be baselined. On a long, straight, safe test location such as a drag strip, repeated stops from a specific speed can tell you whether the driver can begin braking near a fixed marker and produce stopping distances within a narrow enough band. Full fuel load stresses the system, and testing balance at half-full and empty matters when fuel location and slosh affect the car. This is not a cornering test; it is a way to learn brake modulation, maximum average capability, and repeatability before a track session makes the problem harder.
That brake baseline feeds back into the main lesson. If the driver cannot hold the brakes at the verge of lockup smoothly and consistently, then later claims about turn-in balance, brake release, or entry stability may be contaminated by braking inconsistency. Before you blame the car, prove that the control input is stable enough to ask the question.
The data baseline: lap time is the headline, not the whole story.
Lap time matters, but it is not precise enough by itself. A change can gain time in one sector and lose it in another. A wing can help high-speed corners and cost straight-line speed. A setup can make the car feel better yet fail to improve the sectors that decide the lap. If you only know the final lap time, you know too little about where the car changed.
Take segment, corner, and straight times when the test question warrants it. For aero tests, include high-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds when the car and track make those speeds relevant, and include straight-line speeds. Add driver feedback on balance, especially whether the change affects understeer, oversteer, confidence, and stability in the parts of the track where the data suggests an effect. The cleanest test result is the one where the clock and the driver point to the same part of the lap.
Averages are more useful than single laps, provided you classify abnormal laps. A practical method is to run each configuration over a small fixed lap count, average the usable laps, and remove laps that are clearly abnormal high or low results because they do not represent the configuration. Five-lap comparisons are a workable example from wing testing. The number is not sacred for every test, but the discipline is: same run length, same classification rule, same kind of evidence.
The data baseline also tells you when you are not ready for tiny changes. Early in development, one click of shock adjustment is unlikely to tell you much if the car is far from a useful balance or if the driver and tires are not yet stable. Larger, clearer changes can teach direction. Tiny changes become meaningful only when the car is close enough and the baseline is tight enough to resolve them.
The return-to-baseline rule.
The strongest baseline is one you can return to during the same session. If you change suspension geometry and the car goes faster, return to the original setting to check whether the gain remains attributable to the change. If the car was only faster because the driver improved, the original setting should also be faster when you go back. If the change made the car worse, returning to the original condition is even more valuable because it prevents the team from spending the rest of the day lost in a bad branch.
This is especially important when conditions are changing. Weather, wind, track temperature, surface condition, and tire deterioration can move the baseline while you are testing. For aero work, the need is obvious because speed, wind, and track condition can affect the result. But the same principle applies to chassis work. If the day changes enough, your original baseline may no longer be the original baseline. The only honest response is to go back and re-establish it.
Think of a test as baseline, change, and baseline again. The first baseline tells you where you started. The change tells you what appears to move. The return tells you whether the reference itself moved. If you skip the return, you may still learn something, but your confidence should be lower. The more expensive, risky, or consequential the setup decision, the more you should insist on the return.
How to decide that the baseline is accepted.
An accepted baseline does not mean the car is perfect. It means the result is stable enough for the next question. The driver has settled into the car. The tires are hot enough and not obviously inappropriate. The brakes are in a meaningful state. The track is clean enough for the question. The lap and segment times form a pattern rather than a spray. The driver feedback is specific enough to match parts of the lap. The setup and conditions are recorded well enough to restore them.
If any of those pieces are missing, label the run as preparation, not baseline. There is no shame in that. The problem is pretending. Bedding pads is real work, but it is not a chassis comparison. Sweeping a green track is real work, but it is not a setup evaluation. Letting a driver settle into a car is real work, but it is not proof that a later change helped. Clear labels keep the team honest.
Once the baseline is accepted, the next lesson begins: change one thing so the car tells the truth. Until then, your job is restraint. Do not touch the chassis because one lap felt odd on cold tires. Do not change the aero because the first run was slow on a dusty track. Do not chase brake balance before the pads are bedded and the driver has stopped moving the brake point. Build the reference first.
Failure modes: what wrong looks like.
