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.

I remember once, a few years ago in the South of France at my then local Kart track, it began to rain before the start of a club championship race.

Most drivers opted to put wets on.

I gambled on staying on slicks, since the rain was not heavy and I could see a break in the clouds coming in.

There I was, thinking that this would be a moment of tactical genius that would live long in the annals of the Saint Cyprien Kart Track history.

Well, I did think that until the start.

The wind dropped, the rain kept falling and I don't think I dared touch the throttle at all after my opening lap, which I had spent the best part of understeering in tyres.

Conclusion -

Slicks on a wet track don't work.

No conspiracy.

Just hard luck on Massa, who would have been a truly deserved champion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Slicks on a wet track don't work.

---

No one told that to Michael Schumacher at Spa in 1995

But slicks and grooved slicks behave in totally different ways, its been mentioned so many times in wet/dry races!

Hold on a minute !

Let's take stock here .
We have someone who just prompted all these guys in the F1 paddock , including those directly involved in the final gripping championship moments , to comment on his conjecture on this forum , in our midst .

Thanks , Bowers .
It's been fun to look at this .

You didn't deserve the hassle some gave you , but , with the season full of controversy as it has been , I think you might understand from where all the frustration at the mere thought of your controversy theory comes .



Myself , I thought the sticky point was going to be that issue Lewis had with replacing the steering wheel .
Hey , come to think of it , maybe that guy who insisted that Lewis get it back in place was from Toyota , to make sure Glock and his team got the payout for doing the deed in the final moments .
Damn , that's it . No wonder everyone is paying so much attention to this , and running around denying , when it was only a mere thread on some obscure F1 website , of which there are hundreds , maybe thousands .

OK , maybe not .

Thanks , Bowers .
It's been fun .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Hold on a minute !

Let's take stock here .
We have someone who just prompted all these guys in the F1 paddock , including those directly involved in the final gripping championship moments , to comment on his conjecture on this forum , in our midst .

Thanks , Bowers .
It's been fun to look at this .

You didn't deserve the hassle some gave you , but , with the season full of controversy as it has been , I think you might understand from where all the frustration at the mere thought of your controversy theory comes .



Myself , I thought the sticky point was going to be that issue Lewis had with replacing the steering wheel .
Hey , come to think of it , maybe that guy who insisted that Lewis get it back in place was from Toyota , to make sure Glock and his team got the payout for doing the deed in the final moments .
Damn , that's it . No wonder everyone is paying so much attention to this , and running around denying , when it was only a mere thread on some obscure F1 website , of which there are hundreds , maybe thousands .

OK , maybe not .

Thanks , Bowers .
It's been fun .

---

Well I appreciate the laid back attitude, and it really is something more people need take to heart (and I sometimes lose track of that).

It was a mere suggestion (that has become almost a movement now), and to some F1 fans, just suggesting this may have happened is worthy of saying something like "you know nothing about racing" or whatever. I'm pretty pleased with my motorsports knowledge, I even race stock cars myself so it's amusing when people say such things to me... just so happens a number of people love to say it (it's the easiest way out of a discussion... the thing little kids do in the sandbox)

The "Glock-gate" theory is more a business based conspiracy than a racing based theory. It has little or nothing to do with racing actually and is based more around dollars or some other form of power (for example knowledge). Some may disagree and think it's an entirely racing issue, but that has less of a basis than one solely based on the business aspects of F1. If you are in agreeance to the theory (which I actually am not) it doesn't mean you don't know anything about racing... it's the people that didn't question it for 1 second that actually don't seem to know much about F1 as a business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickey T

Really?




The FACT that a conspiracy took place?

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

---

Wow you are really just aching for an argument aren't you... hmm... it was fairly obvious what I meant (as Daniel said, it could've been worded better but you obviously can see the point I was making). If you want to disect my sentences for your arguments go right ahead, it only makes me look better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

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

---

Actually I feel this thread has lots of evidence that has been scraped up. 90% of it against the theory I'd estimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickey T

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.

---

Ok I apologize for saying you were aiming to get people booted. it's not what you said, I wrongfully assumed so and it wasn't the case (perhaps if you use English suited to a public F1 forum and not a scholarly debate it'd reduce such incidences).

That does not make it okay to wish for a ruling to be made to mock/ridicule people that disagree with your statements. It's one of those "I'm better than you" superiority complex kind of statements and it's not on.

I do not feel victimized by you actually (in the case you're referring to), it was actually a case of me victimizing you for making such an outlandish statement. Why would I be calling for sympathy when I don't actually believe, nor did I ever fully believe, there was a conspiracy???

