Change one thing, then prove what happened

Generated from content/lms/vehicle-dynamics-and-setup/04-making-setup-changes/01-one-change-rule.md; edit the source file, not this page.

Source path: content/lms/vehicle-dynamics-and-setup/04-making-setup-changes/01-one-change-rule.md

Course: Vehicle Dynamics & Setup

Module: Making Setup Changes

Estimated duration: 55 minutes

Principle: protect the cause-and-effect chain

Changing one thing is not a paddock superstition. It is how you protect the cause-and-effect chain. When the car is different after a run, you want to know why. If you changed the front bar, tire pressure, rear wing, brake bias, and your own braking point all in the same session, you may have made the car faster, but you did not learn which decision made it faster. Worse, you may have hidden one bad change inside three good ones, or one good change inside three bad ones.

The one-change rule says this: start from a known baseline, change one controlled thing, repeat the same driving task, measure where the car gained or lost time, then return to the baseline often enough to prove that the result was the setup change and not the driver, tires, weather, or track. The lesson is not complete when the stopwatch shows a lower number. It is complete when you can say what changed, where it changed, whether it was repeatable, and whether you can get back to the earlier condition.

This is the difference between tuning and experimenting. Tuning asks whether you like the car better. Experimenting asks whether the change produced a repeatable effect against a fixed reference. Both matter, but the second one is what keeps your setup notebook from becoming folklore.

For an intermediate driver, this lesson sits between baseline building and full test-driver work. You already need a usable baseline, a consistent lap, and enough balance vocabulary to describe entry, middle, and exit. This lesson teaches the narrower skill: when you touch one setting, how do you learn what actually happened?

The mechanism: you are testing more than the part

Every setup change happens inside a moving system. The car changes. The driver changes. The tires change. The track changes. Weather can change. Fuel load can change. Brakes and tires can come into their working range or fall out of it. A driver who is still learning the track can improve by seconds without the car becoming any better at all. A driver who is tired or casual can make a good change look bad. A session that starts on green tires and ends on overheated tires can make almost any conclusion weak.

That is why consistency is not just a virtue; it is a measurement tool. One very fast lap surrounded by scattered lap times does not tell you much. A setup comparison needs repeatable laps, repeatable inputs, and a repeatable way to judge the car. If the driver is improving lap by lap, the setup may be getting credit for driver learning. If the driver is losing concentration, the setup may be blamed for driver drift.

A baseline is the reference that keeps the experiment honest. If a change seems positive, you still need a way back to the original setting so you can check whether the gain remains when the change is removed. If a change seems negative, the ability to go back matters even more. It lets you recover the car and protects the rest of the day from being contaminated by a bad guess.

The one-change rule also protects your money and time. Race cars and track cars have many knobs, but not all knobs produce the same value on a given day. A change that helps one corner can hurt another. A change that increases speed in a corner can make a gear ratio wrong because the car now arrives at a different rpm. A change that makes the car comfortable over one phase can cost time on the straight. Your job is not to touch everything you understand. Your job is to find the changes that matter on this track, with this car, today.

What counts as one change

A single change is one deliberate difference between the baseline configuration and the test configuration. It might be one wing setting, one anti-roll-bar setting, one shock adjustment range, one brake-bias adjustment, one gear-ratio decision, or one ride-height related configuration if that is the controlled item you are testing. The key is that you can describe the difference clearly and reverse it.

Do not confuse one physical job with one test variable. If a setup change requires you to do several mechanical actions to create one coherent configuration, record all of those actions as the single test configuration. If the actions affect separate behaviors, do not combine them. For example, changing a wing and changing a brake-bias setting in the same run gives you two possible causes for every corner-entry result. Changing a gear and changing the balance at the same time can hide whether the exit rpm improved because the car put power down better or because the gear choice changed.

Early in development, one change should usually be large enough to notice. Tiny changes become useful when you are close to optimum. Early on, a very small shock change or similarly fine adjustment may not tell you anything. If you are still trying to learn the direction of the car, use a change big enough to produce a visible difference in feel, timing, or speed, while staying within safe and sensible limits.

The rule also has a scope phrase that matters: do not make more than one change at a time in related areas. If you are comparing two aerodynamic configurations, only the aero configuration should change. If you are testing low-speed balance through roll stiffness, avoid mixing that run with a tire-pressure experiment, a brake-bias experiment, or a new line experiment. Related variables interact, and interaction is the enemy of clear learning.

Before the run: make the car and driver ready to be tested

You cannot evaluate chassis performance honestly until the car is ready and the driver is settled. If pads need bedding, bed them before you judge the chassis. If the brake ratio is plainly wrong, correct the brake ratio before using corner-entry feedback as setup evidence. If gear changes are necessary to make the car usable, handle those before you start judging finer chassis behavior. If throttle response is poor, setup feedback becomes unreliable because the driver cannot apply power repeatably.

Tires matter just as much. Do not judge setup on cold tires, and do not make strong conclusions from worn-out tires. A car on cold tires can feel nervous, lazy, or unbalanced for reasons that have little to do with the setting you just changed. A car on deteriorating tires can make a good change look like it faded. Get the tires into the condition you intend to evaluate, and record whether they were new, scrubbed, hot, old, or fading.

The driver must also be ready. Let yourself settle into the car and the track before you start changing the chassis. If the car is driveable, resist the urge to tune immediately. Drive long enough to bring the tires into range and establish a base of lap time, segment time, and repeatable feel. If your concentration starts to fade or you find yourself repeating an error, stop the test mindset. Clear your head before you collect more data. Bad repetitions are not neutral; they program bad technique and corrupt the comparison.

This is especially important because practice is supposed to make you more sensitive. You are not just asking whether the car is faster. You are learning to feel initial turn-in, midcorner balance, exit traction, roll and pitch, bottoming, wheelspin, shock behavior, brake lock sequence, and how the car behaves in slow, medium, and fast corners. That sensitivity is useful only if the driving sample is clean enough to trust.

The basic A-B-A method

Use A-B-A as your default mental model. A is the baseline. B is the one change. The second A is the return to baseline. You are not finished after A-B, because the day may have moved under you. Tires can deteriorate. Track temperature can move. Wind or weather can change. You can learn the track. You can drive better because you are more warmed up. Returning to A is how you separate the setup effect from the moving background.

Start with A. Run enough laps to settle the car and produce comparable laps. Record lap time, sector time, and the specific corner or straight evidence that relates to the change. If you have a basic data logger, use it. If you do not, use segment timing, video, maximum rpm on the longest straight, and careful written notes. The important point is to capture where the lap changed, not just whether the whole lap changed.

Then run B. Make only the planned change. Run the same assignment. Drive the same line and same technique unless the test specifically says the purpose is driver adaptation. Record the same evidence. If one lap is clearly abnormal because of traffic, a mistake, a yellow flag, a poor shift, or a concentration lapse, do not let that lap decide the test. Average the useful laps and mark the abnormal one as a throwaway. Do not throw away laps just because they disagree with your preferred answer.

Then return to A. If the original setting comes back and the original behavior returns, your confidence rises. If the original setting does not bring the original behavior back, something else changed: tires, track, weather, driver, fuel, or a mechanical condition. That does not mean the test failed. It means the honest conclusion is inconclusive or conditional.

Five laps per configuration is a practical pattern when the session format allows it. It gives the driver time to settle and gives the data enough samples to average. In many HPDE sessions, traffic and short run windows make perfect testing impossible, so the discipline becomes even more important. You may only get three clear laps. If so, say that. Do not turn a thin sample into a strong claim.

Sub-skill: keep your driving from becoming the second change

The hardest part of the one-change rule is that you are one of the variables. In racing, you sometimes need to adapt to a bad-handling car and make it work. In testing, you need enough consistency to find out whether the car changed. Those two skills can pull against each other.

When you are evaluating a setup change, drive the comparison laps as similarly as you can. Use the same reference points, same brake-release shape, same turn-in target, same throttle patience, and same exit usage unless the test is explicitly about adapting technique. If you change the setup and also start braking later, you have changed the car and the driver. If you change the setup and then follow a faster car into a different line, you have changed the car and the problem.

This does not mean you should ignore what the car asks for. If the car develops understeer or oversteer, you may have to adapt enough to stay safe and keep the lap clean. But your notes should separate the setup effect from the adaptation. For example: the car understeered more at entry, so I had to wait longer before adding throttle. That is useful. It tells you both the car behavior and the driver correction. What is not useful is simply deciding the change was slower without describing where the time was lost.

A good test driver is not a robot. A good test driver is a consistent observer. You repeat the task, notice the difference, and report the phase of the corner where it happened. You do not force the car to do what you wanted the change to do. You listen to what it actually did.

Sub-skill: break the lap into evidence windows

Lap time is too blunt by itself. A setup change can gain two tenths in one place and lose two tenths somewhere else. The total lap may look unchanged even though the car is meaningfully different. That is why corner times, sector times, straight speeds, and phase-specific feedback matter.

For a handling change, divide the corner into entry, middle, and exit. Entry asks what happens as you brake, release brake pressure, and turn in. Middle asks what the car does when it is loaded and waiting. Exit asks whether it puts power down and tracks out cleanly. Then divide the track into slow, medium, and fast corners. A roll-stiffness change may be aimed at low-speed balance. A downforce change should show itself more clearly in higher-speed corners and straight-line speed. A brake-bias change is most visible when you deliberately test heavy braking in safe, repeatable places and observe whether front or rear tires lock first.

For an aero change, watch high-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds, plus straight-line speed. The lap-time result is useful, but the speed trace tells you whether you gained corner performance, lost straight speed, or changed the handling balance in a way the driver must manage. A car can feel more secure with more downforce but still be slower if the straight-line loss matters more on that circuit. A car can feel freer with less downforce but ask too much from the driver over a race stint.

For a gear change, record maximum rpm on the longest straight and whether specific corners would benefit from a taller or lower gear. Then be careful about interaction. If a chassis change lets you carry more speed through a corner, the gear that was correct earlier may no longer be correct. If you may run in a draft, top gear has to be judged with that extra speed in mind. This is why gear-ratio testing should not be hidden inside a handling test.

Sub-skill: use driver feedback as a clue, not the verdict

Driver feedback is essential because not every important result shows up first in the stopwatch. You may feel that the car rolls and pitches too much. You may feel it skate across the track with too little grip. You may notice bottoming over bumps, too much wheelspin on exit, a lazy initial turn-in, or instability when you release the brake. Those observations tell the crew where to look.

But feedback is not a verdict by itself. A car can feel better and be slower. A car can feel less comfortable and be faster for one or two qualifying laps. A race setup may need to be comfortable, consistent, and reliable because you have to live with it, manage tires, and move forward from your qualifying position. A qualifying setup may be less comfortable if it delivers speed for a short window. The same feedback can mean different things depending on the goal.

Pair your feel with evidence. If you say the car is better on entry, look for better entry speed, better sector time, or less time lost from brake zone to apex. If you say the car puts power down better, look for earlier throttle, less wheelspin, or improved exit speed onto the following straight. If you say a wing change helped high-speed confidence, look at high-speed corner speeds and the straight-line cost. The stopwatch matters, but the location of the time matters more.

Sub-skill: return to baseline before you believe the result

Returning to baseline is not a formality. It is the part of the test that challenges your conclusion. If the car was faster on B, and it slows back down when you return to A, the change has stronger evidence. If the car stays fast after you return to A, the gain may have been driver learning, track improvement, fuel burn, or tire behavior. If B was worse and A restores the car, you have saved the session and learned what not to do.

This is especially important when conditions change during the session. Tires deteriorate. Track grip changes. Weather moves. Even when conditions appear stable, the baseline can drift. Periodic returns to the known setup keep the rest of the test from being built on a moving foundation.

The discipline is simple but emotionally hard. Drivers and crews like progress. When a change looks faster, everyone wants to keep going forward. But if you do not prove that the improvement disappears when the change is removed, you may be celebrating a coincidence. If you are serious about learning, you must be willing to give back the new setting for a few laps to test the truth of it.

Worked example: two-wing aerodynamic comparison

You arrive with a mechanically sorted car and want to compare two wing configurations. This is a clean one-change problem because the configuration can be swapped and the expected evidence windows are clear: high-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds, straight-line speed, sector time, lap time, and driver feedback on aero balance.

Start with configuration A and warm the car into its normal operating range. Run a controlled set of laps. Record lap times and sector times, but also mark the corners where aero should matter, especially higher-speed corners. Do not judge the wing by a slow hairpin that is dominated by mechanical balance and driver patience. Do not judge it only by top speed either, because the faster wing on the straight may give away too much in high-speed corners.

Switch to configuration B and change nothing else. Do not use the wing change as permission to alter tire pressure, shock clicks, brake bias, or line. Run the same number of laps if the session allows it. Average the representative laps and discard only laps that are clearly abnormal for a real reason such as traffic or a mistake. Add driver feedback, but keep it phase-specific: stable at high-speed turn-in, more understeer at apex, better exit confidence, slower on the straight, or similar observations.

Now return to A. If A returns to its earlier pattern, you have useful evidence. If B gained time in high-speed sectors but lost too much on the straights, you learned the trade. If B was only faster in the driver comfort column and not in timing, you learned that comfort and performance were not the same on this circuit. If B looked better but the return to A stayed just as quick, you should suspect driver learning, track change, or tire behavior before crediting the wing.

The important part is that the test does not ask which wing feels impressive. It asks where each configuration changes the car and whether the change is worth the cost. That is the mindset you want to carry into every setup knob.

Worked example: low-speed balance through roll stiffness

Now suppose the car is driveable, the pads are bedded, brake ratio is acceptable, gear problems are not confusing the lap, and your baseline notes show a slow-corner balance problem. The setup stack says this is the time to work on understeer or oversteer balance with roll stiffness at low speed, while downforce belongs to the high-speed balance conversation. So you choose one roll-stiffness change aimed at the slow-corner behavior.

Your evidence window is not the whole lap first. It is the slow-corner entry, middle, and exit. Before the change, write the behavior in those terms. Does the car resist turn-in? Does it wait in the middle? Does it rotate too much? Does exit become wheelspin? Does the driver have to delay throttle? Then run the baseline laps with the same line and inputs.

Make one roll-stiffness change and run the same assignment. If the car improves in the slow corners but loses time in medium-speed corners, that is not a simple win or loss; it is a trade that has to be judged by lap value and race value. If the change improves the target corner but creates exit wheelspin, you have learned that the problem moved, not that the car is fixed. If the change is too small to feel or measure while you are still far from optimum, the test may need a larger step.

Return to the baseline. If the old slow-corner behavior returns, you have a clearer answer. If it does not, look for the moving variables. Maybe the tires are no longer in the same window. Maybe you learned the corner. Maybe you are now adapting with a different brake release. The conclusion may be that the test needs repeating, not that the setup answer is mysterious.

Worked example: brake-bias check before chassis judgment

Brake bias is a good reminder that not every setup question should be mixed with a chassis test. If you are evaluating corner-entry balance while the brake balance is plainly wrong, the feedback may be contaminated. The front or rear tires may be locking first for brake-system reasons, not because the chassis change made the car better or worse.

The disciplined version is to check brake bias as its own task. Use safe, repeatable overbraking locations and observe whether the front or rear tires lock first. Adjust the brake ratio if needed, then stop treating those laps as part of a roll-stiffness or aero comparison. Once the brake behavior is acceptable, you can return to the chassis question with cleaner evidence.

This is also why you do not chase every sensation in the same session. If a brake-bias issue appears, name it, fix it, record it, and restart the relevant baseline. Do not pretend the earlier baseline still applies after you have changed a major entry variable.

Drill: the fifteen-lap A-B-A setup test

Use this drill at your next test day or open-lapping event when traffic and event rules allow controlled work. Choose one reversible setup question before the session. Good candidates are a single aero setting, a single anti-roll-bar setting, or a brake-bias check. Avoid anything unsafe, anything that requires guessing at the track, or anything that you cannot reverse cleanly.

Run one: baseline A. Take two warm-up laps if needed, then collect five focused laps. Your job is to drive the same lap five times, not to set a hero lap. Record lap time, sector time if available, and three notes only: entry, middle, exit. If the test is aero, add high-speed corner speed and straight speed if you can. If the test is gearing, add maximum rpm on the longest straight.

Run two: changed configuration B. Make the planned change and nothing else. Repeat the same five-lap assignment. If you make a clear mistake, mark the lap as abnormal rather than letting it decide the result. If traffic ruins the sample, mark the sample as compromised. Do not secretly change your line to rescue the answer unless the test is specifically about driver adaptation.

Run three: return to baseline A. Put the car back exactly where it started and repeat the five-lap assignment. The success criterion is not that B is faster. The success criterion is that you can explain the result: what changed, where it changed, whether the lap or sector evidence agrees with your feel, and whether the return to A confirms or weakens the conclusion.

After the session, write the answer in four sentences. First, name the change. Second, name the target behavior. Third, name the timing or speed evidence. Fourth, name the decision: keep it, reject it, repeat it, or test a larger step. If you cannot write those four sentences, the test did not produce a decision yet.