The first failure mode is the hero-lap baseline. One lap is quick, the driver is happy, and the team starts changing parts. The cost is that the team compares against an event, not a condition. The correction is to use a small set of laps, classify abnormal laps, and look at lap and segment patterns rather than the single best number.
The second failure mode is the cold-tire verdict. The car pushes, slides, locks, or feels lazy before the tires are ready, and the team starts adjusting roll stiffness or aero balance. The cost is a setup aimed at a tire state you will not race on. The correction is to separate warm-up, pad bedding, track cleaning, and tire preparation from the accepted baseline.
The third failure mode is the moving driver. The driver is still finding brake markers, apexes, throttle timing, and confidence, so every lap is partly a driver-development lap. The cost is false positives. A change may look good because the driver simply got better. The correction is to let the driver settle and, when the apparent gain matters, return to the original setup to check it.
The fourth failure mode is the lap-time-only conclusion. The lap improved, but nobody knows whether the car gained in the corner of interest or only because the driver had a better exit onto the longest straight. The cost is misdiagnosis. The correction is to use sector, corner, straight, and speed evidence where available, then pair it with specific driver comments.
The fifth failure mode is the no-return test. The team makes a change, likes or hates it, and moves on without returning to the baseline. The cost is losing track of weather, track condition, and tire deterioration. The correction is to schedule return-to-baseline runs, especially when the day changes or the result is important.
The sixth failure mode is tiny-change impatience. A team makes small shock or detail changes before the car is near a useful window. The cost is noise. The correction is to get the major balance and platform direction close first, then use finer adjustments when the baseline is tight enough to see them.
The mindset shift.
Baselining feels slow because it delays the fun part. It asks you to wait before you adjust the car. But the delay is what makes later speed possible. You are not wasting laps by proving the reference. You are buying confidence that the next change means what it appears to mean.
A good baseline also calms the paddock. Drivers, owners, and crews are vulnerable to strong feelings after a run. A car that felt terrible on cold tires can start a panic. A car that felt amazing for one lap can start overconfidence. The baseline gives the team a shared language: what was the setup, what were the conditions, what did the timed evidence say, what did the driver report, and can we reproduce it?
When you learn this skill, your test days become less dramatic and more productive. You stop asking whether the car felt better in general. You ask whether the known car, in known conditions, driven in a known way, changed in the part of the lap you expected. That is the point of baselining. It turns development from opinion into controlled comparison.
Worked example: five-lap wing comparison with a protected reference
Imagine you are comparing two rear-wing configurations. The tempting version of the test is to run the old wing, bolt on the new wing, see a lap-time change, and declare a winner. The disciplined version starts by treating the first configuration as a reference that must remain available.
Run the baseline wing for a fixed short run, such as five laps. Record the lap times, sector times, high-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds where the car is fast enough for aero to matter, straight-line speeds, and driver feedback on high-speed balance. Before averaging, identify laps that are clearly abnormal because of traffic, a major mistake, or another condition that does not represent the wing. Then fit the second wing and run the same kind of stint. Do not change springs, ride height, tire pressure strategy, gear ratios, or driver objective at the same time, because then you will not know what the wing did.
Now compare more than the best lap. If the second wing improves high-speed corner entry and apex speed but costs straight speed, the segment map matters. If the lap is similar but the driver reports a different balance, ask where that balance appears in the sectors. If the lap improves but the gain is all in a slow section that aero should not strongly affect, be suspicious. The change may be driver execution, traffic pattern, or track evolution rather than the wing.
The important final step is to return to the baseline wing if conditions have changed or if the conclusion matters. Tires deteriorate, weather changes, and the surface changes during a session. If the original wing is also faster when reinstalled, the day moved or the driver improved. If the original wing returns to its previous pattern while the second wing retains its different sector signature, the comparison is stronger. That is the baseline doing its job.
Worked example: brake-distance baseline before trusting brake-entry comments
A brake-distance baseline is a clean example because the task can be made simpler than a corner. Use a long, straight, flat, safe test location with escape room, such as a drag strip. Warm the racing brakes to a representative operating temperature and break in new pads before testing begins. If the test needs maximum stress, run full fuel, but also understand that balance should be checked at different fuel states when fuel location and slosh can affect the car.