I do feel unfairly victimized however when you make such comments as 'ignoramus'. Just because I don't have a "Word of the Day" calender on my wall means I can be insulted? Give me a break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowers

Well I appreciate the laid back attitude, and it really is something more people need take to heart (and I sometimes lose track of that).

It was a mere suggestion (that has become almost a movement now), and to some F1 fans, just suggesting this may have happened is worthy of saying something like "you know nothing about racing" or whatever. I'm pretty pleased with my motorsports knowledge, I even race stock cars myself so it's amusing when people say such things to me... just so happens a number of people love to say it (it's the easiest way out of a discussion... the thing little kids do in the sandbox)

The "Glock-gate" theory is more a business based conspiracy than a racing based theory. It has little or nothing to do with racing actually and is based more around dollars or some other form of power (for example knowledge). Some may disagree and think it's an entirely racing issue, but that has less of a basis than one solely based on the business aspects of F1. If you are in agreeance to the theory (which I actually am not) it doesn't mean you don't know anything about racing... it's the people that didn't question it for 1 second that actually don't seem to know much about F1 as a business.

---

There have been lots of conspiracies that have proven to be absolutely true .
It's the theoretical aspect that doesn't always hold .

Last year we had a conspiracy that nobody thought could be as true as it appeared in the end .

As Murray said , "F1 is if spelled backwards ." .
If something as mind-blowing as having Glock paid off were to happen , it would happen in F1 .
We must not forget that it is , with all the cash floating through the paddock , the most fertile of ground for a conspiracy .

All concerned were quick to deny .
They all seem pretty edgy about it all .

After last year , and earlier moments of questionable stewarding this year , any question at all seems to get all and sundry into rather a tizzy . Any suggestion of impropriety here has been met with rather venomous response .

You're alright .
You started a debate .



OK , now , who's got some captures comparing the angles of the steering wheel , so we can determine if it was properly affixed ?
Or , will it be swept under the carpet like so many other McLaren improprieties , just to make a British world champion ?
The Queen's in on it , too , as there's no way they'll investigate the issue , now that she's officially congratulated him ..........or will they ?????????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

There have been lots of conspiracies that have proven to be absolutely true .
It's the theoretical aspect that doesn't always hold .

Last year we had a conspiracy that nobody thought could be as true as it appeared in the end .

As Murray said , "F1 is if spelled backwards ." .
If something as mind-blowing as having Glock paid off were to happen , it would happen in F1 .
We must not forget that it is , with all the cash floating through the paddock , the most fertile of ground for a conspiracy .

All concerned were quick to deny .
They all seem pretty edgy about it all .

After last year , and earlier moments of questionable stewarding this year , any question at all seems to get all and sundry into rather a tizzy . Any suggestion of impropriety here has been met with rather venomous response .

You're alright .
You started a debate .



OK , now , who's got some captures comparing the angles of the steering wheel , so we can determine if it was properly affixed ?
Or , will it be swept under the carpet like so many other McLaren improprieties , just to make a British world champion ?
The Queen's in on it , too , as there's no way they'll investigate the issue , now that she's officially congratulated him ..........or will they ?????????????

---

Would be interesting to see all the Lewis fans that believed in something fishy after Spa and immediately shot down the possibility of anything going on in Brazil wouldn't it.

Had the title been: "Did Glock slow down on purpose to let Hamilton win?", I suspect the discussion would not have been so heated.

But as it stands, the title of this thread insinuates bribery on the part of McLaren and this is libelous.

Now we have both Massa and Glock explaining what really happened, and the author of this silly thread still tries to defend his argument. Now how stupid is that?

Bowers: Let it go. I do not think anyone thinks it was arranged. Outside of the dollars involved for points in the championship the logistics of setting it up in the heat of a race and communications made it impossible. Valve Bounce and I agree that your thread heading was provocative. I have read posts by you on other threads and appreciate your thoughts.
Please just drop it.
Besides you are giving the rest of us 'Crazy Canucks' a bad name. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowers

Would be interesting to see all the Lewis fans that believed in something fishy after Spa and immediately shot down the possibility of anything going on in Brazil wouldn't it.

---

No not really. The Spa thing was to do with possible poor judgement on behalf of the stewards, what you're suggesting here is a conspiracy involving two teams at the least.

I thought he was refering to the conspiracy theory about Kimi deliberately giving up a win by driving into the wall at Spa during the rain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowers

Would be interesting to see all the Lewis fans that believed in something fishy after Spa and immediately shot down the possibility of anything going on in Brazil wouldn't it.

---

Spa smelled like a 5 day old flounder totally off ice, IMO. But nothing was ever suggested about any of the teams in that case, as far as I know. It was all to do with the stewards.

