Glock/Toyota paid off to slow on the last lap?[merged]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzz Lightyear

Wonder if Trulli was paid also, so Glock didnt look stupid. This dispells any theory.. Both Toyota's last lap times were 8-10s off the leaders.. argument closed.

---

Amazing that these times were found but I would ask to see this screen versus the same screen 1 lap before it.

I would like to compare the last 2 lap times of Glock. I still firmly believe you don't just lose 20 seconds (if you include the gap to Lewis at the finish line) on the last lap out of nowhere... but perhaps if he lost 10 seconds the lap before this case would be closed for me personally. That would be substantial proof that his car was falling off miserably (not just falling off miserably over the course of 1 lap).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowers

Amazing that these times were found but I would ask to see this screen versus the same screen 1 lap before it.

I would like to compare the last 2 lap times of Glock. I still firmly believe you don't just lose 20 seconds (if you include the gap to Lewis at the finish line) on the last lap out of nowhere... but perhaps if he lost 10 seconds the lap before this case would be closed for me personally. That would be substantial proof that his car was falling off miserably (not just falling off miserably over the course of 1 lap).

---

These times were gathered from another forum:
Timo Glock's last 6 lap times:
Lap 66 1:17.992
Lap 67 1:18.897
Lap 68 1:18.816
Lap 69 1:18.688
Lap 70 1:28.041
Lap 71 1:44.731

Jarno Trulli's last 6 lap times:
Lap 66 1:19.113
Lap 67 1:20.528
Lap 68 1:20.188
Lap 69 1:22.428
Lap 70 1:33.539
Lap 71 1:44.800

As you can see there was a huge drop off in performance over not 1 lap, but infact 2 which would dispell a last lap slowdown from Glock...
this wont dispell the case by anymeans, but it shoots down the theory for me.

For all you morons that were having a go at me, I once again never stated I believed there was a conspiracy I was merely open to it possibly happening. And for all those who think conspiracy's can't happen... COME ON!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickey T

No, for not giving worthy consideration to what you were about to post.



couple of points. you KNOW toyota is struggling with KERS? you work for them, do you?
is this back pedalling or front pedalling? i don't quite know what you're trying not to say here, but if you're implying senior toyota personnel are on the take from mclaren, that's a big allegation backed up by, well, nothing.



yet more proof that you're not thinking or reading before posting. the split times are already on this thread. page four. examine them, then think, then post.



watching the splits during the last lap, it was clear they would both catch glock.
what room to make an argument? that reality does not exist?
existentialism lives, and it's secretly ruling Formula One?



you have them. read them. they're already here!



when did i call for people to be booted?
your every written word makes you more worthy of what i actually said should happen: that the moderators should allow us to treat you with derision.




No? fancy me thinking that the words directly from the man at the centre of your personal storm would be relevant to this thread.
i apologise. profusely.

I will, in future, endeavour to remember that you prefer to remain in ignorance and sprout ludicrous theories based in fairyland than actually hear what the main players had to say.

he was actually happy that 1) he gained a place and 2) didn't crash.

in spite of what you think, he did a great job for his team to bring that car home at all.




not what i said. you're not even taking it out of context. you're inventing a word that i didn't use.

the word i used was, as explained, derision

de·ri·sion /dɪˈrɪʒən/ [di-rizh-uhn]
–noun 1. ridicule; mockery: The inept performance elicited derision from the audience.
2. an object of ridicule.



what are you on about?

i have said plenty of times that i don't like hamilton as a human being, so don't make me to be some lewis lover.

it has been a highly controversial championship, you're right. most of that has been because of off-track decisions which contrived the one-point finale.

why would you want the last race to be controversial?

why can't you just accept that it was dramatic and leave it at that?

---

-Toyota are struggling with KERS as they've been saying they likely wont be running, nor will they be pressured into running it, in 2009.
http://www.crash.net/motorsport/f1/n...ers_debut.html


- The split times supplied on this thread previously were quite useless as it was based on the final lap only. To get a real sense of "Glock-gate" you'd need to ideally look at the split times from the previous laps times (I thought that was obvious, my bad). As you can see I found only unofficial lap times that favour the "non conspiracy" side of the argument.

- For the umpteenth time you have made the wrong assumption that I actually agreed there was a conspiracy, after I flat out told the forum I was entirely partial on the matter (a few times).

-fine you don't like Hamilton... just don't expect everyone to take Lewis winning as well as you and Massa have then

- So as I understand it, because you think you are so "superior" that you want to earn the special forum right to mock/ridicule other forum members and that it should be encouraged???
Perhaps it's time I give you a definition:

con·de·scend (kŏn'dĭ-sěnd')
con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends

1.To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself.
2.To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
3.To write words closely followed by definitions of that word because you think people are too dumb to know what they mean (relax dude, we all have Google... it's ok)

Am I being condescending then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian McC

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view...ce-fix-shock-/

Hmm, shame they called you 'somebody' and not named you, that's just rude!

Surely British tabloid journalism at it's worst?

---

Hahaha that's pretty cool.

Can you believe this guy, anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Whatever the personal views being expressed, can I just point out that there is no evidence at all for the very serious and frankly, outlandish accusation contained in the thread title? This seems to be going past some people.

---

Unfortunately, evidence is in short supply on most of the posts in the F1 forums!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowers

Perhaps it's time I give you a definition:

con·de·scend (kŏn'dĭ-sěnd')
con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends

1.To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself.
2.To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
3.To write words closely followed by definitions of that word because you think people are too dumb to know what they mean (relax dude, we all have Google... it's ok)

Am I being condescending then?

---

no, you're being a dill.

the reason i included the word and the definition is that, for reasons best known to yourself and your agenda, your responses utterly ignored the word i actually used and replaced it with words that mean something entirely different.

one of two things might have happened:

you thought they meant the same thing, in which case you should be thanking me for taking the time out of a busy schedule to help broaden your limited understanding by appraising you of the actual meaning of the word "derision" and, therefore, its lack of relationship with the words you interpreted it to mean (ie, "booted off").

or you used the more-dramatic "booted off" in place of "derision" because it turned you from a conspiracy-chasing ignoramus into somebody unfairly slighted in an attempt to garner sympathy on these forums as somebody who'd been unfairly victimised.

i consider you extremely fairly victimised, with your own written evidence showing you to be a recidivist of motorsport and racing ignorance being the sole catalyst for it.

you have google to help you with definitions of big words you don't understand? and you didn't use it the first time around when you were trying to figure out what "derision" meant? Again, it doesn't make you a victim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowers

- For the umpteenth time you have made the wrong assumption that I actually agreed there was a conspiracy, after I flat out told the forum I was entirely partial on the matter (a few times).

---

Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowers

Because people are open to the fact that a conspiracy occured means people don't know anything about racing??? Ooook.

---

The FACT that a conspiracy took place?

while you're googling through a dictionary, run this word through it...

He said open to. Why must every sentence on this forum be deconstructed and then used as evidence to say that someone said something they didn't intend to say? Yeah it could have been worded better but what do you want to have an argument about? What the OP actually meant to say or what you think the OP said?

I would say i'm open to the possibility that something happened. Perhaps fact was the wrong word to use but anyhoo time to move on.

I don't understand why you guys even bother to continue with this silly argument. I think both Massa and Glock have stated their points and its time to believe them and move on.