Common mistakes

Mistake one: changing a cluster and calling it progress. You change tire pressure, bar, wing, and driving line, then the lap improves. Good news: something helped. Bad news: you do not know what. What good looks like is a single reversible difference, a repeatable run, and notes that identify the phase of the lap where the change appeared.

Mistake two: trusting one flyer. A single fast lap can come from a tow, cleaner traffic, a better brake release, a lower fuel load, or simple driver improvement. What good looks like is an average of comparable laps, with abnormal laps marked honestly and sector or corner evidence used to show where the time came from.

Mistake three: testing on cold or finished tires. Cold tires and worn-out tires both lie to you. They change the car underneath the test. What good looks like is judging the setup only once the tire condition matches the purpose of the run, and recording tire state so the conclusion has context.

Mistake four: making tiny changes too early. If the car is not close to optimum, a very small adjustment may be below the noise level of the driver, tires, and track. What good looks like is using meaningful steps early to learn direction, then smaller steps later when the car and driver are already close.

Mistake five: using lap time without location. A setup can gain in one part of the lap and lose elsewhere. If you only look at total lap time, you may miss a valuable trade or accept a bad one. What good looks like is sector time, corner time, high-speed corner speed, straight speed, rpm, and phase-specific driver feedback.

Mistake six: letting adaptability contaminate the test. In a race, adapting to a changing car is survival. In a setup test, adapting too much can hide the car behavior you were trying to measure. What good looks like is driving consistently during comparison laps, then recording any adaptation separately.

Mistake seven: failing to go back. You make a change, like it, and move on. Later the setup notebook says the change worked, but you never proved that removing it removes the benefit. What good looks like is returning periodically to the baseline, especially when tires, track, or weather may have changed.

Mistake eight: ignoring interactions. You fix a handling complaint in one corner and forget that the extra speed changes gear choice, straight rpm, or the next brake zone. What good looks like is recognizing that one change can create a new question, then testing that new question separately instead of folding it into the same verdict.

Calibration cues: how you know you are improving

You are improving at the one-change rule when your setup notes become more boring and more useful. Instead of emotional summaries, your notes identify the test variable, the baseline, the target phase, the evidence, and the decision. You stop writing that the car felt better and start writing that it improved high-speed entry speed but lost straight-line speed, or that it reduced slow-corner entry understeer but did not improve exit.

You are improving when your lap times become tighter during tests. The goal is not necessarily to drive at ten-tenths while learning. The goal is to make the comparison laps close enough that a setup effect can appear through the noise. If your laps are scattered, the first setup change may be driver consistency.

You are improving when you can say no to a conclusion. A weak test is not a failure if you label it weak. Maybe traffic ruined B. Maybe the tires aged between A and B. Maybe the return to A did not reproduce the baseline. Honest inconclusive notes are more valuable than confident false notes.

You are improving when your debrief gets shorter but sharper. After each session, you should be able to report what the car did in slow, medium, and fast corners; whether the issue was entry, middle, or exit; whether braking, gearing, bottoming, roll, pitch, skating, shock behavior, or wheelspin was part of the observation; and what single change should be tested next.

You are improving when you can separate race adaptability from test consistency. In a race, if the car develops turn-in understeer, you adapt with line, turn-in timing, brake release, and throttle timing. In a test, you may practice that adaptability as its own planned exercise, but you do not mix it with a setup comparison and then pretend the car alone caused the result.

When the rule bends, and when it does not

There are times when the one-change rule is not the first priority. Safety comes first. If brake pads need bedding, if brake balance is unsafe, if throttle response is poor, or if the car has a mechanical problem, fix the basic issue before running a comparison. That is not violating the rule; that is refusing to collect bad data from an unready car.

There are also training sessions where the point is not to find the fastest setup. You might deliberately tune the car toward entry understeer, midcorner understeer, exit understeer, or oversteer so you can practice adapting. That is a valid driver-development routine, but label it correctly. The question is how you adapt to the behavior, not whether the setup is optimum.

Race setup and qualifying setup can also have different answers. For a race, you may prefer a car that is comfortable, consistent, and reliable. For qualifying, a less comfortable setup may be acceptable if it is fast for one or two laps. The one-change rule still applies. The difference is the success criterion. One test asks whether you can repeat and race the car. The other asks whether the peak lap is available inside a short window.

What you should not bend is the claim of knowledge. If you did not isolate the variable, do not claim the variable worked. If you did not return to baseline, state that the result is provisional. If you changed the car and your driving at the same time, record both. Setup development rewards curiosity, but it punishes wishful thinking.

The final habit

Before every setup change, ask one question: what will I know after this run that I do not know now? If the answer is vague, the change is vague. Tighten it. Name the baseline. Name the one change. Name the evidence window. Name the run count. Name the return-to-baseline plan.

After the run, ask the same question in reverse: what did I actually learn? Not what did I hope to learn, not what did the stopwatch flatter, not what did the paddock want to hear. What did the car do, where did it do it, and did the evidence survive the return to baseline?

That is the one-change rule. Change one thing, drive well enough to give the car a fair test, measure where the lap changed, and be willing to go back. The result is slower than guessing in the moment, but much faster over a season. It turns setup from a pile of opinions into a record of cause and effect.

Worked example: two-wing aerodynamic comparison

You compare two wing configurations as a clean one-change test. The evidence windows are high-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speed, straight-line speed, sector time, lap time, and driver feedback on aero balance. Run configuration A, switch only the wing configuration for B, average comparable laps, mark abnormal laps honestly, then return to A. If the original behavior returns, the result has stronger evidence. If the faster result remains after returning to A, suspect driver learning, track change, or tire behavior before crediting the wing.

Worked example: low-speed balance through roll stiffness

Once the car is driveable and basic brake, gear, and tire conditions are not contaminating the lap, use one roll-stiffness change to investigate a slow-corner balance issue. Judge the change by slow-corner entry, middle, and exit rather than by lap time alone. If the target corner improves but another phase gets worse, record the trade. Return to the baseline before believing the result, because tire condition and driver adaptation can make the same car behave differently later in the session.

Worked example: brake-bias check before chassis judgment

If brake balance is wrong, do not fold that problem into a chassis test. Check brake bias as its own task by overbraking in safe, repeatable locations and observing whether the front or rear tires lock first. Adjust the brake ratio if needed, then restart the relevant baseline before judging roll stiffness, aero balance, or entry behavior. Otherwise the brake-system change becomes an untracked second variable.

Drill: the fifteen-lap A-B-A setup test

Choose one reversible setup question and run three controlled blocks: five baseline laps, five changed-configuration laps, and five return-to-baseline laps. Record lap time, sector time if available, and phase-specific notes for entry, middle, and exit. The success criterion is not that the changed configuration is faster. The success criterion is that you can explain what changed, where it changed, whether the evidence agrees with your feel, and whether the return to baseline confirms or weakens the conclusion.

Common mistakes

The recurring errors are changing a cluster and calling it progress, trusting one flyer, testing on cold or finished tires, making tiny changes before the car is close, using lap time without location, adapting so much that the driver becomes the second change, failing to return to baseline, and ignoring interactions such as gear ratio after a handling change. Good work looks like one reversible difference, comparable laps, phase-specific notes, and a decision that can survive a return to the original setting.

When this principle bends

The one-change rule bends for safety and readiness, not for convenience. Bed pads, correct unsafe brake balance, fix poor throttle response, and address mechanical problems before collecting setup evidence. It also bends during deliberate adaptability practice, where the purpose is to learn how to drive around understeer or oversteer rather than to find the fastest setup. What should not bend is the claim of knowledge: if the variable was not isolated, the conclusion stays provisional.

Author Review

No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.

Sources

#	Document	Chunk	Pages	Score	Collection
1	Tune To Win Carroll Smith	ce81b94c-7b42-8fa1-7e9b-115ac71adcbe	162	1	uio_books_raw_v1
2	Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh	4a0085b1-a5b6-20ef-c288-ff092fa3e4d9	116	1	uio_books_raw_v1
3	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	4adf8cb4-89c7-1b45-bd4d-9bb03634ecf3	345	1	uio_books_raw_v1
4	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	c0cd0f54-6d9c-7f08-e9af-37c31b3421d3	345	1	uio_books_raw_v1
5	Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley	39f78a08-7a9c-ccf1-086b-9dd4e0aa53a4	500	1	uio_books_raw_v1
6	Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley	2fc9e139-3a9e-d484-95d6-70a04af34e35	502	1	uio_books_raw_v1
7	Ultimate Speed Secrets - Ross Bentley	7956c0ec-df55-0333-e19b-6663c7a1553f	499	1	uio_books_raw_v1
8	Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh	d30e9f9a-0bf8-9e64-1cc3-8190d86f09d0	133	1	uio_books_raw_v1