Glock - what actually happened?
Discussion
Does anyone know what actually happened with Timo Glock on Sunday? I didn't see an interview or anything. Did he let Hamilton through (which I doubt, given the points for him on offer with what was a decent placing for Toyota), or did he slide wide on his dry weather tyres or something? I'm not suggesting anything funny was going on, I'm just curious.
From another thread, here are the last three laptimes of the Toyotas:
Timo Glock
69 1:18.688
70 1:28.041
71 1:44.731
Jarno Trulli
69 1:22.428
70 1:33.539
71 1:44.800
So Glock's running 4 to 5 seconds a lap quicker than Trulli, and then on the last lap he loses that advantage, i.e. he loses 4 or 5 seconds on the last lap. Was this because of a huge mistake on that last or penultimate corner? Or was it just because of the massively increasing laptimes we can see that the conditions were horrendous on those tyres and they were virtually at the point where they'd fall off the track if they did any more than just pootle round, and they'd fallen down to the same "survival" pace?
From another thread, here are the last three laptimes of the Toyotas:
Timo Glock
69 1:18.688
70 1:28.041
71 1:44.731
Jarno Trulli
69 1:22.428
70 1:33.539
71 1:44.800
So Glock's running 4 to 5 seconds a lap quicker than Trulli, and then on the last lap he loses that advantage, i.e. he loses 4 or 5 seconds on the last lap. Was this because of a huge mistake on that last or penultimate corner? Or was it just because of the massively increasing laptimes we can see that the conditions were horrendous on those tyres and they were virtually at the point where they'd fall off the track if they did any more than just pootle round, and they'd fallen down to the same "survival" pace?
Tyres nothing more, yes he was faster before it got wet but once properly wet (last lap) when tyres had cooled and the rain really came their times balanced, because that is all that the tyres would allow pretty much whoever the driver. I don't believe the 2 earlier lap differentials are necessarily representative anyway, perhaps Trulli was scuppered with traffic or something as 4+ secs is one hell of a difference.
Maybe it was tyres but cast your mind back to the German Grand Prix when Hamilton, in a much faster car, overtook an ailing Massa. The media slated Massa for apparently 'letting' Hamilton past and James Allen (et al) have banged on about it since, despite the fact that Massa was at the time lapping seconds slower than Hamilton. Is this not effectively the same thing? It would have been scrutinised if it had been Massa.....
The folks who won't accept the reality that Glock's (and Trulli's) cars were, by the last lap, substantially slower than everyone else's ignore the fact that the only reason that Glock had got ahead of Hamilton and Vettel was that he had stayed out when they pitted to change their tyres. They, and all nine teams but for Toyota, sacrificed the time required for a pit stop in the expectation that intermediates would be sufficiently quicker over the remainnig race distance to more than compensate for the lost pit time.
The nine teams were proved right, the one that gambled was wrong. It was pretty simple.
rsole said:
Maybe it was tyres but cast your mind back to the German Grand Prix when Hamilton, in a much faster car, overtook an ailing Massa. The media slated Massa for apparently 'letting' Hamilton past and James Allen (et al) have banged on about it since, despite the fact that Massa was at the time lapping seconds slower than Hamilton. Is this not effectively the same thing? It would have been scrutinised if it had been Massa.....
Hamilton and Massa were on the same tyre in their incident. The McLaren was better in those circumstances, but that is a world away from Hamilton on intermediates and Glock on slicks. Bearing in mind that Hamilton passed Glock going into the final corner and yet finished six seconds ahead of him, just shows how much of a problem Glock was having getting any traction. Hamilton's last lap was over 20 seconds faster than Glock's, whereas in the Hamilton/Massa case it was probably less than 5.flemke said:
The folks who won't accept the reality that Glock's (and Trulli's) cars were, by the last lap, substantially slower than everyone else's ignore the fact that the only reason that Glock had got ahead of Hamilton and Vettel was that he had stayed out when they pitted to change their tyres. They, and all nine teams but for Toyota, sacrificed the time required for a pit stop in the expectation that intermediates would be sufficiently quicker over the remainnig race distance to more than compensate for the lost pit time.
The nine teams were proved right, the one that gambled was wrong. It was pretty simple.
Exactly, the cleanest way they could have "helped" if they were that way inclined, would have to been to simply pit along with everyone else, there would have been no conspiracy theory and not one raised eyebrow - they took a gamble for "their own" benefit only and tbh it came within a couple of corners of paying off for them, they of course could afford to gamble as they had nothing really to lose even if they ended up in the gravel, Mclaren and Ferrari had no such luxury. The nine teams were proved right, the one that gambled was wrong. It was pretty simple.
flemke said:
The folks who won't accept the reality that Glock's (and Trulli's) cars were, by the last lap, substantially slower than everyone else's ignore the fact that the only reason that Glock had got ahead of Hamilton and Vettel was that he had stayed out when they pitted to change their tyres. They, and all nine teams but for Toyota, sacrificed the time required for a pit stop in the expectation that intermediates would be sufficiently quicker over the remainnig race distance to more than compensate for the lost pit time.
The nine teams were proved right, the one that gambled was wrong. It was pretty simple.
You should never let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy theory though The nine teams were proved right, the one that gambled was wrong. It was pretty simple.
this is interesting
shows the sector times. I think its tyres personally but you can see why people are questioning it. simple case of damned if you do damned if you dont amd the british press will make a deal of it because it will sell news papers as bad news will always outsell good news.
shows the sector times. I think its tyres personally but you can see why people are questioning it. simple case of damned if you do damned if you dont amd the british press will make a deal of it because it will sell news papers as bad news will always outsell good news.
VladD said:
rsole said:
Maybe it was tyres but cast your mind back to the German Grand Prix when Hamilton, in a much faster car, overtook an ailing Massa. The media slated Massa for apparently 'letting' Hamilton past and James Allen (et al) have banged on about it since, despite the fact that Massa was at the time lapping seconds slower than Hamilton. Is this not effectively the same thing? It would have been scrutinised if it had been Massa.....
Hamilton and Massa were on the same tyre in their incident. The McLaren was better in those circumstances, but that is a world away from Hamilton on intermediates and Glock on slicks. Bearing in mind that Hamilton passed Glock going into the final corner and yet finished six seconds ahead of him, just shows how much of a problem Glock was having getting any traction. Hamilton's last lap was over 20 seconds faster than Glock's, whereas in the Hamilton/Massa case it was probably less than 5.
The mistake McLaren made was to race Massa instead of race Glock. If LH had stayed out on slicks he'd probably have finished 4th... But who cares? The job was done.
Rich VRS said:
this is interesting
shows the sector times. I think its tyres personally but you can see why people are questioning it. simple case of damned if you do damned if you dont amd the british press will make a deal of it because it will sell news papers as bad news will always outsell good news.
Rich,shows the sector times. I think its tyres personally but you can see why people are questioning it. simple case of damned if you do damned if you dont amd the british press will make a deal of it because it will sell news papers as bad news will always outsell good news.
Glock made his 2nd and final stop on lap 36. Trulli made his on lap 43.
By the last lap, the 71st, Glock's tyres had 35 laps on them. Trulli's had 20% fewer laps on them..
Therefore Glock's tyres would have been in distinctly worse condition than Trulli's were. As long as the circuit wasn't too wet, Glock could have worked around that (also, I think it's fair to say that Glock was driving a good bit harder than Trulli, who had gone from 2nd on the grid to finish 8th).
Once the wet track became insuperable, however, the worse condition of Glock's tyres would have overwhelmed his driving, and he would have lost pace even more quickly than Trulli did.
Hence the rapid change in relative sector times even as between the two Toyotas.
flemke said:
Rich VRS said:
this is interesting
shows the sector times. I think its tyres personally but you can see why people are questioning it. simple case of damned if you do damned if you dont amd the british press will make a deal of it because it will sell news papers as bad news will always outsell good news.
Rich,shows the sector times. I think its tyres personally but you can see why people are questioning it. simple case of damned if you do damned if you dont amd the british press will make a deal of it because it will sell news papers as bad news will always outsell good news.
Glock made his 2nd and final stop on lap 36. Trulli made his on lap 43.
By the last lap, the 71st, Glock's tyres had 35 laps on them. Trulli's had 20% fewer laps on them..
Therefore Glock's tyres would have been in distinctly worse condition than Trulli's were. As long as the circuit wasn't too wet, Glock could have worked around that (also, I think it's fair to say that Glock was driving a good bit harder than Trulli, who had gone from 2nd on the grid to finish 8th).
Once the wet track became insuperable, however, the worse condition of Glock's tyres would have overwhelmed his driving, and he would have lost pace even more quickly than Trulli did.
Hence the rapid change in relative sector times even as between the two Toyotas.
Also, Trulli's first two sector times were mostly likely slower because the track was still getting wetter due to the rain and that he was 30s behind him on the track.
ferrisbueller said:
Given Glock's laps were driven on a drier track i.e. Trulli hit the weather at a different stage to him, I'm not sure why Glock couldn't sustain the 5 secs per lap differential - or did he just hit the wall in terms of grip due to the track then being uniformly wet?
Glock got passed by a huge number of cars on his last lap. It don't think it would be unreasonable for him to lose that time in passing incidents. However, as Flemke said, his tyres were several laps older than Trulli's so when it got really wet, he was in big trouble.ferrisbueller said:
Given Glock's laps were driven on a drier track i.e. Trulli hit the weather at a different stage to him, I'm not sure why Glock couldn't sustain the 5 secs per lap differential - or did he just hit the wall in terms of grip due to the track then being uniformly wet?
I would say he 'hit the wall'. If you look back at the slowing down lap it was massively wetter than even the last lap. Remember back to Spa as well where people were off track left right and centre when this happened. The intensity of the rain and the 'dampness' of the track was night and day between the last two laps.
mattikake said:
flemke said:
Rich VRS said:
this is interesting
shows the sector times. I think its tyres personally but you can see why people are questioning it. simple case of damned if you do damned if you dont amd the british press will make a deal of it because it will sell news papers as bad news will always outsell good news.
Rich,shows the sector times. I think its tyres personally but you can see why people are questioning it. simple case of damned if you do damned if you dont amd the british press will make a deal of it because it will sell news papers as bad news will always outsell good news.
Glock made his 2nd and final stop on lap 36. Trulli made his on lap 43.
By the last lap, the 71st, Glock's tyres had 35 laps on them. Trulli's had 20% fewer laps on them..
Therefore Glock's tyres would have been in distinctly worse condition than Trulli's were. As long as the circuit wasn't too wet, Glock could have worked around that (also, I think it's fair to say that Glock was driving a good bit harder than Trulli, who had gone from 2nd on the grid to finish 8th).
Once the wet track became insuperable, however, the worse condition of Glock's tyres would have overwhelmed his driving, and he would have lost pace even more quickly than Trulli did.
Hence the rapid change in relative sector times even as between the two Toyotas.
Also, Trulli's first two sector times were mostly likely slower because the track was still getting wetter due to the rain and that he was 30s behind him on the track.
After 35 laps, with the first of them run with a heavy fuel load, Glock's tyres' would have been totally shot even if the track had remained dry. As it was, they could not possibly have retained enough heat to function once the track became really wet.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff