Drive the engine like a heat machine
Generated from
content/lms/vehicle-dynamics-and-setup/06-mechanical-systems/03-engine.md; edit the source file, not this page.
Source path: content/lms/vehicle-dynamics-and-setup/06-mechanical-systems/03-engine.md
Course: Vehicle Dynamics & Setup
Module: Mechanical Systems
Estimated duration: 55 minutes
Principle: the engine is a heat machine, not a power switch.
When you press the throttle, you are not simply asking the car to go faster. You are asking the engine to convert fuel energy into crankshaft work, while losing some of that energy to heat transfer, pumping, friction, and the physical work of moving air through the intake and exhaust. That is the working idea for this lesson. You drive the engine well when you understand that every power request is also a heat request, every lap is also a test condition, and every trace of throttle, speed, temperature, and time is evidence about how well you used the machine.
The intermediate driver usually knows the basic instruction: be smooth, look ahead, do not overdrive the exit. That is necessary, but it is not enough for this mechanical-systems module. Here, the goal is to connect your right foot to the engine as a system. Fuel is the thermal input. Combustion releases energy. The engine extracts some of that energy as useful torque at the crankshaft. The rest is paid out through losses and heat. The better your driving, the more of the car's available performance you use without creating avoidable thermal load, avoidable recovery time, or avoidable confusion in the data.
This does not mean you baby the car. A track car is meant to work. It also does not mean you turn an HPDE session into an engineering lecture. It means that you stop treating the throttle as a heroic event and start treating it as a measured command. You ask for power when the car can use it. You stop adding throttle when the path, grip, or temperature picture says the system is already busy. You warm the car before drawing conclusions. You compare laps in a disciplined way. You report what you actually felt instead of what you think a setup change was supposed to do.
The mechanism behind the skill matters because the engine punishes sloppy interpretation. Modern engine development looks closely at heat release, burn rate, cylinder pressure, crank angle, intake and exhaust pressure, ignition events, and temperatures. That level of instrumentation is beyond what you have in the cockpit at most HPDE events, but the concept is still useful. The engine's useful output is the visible part of a deeper heat-release process. Your job in the car is not to tune combustion chamber physics. Your job is to make power requests that the current line, tires, cooling airflow, and session conditions can support.
A racing engine's thermal efficiency describes how well it extracts combustion energy and turns it into crankshaft work. Race engineering discussions use that idea to answer practical questions such as how much fuel is needed to make a given amount of power. That is not abstract. In endurance racing, a car with no straight power advantage can still gain race performance if it spends less time refueling while matching the competition on track. The driver lesson is simple: power is only one part of engine performance. Efficiency, heat rejection, fuel use, and time spent recovering the system all shape the actual result.
The cockpit version of thermal efficiency is discipline. You cannot change the engine's fundamental design from the seat. You can change whether your driving adds unnecessary heat, hides the real cause of a loss, or forces the car into a margin problem. You can also change whether the data from a session is clean enough to teach you anything. If every lap includes a different gear choice, a different line, a different throttle shape, different traffic, and a different cooldown habit, the session may feel busy, but it is weak evidence. A heat machine needs controlled inputs before it can give you useful answers.
What you control from the driver's seat.
You control throttle position, when the power request begins, how quickly it rises, whether you breathe out of the throttle when the car asks for it, how much clean air the car gets on the straights, and whether your laps are consistent enough to compare. You also control the quality of your feedback. A driver who invents feedback, exaggerates a symptom, or reports the theoretical effect of a change rather than the felt effect creates bad engineering. That matters even in a club setting with no engineer. Your notebook, instructor debrief, and data trace become your engineering loop.
The first sub-skill is clean power request. The engine can only give useful acceleration when the chassis can accept it. In slow first- and second-gear corners, the data in the corpus shows a surprising pattern: laps that differ by 5.5 seconds may have slow-corner exit speeds that differ by only about 3 mph. That matters because intermediate drivers often chase slow-corner exit speed as if the next 10 mph is sitting under the pedal. It usually is not. Below third gear, the driver often feels in control because the speed is lower, the car responds quickly, and a small throttle breath can rescue a bad path. The temptation is to be aggressive. The better lesson is that a small exit-speed difference can still be important, but the big lap-time losses are often elsewhere: late organization, poor braking release, delayed commitment, or failing to build speed through the next section.
So the technique is not to mash the throttle at the first hint of exit. You first decide whether the car is pointed enough, whether the steering is beginning to unwind, and whether the driven tires can accept more work. Then you add power with a shape you can repeat. If the path is wrong, you breathe out rather than stacking more engine demand onto a car already turning. This is especially important in lower gears because the driver can hide a rough input behind confidence. The car may still accelerate, but the trace will show a messy throttle bar, the steering may stay loaded longer, and the next straight may begin with correction rather than clean acceleration.
The second sub-skill is warm-up discipline. A warm-up lap is not just politeness to the machinery. It is a different operating condition. Tire state, brake state, engine temperature, driver focus, and traffic rhythm are not yet at the same point as a fast lap. The data discussion in the corpus compares warm-up laps and fast laps by looking at distance-based graphs, throttle position, brake pressure, steering position, and speed differences at key places around the lap. That is the right mindset. You do not declare a power-delivery problem from one cold, crowded lap. You build the system to a representative state, then compare like with like.
For practice, use your first lap to make the engine easy to cool and easy to read. Roll into power. Avoid sitting directly in dirty air when you can legally and safely create airflow. Check that temperatures are behaving. Feel whether the pedal, response, and engine note are normal. This is not a throwaway lap; it is your baseline-forming lap. If you rush it, you may spend the rest of the session chasing symptoms you created yourself.
The third sub-skill is heat-margin awareness. The sibling lesson on cooling margin handles the cooling system in more depth, so this lesson stays on the driver's engine use. Still, the driver has direct influence. In traffic, without a straight shot of undisturbed air into the radiator, engine temperature often rises. You may need to move out of line on the straight to get a fresh charge of air through the radiator. That is not a style choice; it is a mechanical response to airflow starvation. If you stay glued to another car's wake while demanding full power, you are asking the engine to make heat while reducing its chance to reject heat.
Heat-margin awareness also includes knowing when the car's other systems are part of the same session problem. In hot ambient conditions with short straights, brakes can overheat. The corpus example describes using longer and lighter braking while carrying the same entry speed when brake temperature is the limiting issue. That is brake-specific, but it teaches the engine lesson too: when a thermal system is near its limit, you do not keep the same peak demand and hope. You reshape the demand over time. With the engine, that may mean giving the car clean air on the straight, avoiding pointless throttle stabs, or choosing a slightly less aggressive lap while temperatures stabilize.
The fourth sub-skill is separating engine learning from tire and aero learning. Track testing only works when the variable under examination is actually isolated. A disciplined test can compare configurations over five-lap runs, discard abnormal times, and return to the baseline periodically because weather, track conditions, and tire deterioration move the target. Even though that example concerns aero testing, the method applies directly to engine-driving questions. If you want to learn whether your current engine-use strategy is better, you need repeated laps under comparable conditions. One lap after traffic, one lap after a mistake, and one lap on cooling tires cannot prove much.
For an intermediate driver, that means you should not draw strong conclusions from a single lap where everything changed. If you short-shifted one lap, took a different line the next lap, followed traffic on the third lap, and then blamed engine response, you have not tested engine response. You have mixed inputs. The car may be telling you something useful, but you have made the message difficult to read.
The fifth sub-skill is honest reporting. The corpus is blunt about this: many drivers feel pressure to tell the crew something, so they invent or exaggerate what the car is doing. Others know what change was made and report what theory says should have happened, not what they actually experienced. This is poison to mechanical learning. Sometimes a setup change makes no difference. Sometimes the real effect is different from the theory. Sometimes the driver's inputs changed enough to mask the car's response. Your job is to give clean observations: where on track, what input, what symptom, what lap state, and whether it repeated.
Good engine feedback sounds like this in substance: temperature rose when tucked in behind another car for two straights, then stabilized when given clean air. Or: throttle pickup felt normal on the first two fast laps, then the response felt flatter after a long traffic hold with temperatures higher. Or: the exit from the slow corner felt messy, but the data shows the exit speed was not much different; the larger loss was earlier in the lap. These are grounded observations. They do not require you to pretend to be an engine builder.
The sixth sub-skill is using data without worshiping it. The useful driver display can show brake pressure, throttle position, steering position, and speed, often with two laps overlaid. That combination gives a clear picture of what the driver did and how the technique produced gains or losses. For this lesson, the key traces are throttle shape, speed at comparable locations, and whether a temperature or performance symptom coincides with traffic, ambient conditions, or repeated high-load sections.
But data can mislead if you overread it. Track maps generated from speed and lateral acceleration are useful for rough location, not perfect vehicle position. Errors can come from steering noise, surface changes, camber, elevation, and incomplete correction for roll-angle effects. The practical instruction is to use the map to find the neighborhood of the event, then confirm with speed, throttle, brake, steering, driver memory, and video if available. Do not build a big theory from a cursor position that may only be approximate.
How to apply the principle corner by corner.
On corner entry, the engine lesson is mostly about preparation. If the braking and downshift phase is messy, the exit power request will be messy. You want the car slowed, the gear selected, and the path chosen before you demand meaningful acceleration. If you arrive at the throttle while still solving the previous phase, the engine becomes a cover-up tool. You add power to a car that is not ready, then breathe out when the path goes wrong. The data may show throttle sawtoothing, delayed full-throttle commitment, or a slower straight despite a dramatic feeling at the apex.
At the apex and initial exit, think of the throttle as a heat-release command that must match available traction and direction. A small, early, repeatable squeeze can be worth more than a big, late, corrective stab. The corpus does not ask you to chase a huge mph gain in first- and second-gear exits. It shows that even large lap-time differences may include only small exit-speed differences in those corners. That does not make exit speed irrelevant. It makes accuracy more important than heroics. You are trying to leave the corner with the engine pulling against a stable path, not forcing the tires to decide between finishing the corner and accepting power.
On the straight, the engine is under sustained demand and the cooling system has its best chance to work. This is where airflow decisions matter. If temperatures are rising and you are tucked behind another car, the engine may be receiving less clean radiator airflow exactly when it is making heat. If rules, safety, and traffic permit, move out of line early enough to give the radiator clean air. Do not wait until the gauge is already the story of the session. This is especially relevant at hot events or tracks without long straights, where there is less natural recovery time.
At the end of the straight, your braking choices may also influence the session's thermal picture. The corpus example about overheated brakes describes braking earlier and lighter while carrying the same entry speed as a way to manage heat in the braking system. For engine learning, the equivalent thought is to avoid turning every lap into a peak-demand spike when a smoother distribution can keep the car inside its operating window. A session where the car survives cleanly and gives readable data is often more useful than one spectacular lap followed by a heat problem.
Between corners, notice repeatability. If one lap feels strong and the next feels flat, ask what changed before you blame the engine. Were you in clean air or following? Had you just completed a cool lap or a string of hard laps? Was the throttle trace the same? Was the gear choice the same? Did track conditions change? Did traffic force you off the normal line? This is the habit that separates an improving driver from a driver collecting impressions.
Calibration cues: what improvement looks like.
The first cue is a cleaner throttle trace. On a good lap, the throttle trace does not need to be timid. It needs to make sense. You should see fewer unnecessary stabs, fewer panic breaths after overcommitted exits, and more repeatable power application at the same track positions. If two laps are overlaid, the better lap should show that your throttle decisions are connected to the corner shape and steering release, not random confidence surges.
The second cue is speed consistency in the right places. In slow corners, do not expect every improvement to appear as a dramatic exit-speed jump. The corpus example makes that clear. If your exit speeds differ by only a few mph while lap time changes by several seconds, the lesson is to inspect the whole lap. Maybe your fast lap used less time in transition, carried better speed into medium-speed sections, or reached the throttle earlier without correction. As an engine-driving skill, the improvement is not simply more throttle. It is more useful throttle.
The third cue is temperature behavior that matches your decisions. If the engine temperature rises in traffic and stabilizes when you give the car clean air, you have learned something. If it rises lap after lap regardless of air, pace, or traffic, that may be a cooling-margin issue for the sibling lesson or a mechanical issue for the paddock. Your cockpit job is to notice the pattern clearly enough that the next step is rational.
The fourth cue is better debrief quality. After a good learning session, you can identify where on track the engine felt normal, where it felt loaded, where temperature changed, where traffic changed airflow, and whether the behavior repeated. You can separate a feeling from a conclusion. That is a major step forward. Drivers often want the engineer, instructor, or data person to solve the car. The better driver gives them clean material.
The fifth cue is less wasted testing. When you compare two approaches, you keep the rest of the run as constant as the event allows. You do not call a change better because one lap was lucky, and you do not call it worse because traffic ruined the run. You take averages when possible, discard abnormal laps when justified, and return to baseline if conditions are moving. That discipline comes directly from practical racecar testing and is just as useful for a club driver trying to understand engine behavior.
Failure modes: what wrong looks like.
The first failure mode is treating throttle as proof of bravery. It feels decisive to stand on the gas early, especially in a slow corner below third gear. The car may even tolerate it. But if the path is wrong and you keep breathing out of the throttle to rescue the exit, you are not driving the engine well. You are asking for heat and acceleration before the car can make clean use of it. The cost is a messier trace, more correction, and often no meaningful exit-speed gain.
The second failure mode is demanding full power in bad airflow. Following closely on a straight may be necessary in racecraft, but it reduces the clean air available to the radiator. If temperatures rise and you ignore it, the engine becomes the limiting system. In an HPDE setting, where the objective is learning rather than passing for position, there is rarely a good reason to sacrifice the session's mechanical health for one lap of draft theater. Move to clean air when safe and appropriate.
The third failure mode is overinterpreting one lap. One lap can show a symptom, but it rarely proves a cause. A useful comparison needs similar conditions, similar tires, similar traffic, and similar driver inputs. If the session changed in five different ways, the conclusion should be cautious. The correct response is not to invent certainty; it is to design a better comparison next time.
The fourth failure mode is lying to the debrief. This can be intentional, but more often it is social pressure. You want to sound useful, so you report what you expected to feel. The corpus warns that setup changes do not always behave as theory predicts, and sometimes they make no difference. If you did not feel a difference, say that. If the symptom was vague, say that. If it happened once in traffic, say that. Precision beats confidence.
The fifth failure mode is confusing engine skill with cooling-system diagnosis. This lesson teaches driver behavior around the engine as a heat machine. It does not replace mechanical inspection. If temperatures are unsafe, if fluid has been lost, if warning lights appear, or if the car's response changes sharply, you stop the driving experiment and protect the machine. The driver skill is to recognize when continued lapping would turn evidence into damage.
Cross-references inside this module.
This lesson sits between two sibling ideas. Build cooling margin before you chase speed covers the system-level cooling margin more directly. Drive the tires your drivetrain actually loads covers how torque reaches the tire contact patches and how the drivetrain shapes tire demand. The overlap is real, but the focus here is narrower: how you, from the seat, make power requests, manage engine heat consequences, and produce clean evidence.
Keep those boundaries clear. If the issue is rising temperature in traffic, the engine lesson says create airflow and document the pattern. The cooling lesson asks whether the system has enough margin. If the issue is wheelspin, axle load, or tire saturation under power, the drivetrain-and-tire lesson owns that. The engine lesson asks whether your throttle command was timed and shaped so the engine's work had somewhere useful to go.
The simplest rule to carry into your next event is this: ask the engine for work only when the lap can use that work, give the engine air when heat is building, and make your evidence clean enough that the next decision is not guesswork.
Worked example: the slow-corner exit that does not need 10 mph
Imagine you are reviewing two laps after a session: one conservative warm-up lap and one much faster lap. The display overlays speed, brake pressure, throttle position, and steering position against distance around the track. The fast lap is 5.5 seconds better. The natural instinct is to hunt for massive exit-speed gains in the first- and second-gear corners, because those are the places where the engine feels most dramatic. The corpus shows the opposite pattern in this type of comparison. In the slow corners, the difference in exit speed may be only about 3 mph even when the lap-time gap is several seconds.
The lesson is not that exits are unimportant. The lesson is that useful engine driving is smaller and more exact than the ego wants. Below third gear, the car feels manageable. You are under roughly 70 mph in the cited discussion, you can feel the car turning, and a small throttle breath can correct a path error. That comfort makes drivers aggressive. But if your faster lap came from better organization, better placement, and more repeatable power rather than a huge exit-speed leap, the right practice target is repeatability.
On the next session, pick one slow corner and drive it as a throttle-shape exercise. Do not chase a heroic exit. Brake and turn so that you can begin a clean power request without needing to breathe out immediately. If you need to lift after adding throttle, identify why: late apex, too much steering, early throttle, traffic, or uncertainty. After the session, compare the trace. Good looks like a power application that begins at a repeatable location and climbs in a shape connected to steering release. Bad looks like big throttle, correction, breath, and another stab. The heat-machine view says that every one of those stabs is an energy request. Only the part that produces clean acceleration was useful.
Worked example: the endurance efficiency mindset for a club driver
The endurance-racing example in the corpus is useful because it separates power from performance. Audi's diesel prototype did not need a straight performance advantage over petrol competition to create a race advantage. The valuable element was efficiency: matching power on track while spending less time refueling. That is a race-strategy example, but it teaches a club driver how to think about the engine.
You do not win an HPDE session by saving fuel in the endurance sense. You do, however, learn faster when you stop measuring engine use only by peak acceleration. A lap that demands unnecessary heat, creates a temperature issue, and forces two compromised laps afterward may be a worse learning lap than a slightly calmer lap that keeps the system stable and gives clean data. The engine is converting fuel energy into crankshaft work with losses. Your driving either helps that work show up as clean acceleration or spends it on correction, heat, and confusion.
Apply the endurance mindset during a hot afternoon session. You are not trying to coast around. You are trying to keep the engine inside a useful operating window so the whole session remains productive. If you are in traffic and the gauge starts climbing, you create clean air when safe. If you are testing a throttle approach, you keep the run structure consistent. If the car feels different, you report where and under what conditions. Efficiency, for you, means getting more learning and more clean laps from the same mechanical package.
Worked example: rising temperature in traffic
You are following another car for two straights. The pace is not especially fast, but the engine temperature starts to rise. This is a classic heat-machine moment. The engine is still being asked to make power, but the radiator is no longer receiving the same clean, undisturbed airflow. The corpus specifically describes engine temperature rising without a straight shot of undisturbed air into the radiators and advises moving out of line on the straights to get a fresh charge of air when overheating becomes a concern.
In an HPDE environment, your first job is safety and predictability. You do not make a sudden move. You do not compromise another driver. You use the rules of the group and the shape of the straight to place the car where it can breathe. Then you watch whether the temperature stabilizes. If it does, your report is clear: the symptom was airflow-linked. If it does not, you have a stronger reason to stop pushing and investigate cooling margin or mechanical condition.
What good looks like here is boring and disciplined. You notice the gauge before it becomes urgent. You give the car clean air early. You avoid unnecessary throttle stabs while the system is hot. You preserve the session. What bad looks like is staying tucked in because the lap feels exciting, then declaring that the engine runs hot without noting that you removed its clean airflow. The engine cannot reject heat into air it is not receiving.
Common mistakes
Mistake one: chasing the imaginary 10 mph exit. The driver exits a slow corner, feels that the lap is slow, and assumes the answer is much more throttle. The corpus example warns that large lap-time differences can exist with only small slow-corner exit-speed differences. Good looks like using data to find where time is really being lost, then shaping throttle so the exit is clean and repeatable.
Mistake two: using throttle to fix line. The driver turns in late or misses the intended path, then tries to solve the problem with more power. The car may accept some of it in a low gear, but the trace becomes messy and the driver breathes out of the throttle to rescue the exit. Good looks like correcting the corner phase before asking the engine for serious work.
Mistake three: ignoring dirty-air heat. The driver follows closely on a straight, sees temperature rise, and keeps demanding power as if the engine has the same cooling condition as clean air. Good looks like recognizing that airflow is part of the engine system and moving safely to fresh air when needed.
Mistake four: changing everything during a test. The driver tries a different throttle approach while also changing line, gear choice, traffic gap, and lap pace, then draws a conclusion from one lap. Good looks like controlled comparison: repeatable laps, one main variable, abnormal laps treated cautiously, and a return to baseline when conditions shift.
Mistake five: reporting theory instead of experience. The driver knows what a change was supposed to do and reports that effect even though the feeling was unclear. Good looks like an honest debrief: what happened, where it happened, whether it repeated, and what the driver actually felt.
Mistake six: reading the track map as perfect truth. The driver uses a cursor on an approximate track map and builds a detailed theory from a location that may be off because of map-generation limits. Good looks like using the map as a locator, then checking speed, throttle, brake, steering, memory, and video before forming a conclusion.