Nothing against your original question. But as several have mentioned, considering this situation developed in the last few moments of the race, how exactly would McLaren have negotiated an acceptable bribe to Toyota? I mean, it's not as if they had an hour or two to hammer out an agreement. How would the need to slow have been communicated to Glock without the FIA picking up on it?

Me, I love a good conspiracy theory. But in order for a conspiracy to work, there must be time enough for ample planning on how to pull it off. In this case, there was not.

I'll tell you what I did expect though: a stewards' decision penalizing Hamilton for something or another. I suspect that's why he drove what seemed to be the most (overly) cautious race that I can remember from him. If not for the steering wheel not being secured, I figured they'd get him for groping a grid girl... surely he must have done something! :D

If Glock had wanted to finish behind Hamilton, he need only have pitted for wet tyres along with everybody else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans

If Glock had wanted to finish behind Hamilton, he need only have pitted for wet tyres along with everybody else.

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans

If Glock had wanted to finish behind Hamilton, he need only have pitted for wet tyres along with everybody else.

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans

If Glock had wanted to finish behind Hamilton, he need only have pitted for wet tyres along with everybody else.

---

Thank the lord! Common sense has returned to the forum!

Best post of the year! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans

If Glock had wanted to finish behind Hamilton, he need only have pitted for wet tyres along with everybody else.

---

Extremely good point, and its a bit of a wonder why it has taken so long for someone to express it. However there is always, always a way around anything if you believe in a conspiracy. I've already stated that I don't think there was a conspiracy but it wouldn't be too hard to come with an explanation as to why the Toyota's pitted... they would've wanted to be in the points but didn't expect to stay ahead of Lewis at the end so Glock slowed or whatever.

You could even say why didn't they just sabotage their own car so that they didn't finish the race, but in the end you can always argue back on forth on this one like most conspiracy theories, from landing on the moon, to JFK, to Elvis. You can argue forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

Had the title been: "Did Glock slow down on purpose to let Hamilton win?", I suspect the discussion would not have been so heated.

But as it stands, the title of this thread insinuates bribery on the part of McLaren and this is libelous.

Now we have both Massa and Glock explaining what really happened, and the author of this silly thread still tries to defend his argument. Now how stupid is that?

---

Did you read over the question mark!?!?!? DUH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easy Drifter

Bowers: Let it go. I do not think anyone thinks it was arranged. Outside of the dollars involved for points in the championship the logistics of setting it up in the heat of a race and communications made it impossible. Valve Bounce and I agree that your thread heading was provocative. I have read posts by you on other threads and appreciate your thoughts.
Please just drop it.
Besides you are giving the rest of us 'Crazy Canucks' a bad name. :D

---

I don't think it was arranged! I think people should go through the 4 or 5 instances in which I've stated this and get it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowers

Extremely good point, and its a bit of a wonder why it has taken so long for someone to express it. However there is always, always a way around anything if you believe in a conspiracy. I've already stated that I don't think there was a conspiracy but it wouldn't be too hard to come with an explanation as to why the Toyota's pitted... they would've wanted to be in the points but didn't expect to stay ahead of Lewis at the end so Glock slowed or whatever.

You could even say why didn't they just sabotage their own car so that they didn't finish the race, but in the end you can always argue back on forth on this one like most conspiracy theories, from landing on the moon, to JFK, to Elvis. You can argue forever.

---

I can see why questions may have been raised in the immediate aftermath of the race, but now all the facts have come to light, the matter is no longer worthy of discussion IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowers

Did you read over the question mark!?!?!? DUH!

---

So!! your point being...............

But your "DUH" sounds familiar!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans

If Glock had wanted to finish behind Hamilton, he need only have pitted for wet tyres along with everybody else.

---

Well... If Hamilton hadn't let Vettel by, then Glock wouldn't have had to slow down to let Hamiton finish 5th :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowers

I've already stated that I don't think there was a conspiracy...

---

Why raise it then :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Why raise it then :confused:

---

I'm going to start a new thread.

Quote:

---

Max being paid off by the Mafia

---

I don't believe it, have no evidence to support it and it makes no sense but nothing like a good bit of Trolling :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSfan

Well... If Hamilton hadn't let Vettel by, then Glock wouldn't have had to slow down to let Hamiton finish 5th :p

---

They must have had it worked out so if any other driver got past Hamilton, then one of others in front already would give up a position. Simple eh? :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

They must have had it worked out so if any other driver got past Hamilton, then one of others in front already would give up a position. Simple eh? :laugh:

---

Let me know when it's Rubens's turn. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

So!! your point being...............

But your "DUH" sounds familiar!

---

Hmm... I dunno, why do you suppose I used a question mark? I reitterate... DUH!