Pick a specific speed and a fixed braking marker. The driver begins braking within a few feet of the marker, declutches at the same time to avoid engine interference or stalling, and stops the car repeatedly. The goal is not only the shortest stop. It is the ability to hold the brakes at the verge of lockup with short, instantaneous bits of sliding rather than full lockup, and to keep the stopping distances within a repeatable band.
If the driver can repeat the start point and stopping distance, you have a better basis for later corner-entry feedback. If the driver cannot, comments about entry understeer, brake release, or instability may be mixed with inconsistent brake application. This does not make the driver bad. It tells you that the driver-control baseline is not ready for subtle chassis conclusions.
This example also shows why baselining is a skill rather than a form. The same car can feel different with different fuel levels. The same brake system can feel different before and after pad bedding. The same driver can change the result by moving the brake point. A useful baseline controls those pieces before it asks whether a brake or setup change worked.
Worked example: the morning test day that loses the baseline
A team arrives late, unloads slowly, then starts doing work that should have been finished before track time: bleeding brakes, setting timing, changing jets, hot-torquing cylinder heads, fitting the driver, and looking for parts that should have been packed. By the time the car runs, the most useful early window is gone. The track is no longer the same as it was at opening, the crew is rushed, and the driver is under pressure to produce an answer quickly.
The technical loss is bigger than the lost hour. Because the car was not ready, the first laps are now a mixture of system check, driver settling, brake preparation, track condition change, and maybe setup evaluation. That run cannot cleanly answer a chassis question. If the car is slow, you do not know whether the setup is wrong or the preparation was late. If the car is quick, you still do not know whether the next change is being compared against a real baseline or against a rushed first impression.
The correction is ordinary but strict. Build the program before arriving. Pack the parts. Be ready to run when the track opens. Use lower-value tires to clean a green track if needed. Bed pads during the appropriate preparation window. Once the track is reasonably clean and the car is ready, put on the tires that match the question and establish the baseline lap and segment pattern before touching the setup. The baseline is not only a data procedure; it is a day-management procedure.
Drill: baseline, change, baseline in one controlled session
At your next test day, run a three-stint baseline drill. The drill is not about finding a perfect setup. It is about proving that you can protect a reference while conditions move around you.
Stint one is the accepted baseline. Do not start it on cold tires or during pad bedding. Let the driver settle, then run a fixed five-lap sequence. Record setup state, tire state, brake state, fuel state if relevant, weather and track notes, lap times, segment times if available, and driver comments tied to specific parts of the lap. Before you accept the run, classify any abnormal laps. The success criterion is that you can describe the car and conditions clearly enough to restore them, and the usable laps form a pattern rather than a random scatter.
Stint two is a single clear change. Keep the driver objective the same and do not combine unrelated changes. Run the same fixed sequence and collect the same evidence. The success criterion is not that the car gets faster. The success criterion is that you can say where the change appeared: a sector, a high-speed entry, a straight-line speed, a brake zone, or a driver balance comment that matches the timed evidence.
Stint three is the return. Put the car back to the original baseline condition and run the same sequence again. The success criterion is that the original condition either returns close enough to its earlier pattern to support the comparison, or it does not, which tells you the day has moved. If the original condition is now different, write that down instead of forcing a conclusion. That is still a successful drill because it caught a moving baseline before you turned it into a false setup decision.
Common mistakes and what good looks like
Mistake one is changing the car before the driver has settled. It usually feels productive because the crew is doing something, but the car is being compared against a moving driver. Good looks quieter: the driver runs long enough to stop discovering basic brake points, turn-in references, and throttle timing before the setup is judged.
Mistake two is using cold or worn tires as the judge. The driver reports push, oversteer, or lack of confidence, and the team reaches for roll stiffness or aero. Good means labeling those laps as warm-up, track cleaning, or tire-condition evidence, then evaluating chassis behavior only when the tires are appropriate to the question.
Mistake three is trusting subjective judgment alone. Driver feel is valuable, but it can be led by expectation, effort, or one dramatic moment. Good means pairing feel with lap, sector, corner, straight, or speed evidence. If the driver says the car is better in high-speed corners, look for the high-speed corner data.