Drill: three-run heat-machine baseline
Use this drill at your next event only when the car is healthy, the group rules allow predictable spacing, and you can do it without interfering with other drivers. The drill uses three short runs or three blocks within one longer session. The count is three blocks of three laps each: one warm-up and settle lap, one measured lap, and one repeat lap. The success criterion is not fastest lap. The success criterion is repeatable throttle shape, stable temperature behavior, and a debrief you can support with data or clear memory.
Block one is the baseline. Drive at a clean intermediate pace. Use the first lap to warm the system and check gauges. On laps two and three, choose one slow corner and one straight to observe. In the slow corner, focus on when throttle begins, whether it rises smoothly, and whether you need to breathe out. On the straight, notice whether you are in clean air and whether temperature is stable. After the block, write only observations, not conclusions.
Block two is the throttle-shape block. Keep the same general pace and references. In the chosen slow corner, delay the serious power request until the car is pointed enough that you do not need a rescue lift. You are not trying to be slow; you are trying to make the engine request cleaner. The success criterion is a throttle trace or memory pattern with fewer stabs and fewer corrections. If lap time changes, treat it as secondary until the driving input is repeatable.
Block three is the airflow-awareness block. If traffic permits and temperatures are relevant, compare tucked-in running with clean-air running on the observed straight. Do this safely and within event rules. The success criterion is a clear pattern: temperature behavior and engine feel noted against airflow condition. If there is no temperature movement, that is still useful. If temperature rises regardless of airflow, stop treating it as a driver-only issue and bring it to the paddock or cooling-margin lesson.
After the drill, review brake, throttle, steering, and speed if you have the data. Overlay laps if your logger allows it. Look first for what you did, not what you wished the car did. Did the throttle trace become more repeatable? Did the slow-corner exit speed change only slightly while the lap felt calmer? Did temperature behavior follow traffic and airflow? Did any abnormal lap need to be discarded from the comparison? A successful drill gives you a cleaner question for the next session.
Reading your data without lying to yourself
The strongest data habit in this lesson is humility. A primary display with throttle, brake pressure, steering, and speed can show a great deal about your driving. It can show where you asked for power, where you breathed out, where braking and throttle overlapped in confusion, and where speed was gained or lost. It can also tempt you into false precision.
Use the track map to find the area, not to declare the final truth. The corpus warns that maps built from speed and lateral acceleration are approximate unless corrected for factors such as roll angle, camber, elevation changes, steering noise, and surface variations. For engine-driving analysis, that means you should tie every data conclusion back to a recognizable event: the straight after the slow corner, the lap spent in traffic, the run after the warm-up, the point where temperature started climbing.
Then make your conclusion modest. Strong conclusion: throttle application in the chosen slow corner was cleaner on the repeat laps, and the exit speed was similar while correction decreased. Strong conclusion: temperature rose while following closely and stabilized when given clean air. Weak conclusion: the engine is down on power because one lap felt flat after traffic. Weak conclusion: the new driving approach is faster because one lap had a better time in changing conditions. The heat-machine driver learns to protect the engine and protect the truth at the same time.
Author Review
No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.
Sources
| # | Document | Chunk | Pages | Score | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Racecar Engineering - June 2020 | 236111bd-e5a0-dd53-8c46-18e58a119f39 | 72 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 2 | Engine Testing Theory and Practice Plint Martyr | 3dcc0b05-80fa-05e8-3025-ff938b14d03a | 305 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 3 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 880f8af1-67e6-2570-4a76-94cca944a1fb | 146 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 4 | Going Faster Mastering the Art of Race Driving - Carl Lopez | 4dfc5860-2f13-09b6-3121-106ac2228185 | 185 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 5 | Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon | 4adf8cb4-89c7-1b45-bd4d-9bb03634ecf3 | 345 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 6 | Inner Speed Secrets | 2c6a6c36-997d-d6e2-d3ca-d3eb309248f8 | 2 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 7 | Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh | d7828c65-f089-3d53-48a5-363170dcba2d | 153 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |
| 8 | Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh | 31586014-7797-d7ad-dc6d-bc6dbcb68804 | 132 | 1 | uio_books_raw_v1 |