Mistake four is trusting lap time alone. The lap improved, so the change is called good, even though nobody knows where the time came from. Good means breaking the lap into useful pieces. A gain on the straight and a loss in the high-speed corner mean something different from a gain in the high-speed corner and a loss on the straight.
Mistake five is refusing to go back. The team changes the car, likes the result, and keeps moving. Good means returning to the original setting often enough to detect driver improvement, weather movement, track evolution, and tire deterioration.
Mistake six is making tiny changes too early. A click of shock adjustment can be meaningful when the car is close and the baseline is tight, but early in development it can disappear into noise. Good means first establishing major balance and usable platform behavior, then using smaller changes when the car and driver can resolve them.
Mistake seven is arriving unready. The day begins with preventable shop work in the paddock, and the baseline is delayed until conditions have changed. Good means arriving with the program, parts, and car ready so the first useful track window is used for measurement rather than recovery.
Calibration cues: how you know the baseline skill is improving
You know your baselining is improving when your notes become less emotional and more specific. Instead of the car was bad, you can say the first two laps were tire warm-up, the accepted laps showed the same loss in one sector, and the driver felt entry understeer in the same corner group each time. Instead of the wing was faster, you can say the changed configuration improved the high-speed section but cost straight-line speed, and the return-to-baseline run confirmed that the track had not moved enough to explain it.
The driver cue is steadiness. Brake points stop wandering without a reason. Throttle application becomes deliberate rather than hopeful. Steering inputs have the same shape lap to lap. The driver can describe mistakes and abnormal laps without defensiveness, which makes the average cleaner rather than prettier.
The data cue is pattern. Lap times, sector times, and speed measurements begin to cluster in ways that match the question. When the car changes, the effect appears in the part of the lap where the mechanism says it should appear. When the day changes, the return-to-baseline run reveals it. That is the difference between collecting numbers and building evidence.
The crew cue is restraint. The team stops making a change every time the driver speaks. They ask whether the tire, brake, track, driver, and data state is good enough to support the claim. That restraint is not hesitation. It is what allows the next change to mean something.
When the principle needs adjustment
There are times when the exact baseline routine changes, but the principle does not disappear. If the whole objective is seat time, you may accept a looser baseline because you are training the driver rather than evaluating the car. Still, you should label the session honestly. Seat time is useful, but it is not the same as a controlled setup test.
A race setup and a qualifying setup may also ask different questions. A race setup should be comfortable, consistent, and reliable enough to run repeatedly. A qualifying setup may be less comfortable but quicker for one or two laps. That does not remove the need for a baseline. It changes what you baseline: repeatable race behavior for the race setup, short-run peak behavior for qualifying.
Some changes are necessary housekeeping rather than optional development. Brake-bias adjustment after pad bedding or gear changes after early running can be part of getting the car into a valid starting condition. Do not pretend those changes are controlled comparisons. Make them, document them, then establish the baseline from the corrected condition.
The principle also bends when safety or reliability is at stake. If the car is undriveable, the brakes are not behaving, or the driver cannot control the car consistently, you do not keep circulating to complete a perfect test design. You stop, fix the blocking issue, and restart the baseline. A baseline is meant to make testing honest, not to justify running a car that is not ready to be tested.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh | 4a0085b1-a5b6-20ef-c288-ff092fa3e4d9 | 116 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Tune To Win Carroll Smith | ce81b94c-7b42-8fa1-7e9b-115ac71adcbe | 162 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Tune To Win Carroll Smith | 06fa5811-6f75-518e-8b5a-fa7f027fc6c6 | 161 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 4adf8cb4-89c7-1b45-bd4d-9bb03634ecf3 | 345 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | c0cd0f54-6d9c-7f08-e9af-37c31b3421d3 | 345 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh | 55f18e0a-8bd9-aafd-8acd-9a54106ac323 | 127 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley | 7956c0ec-df55-0333-e19b-6663c7a1553f | 499 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 3b70eb1f-e4e3-c70c-1221-c2c8a8e43d83 | 51 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |