Marussia confirm Glock’s departure

2013 F1 season

Timo Glock, Marussia, Valencia, 2012Marussia have confirmed Timo Glock will not drive for them this year.

The team issued a statement saying the decision was reached “by mutual consent”.

Glock was originally contracted to drive for them during the 2013 season. Team principal John Booth indicated the team had to let him go to take on a paying driver:

“Our team was founded on the principle of benefiting from proven experience whilst also providing opportunities for young emerging talent to progress to the pinnacle of motorsport. Thus far, this philosophy has also been reflected in our commercial model.

“The ongoing challenges facing the industry mean that we have had to take steps to secure our long-term future. Tough economic conditions prevail and the commercial landscape is difficult for everyone, Formula 1 teams included.

“We would like to thank Timo for working with us to reach this decision, especially as he had a valid contract, and also for the contribution he has made to our Team. We wish him all the best for his future and I would like to congratulate the next team acquiring the services of such a competitive, professional and experienced racer.”

Glock said: “I have had three excellent years with the Marussia F1 Team, during which I had the chance to actively participate in building and developing the team in its endeavours to succeed within the Formula One world championship.

“I would like to wish the team good luck in navigating this next period and thank everyone for the great times we shared and the support I have received.

“Although it is not the path I expected to be taking, I am in fact very excited about what the future holds in terms of my own career and I hope to comment on that very soon.”

Booth praised Glock’s efforts since joining the team in 2010, when they were Virgin: “Timo has made a very significant contribution to our team over the past three seasons, helping us to develop our package to the point where, for a large proportion of the 2012 season, we were holding 10th place in the constructors? championship.”

“Timo is a fantastic driver and he has been a very popular member of the team,” he added.

The news means the team only have F1 rookie Max Chilton confirmed in their driver line-up for 2013.

See the updated list of 2013 F1 drivers and teams

2013 F1 season


Browse all 2013 F1 season articles

Image ?? Marussia

Advert | Go Ad-free

77 comments on Marussia confirm Glock’s departure

  1. ScuderiaVincero (@scuderiavincero) said on 21st January 2013, 9:36

    Never thought they’d actually let go of Glock. Not after bringing the team so close to tenth place last year.

  2. thatscienceguy said on 21st January 2013, 9:37

    I wonder if Vijay’s ears just perked up.

    I know everyone’s 99% sure he’s going to DTM (as am I), but FI would be silly not to at least ask.

  3. msoerensen (@msoerensen) said on 21st January 2013, 9:38

    My bet is on Vitaly Petrov to get the seat. Glock to Caterham maybe?

    • andae23 (@andae23) said on 21st January 2013, 9:45

      Caterham let Kovalainen go as they wanted a pay driver, so Glock to Caterham is very unlikely

    • KeeleyObsessed (@keeleyobsessed) said on 21st January 2013, 9:52

      I don’t quite understand where ‘Glock to Caterham’ comes from… All it’d mean is that Caterham pick up the 2 drivers from their nearest rivals last year.. Has that ever happened before, where 2 drivers have changed from the same team to the same team as each other (I’m not counting Barrichello/Button from Honda to Brawn)..

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 21st January 2013, 9:58

        @keeleyobsessed

        I don’t quite understand where ‘Glock to Caterham’ comes from.

        I do: people assume that because Glock has become available and that because there is a vacant seat at Caterham, Glock is interested in racing for them and the team is interested in taking on Glock.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 21st January 2013, 10:04

        @keeleyobsessed

        Has that ever happened before, where 2 drivers have changed from the same team to the same team as each other

        Yes: In 1996 Benetton fielded Gerhard Berger and Jean Alesi, which had been Ferrari’s driver line-up the year before.

        But it is pretty unusual. Off the top of my head I can’t remember it happening in the 16 seasons since then…

  4. Eggry (@eggry) said on 21st January 2013, 9:47

    This is quite blow for Marussia. They need to find another f1 veteran for team building. Anyway, I’d like to see Glock in Force India.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 21st January 2013, 10:28

      They need to find another f1 veteran for team building.

      Do they?

      I mean, Marussia had Glock. Lotus/Caterham had Trulli and Kovalainen. HRT had de la Rosa. Four drivers over the past three years, and not a point to show for themselves. Having experienced drivers is always better than having inexperienced rookies, sure, but I think the concept of getting a veteran driver in to build the team up and develop the car is a little archaic in this day and age of limited testing.

  5. andae23 (@andae23) said on 21st January 2013, 9:50

    Sad to see Glock go. I’m happy though that John Booth is honest about it: Marussia made an official statement, in which Booth explains that although they would love to continue with Timo, that is financially not possible for them. In the past, we’ve seen many experienced drivers leave a team without any official statement from the team about their department – usually it is one small paragraph, Marussia made it an entire article. Hope other teams can learn from this.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 21st January 2013, 9:52

      @andae23

      I’m happy though that John Booth is honest about it: Marussia made an official statement, in which Booth explains that although they would love to continue with Timo, that is financially not possible for them.

      Agreed I think it’s to their credit.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 21st January 2013, 10:45

        As both of you write, its certainly a positive to have them be clear about it. I hope Glock does go for a good ride in DTM and the guy they sign on (Petrov? Razia, Valsecchi, Kobayashi all available) will prove to be a positive surprise.

  6. Journeyer (@journeyer) said on 21st January 2013, 9:51

    This proves that a contract is worth little more than the paper it’s written on. At this rate, Marussia will need a heck of a lot more paper to get them through the 2013 season.

    • Any contract can be bought. I would assume that Marussia has a pay driver lined up which brings in enough money to pay off the contract. Also possible is that Glock really does want a new challenge. Because in all honesty, his Formula 1 career is going nowhere. As soon as a driver of his caliber ends up at a team like that, all he does is stretching his career a bit. Practically it’s pretty much over. If he’s good enough for a midfield (or top) team, one of them would’ve picked him up. They didn’t.

      • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 21st January 2013, 12:35

        To me their press statements read as if it was a little of both. Glock seems on good terms with team management ans seems to understand they are in trouble without more money: he could either help them by trying for sponsors and hope for some future performance, or change plans and maybe find a competitive car somewhere else. Seems they agree under circumstances this is best for all. As others say, good for them to be open about it, increases respect for both parties from me.

    • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 21st January 2013, 10:28

      Both parties agreed to end the contract because a) Marussia couldn’t afford Glock and b) he seems to have assumed they aren’t going anywhere anyway, so started looking elsewhere.

      A contract can be annulled without a fuss if both parties agree to it. It only gets messy if one party disputes the cancellation.

  7. Matthew (@f1matt) said on 21st January 2013, 9:53

    I can’t say this is overly surprising.

    It is a shame to see Timo (most likely) leave F1 as he could definately have been a race winner had Toyota stayed in F1 or if he had got a better seat instead of signing for Virgin.

    However, when the team/car is as bad as Marussia’s I really don’t think it matters who they have driving the car. Any 3rd rate pay driver can drive around at the back and finish 2 or 3 laps down.

    Marussia’s decision smells of a team making decisions just to survive and not to make progress. I can’t see Chilton and whoever will take the seat doing any better or worse than Di Grassi, Jerome D’ambrosio or Pic and the team will continue to be at the back.

  8. Armchair Expert (@armchairexpert) said on 21st January 2013, 10:17

    Not really sad to see him go. He was average driver, who was given 2 years in fast cars and achieved almost nothing in return. 2 podiums in 2009 Toyota is nothing to be proud about, as any top driver would win in this car or at least score much more podiums and points. Then his F1 career was prolonged by Virgin/Marussia, where he didn’t set world on fire (which you can do in backmarker car if you are talented enough, see Alonso in 2001).

    What is sad that he will be replaced by another average driver, but with bags of money. I would love to see someone like Wickens, Bianchi, da Costa or Frijns there, but I know the reality, unfortunately.

    • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 21st January 2013, 10:32

      You cannot compare Minardi to the current backmarkers. Different breed of animal.

      Also, if ‘any top driver’ could win in the dogs Toyota produced, why didn’t they? They certainly ran a few past race winners during their dreary non-existence in the sport.

      • Armchair Expert (@armchairexpert) said on 21st January 2013, 16:20

        I didn’t directly compare them, but no matter how bad car is, top talent will always shine brightly.

        Because they didn’t have any? Salo, McNish, da Matta, Panis, Zonta, Trulli, Schumacher, Glock and Kobayashi – average to only good drivers, who were never rated as the best in business. When management in Toyota’s team realised in 2009 they need top driver to deliver (they made offers to Raikkonen and Kubica), board in Japan pulled out. Some 4-5 years too late to do that, because you won’t win with such inconsistent drivers like Ralfie, Glock or Trulli.

    • andae23 (@andae23) said on 21st January 2013, 10:44

      I have to disagree with you here. Glock was very impressive in GP2 and then did very well in his first full year at Toyota. In my opinion, he has a lot of talent but simply was never given the chance to promote himself to a bigger team. If he could have stayed at Toyota for another year or two, we knows were he might have ended up.

      • Armchair Expert (@armchairexpert) said on 21st January 2013, 19:00

        For me 2008 and especially 2009 were excellent chances to showcase his talent and he simply blew it. So many times he was outraced by Trulli by quite big margins (20-30 seconds) and that was Trulli past his prime, at 34 and 35 years of age. The best example of that was Bahrain GP in 2009, when Glock outdragged Trulli from the grid, led the race and then eventhough team made catastrophic strategy error, Trulli still finished on the podium, while Glock was over 30 seconds at the end, struggling badly on tyres he didn’t like. He achieved similarly poor results compared to Trulli in many races and vice-versa, he beat Trulli by big margins too, which for me is very clear sign of average drivers. Top drivers almost always delivers maximum, average or good ones have bad races mixed with good races.

  9. DaveF1 (@davef1) said on 21st January 2013, 10:17

    All my respect for Marussia is gone now, what a classless way to get rid of the driver that somewhat sacrificed his career to help them. They could’ve at least told him sooner but this sudden announcement makes me wonder that they initially thought they could keep him.

    As someone who used to defend the new teams I’m getting a bit bored of Caterham and Marussia. 3 seasons of all talk and no success not to mention the way they treat their drivers is embarrassing to say the least. If you can’t afford to compete in the top level of motorsport then why are you wasting slots that could be taken by teams with more potential.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 21st January 2013, 10:22

      They could’ve at least told him sooner

      How did you come to the conclusion that they suddenly surprised him with this news? John Booth’s comments make it pretty clear that a) the team wanted to keep him, but b) had to let him go because of economic conditions. Which in turn suggests that this is something they’ve been mulling over for a while now, and have only let him go because they had no choice.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 21st January 2013, 10:48

        Not to mention that its widely expected Glock will announce a drive somewhere soon, hinting that he has been aware of it and working on this for some time already too.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 21st January 2013, 10:23

      @davef1

      wasting slots that could be taken by teams with more potential

      But this is exactly the point – they aren’t “wasting slots that could be taken by teams with more potential”. Where are these teams with more potential, and the resources to compete in F1? There was room for another team on the grid last year and there’s room for a second this year. Yet no one took advantage of the opportunity.

      This is proof that it’s not the new teams that are failing, it’s F1. It simply does not make financial sense for a new team to enter at the moment. Save for the three new teams (who were told they were entering under cost restrictions which were then abolished) no new team has entered F1 since 2006.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 21st January 2013, 10:50

        This is proof that it’s not the new teams that are failing, it’s F1. It simply does not make financial sense for a new team to enter at the moment. Save for the three new teams (who were told they were entering under cost restrictions which were then abolished) no new team has entered F1 since 2006.

        This is exactly what is wrong. Its not as if its only the backmarkers having trouble.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 21st January 2013, 11:19

          The problem is that the big teams will naturally oppose cost-cutting measures because they know that if they have more money to spend on developing their cars, they will be able to do a more-thorough job of it, and therefore perform better. If they have to sacrifice a smaller team or two to do that, they would probably do it without a second thought.

    • Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 21st January 2013, 11:03

      As someone who used to defend the new teams I’m getting a bit bored of Caterham and Marussia. 3 seasons of all talk and no success

      How can you say they’ve been all talk and no success? Do you realise the individual and collective effort it takes just to get 1 car on the grid of the most expensive sport on the planet? For 3 years, I think Marussia and Caterham have done exceptionally well considering they’re relatively small budget.

      Further more; what “talk”ing have they been doing? None of them have come out and said they want to win races right off the bat. They know what they’re (financially) capable of doing, and not doing, and it’s clear that scoring points in Formula 1 is an extremely expensive and difficult task.

      I think you’re asking a bit much for the smallest teams, with the smallest budgets, to be scoring points within 3 years.

      • DaveF1 (@davef1) said on 21st January 2013, 12:15

        I’m not asking or expecting them to score points. In fact they are the ones constantly stating they will be regular points scorers (although it is Caterham that do this more). It’s become a habit of Caterham/Lotus/Team Green & Yellow to state before every season ‘We are part of the midfield’ or ‘we will score points this season’ and have they? No.

        No one expects them to win races and score points for at least another couple of years but if you visit Caterhams website after pre-season testing or read F1 magazines there will no doubt be an article saying ‘Mike Gascoyne convinced Caterham will score’. Heck a quick Google search will link you to many articles containing something along those lines.

        So I stand by what I said, they are all talk off the track instead of on it.

  10. Girts (@girts) said on 21st January 2013, 10:25

    Not good news for F1. It’s not like we’re talking about Andrea Moda. Marussia have proved that they have what it takes to be a serious F1 team. In 2012, they cut their deficit to the front runners from 6.85% to 4.83% and were fighting Caterham in the final races of the season.

    The fact that they are forced to take pay drivers to survive should serve as a warning sign for F1. A year ago, we had a poll asking which teams would still be in F1 in 10 years’ time and only 2% expected HRT and Marussia to last that long. F1F readers were convinced only about having McLaren and Ferrari on the 2022 grid. The only other team, which got more than 50% of the votes, was Red Bull (51%).

    It’s obvious that not everything is right in F1 and further cost cutting and fairer distribution of the prize money are vital to ensure healthy development of the sport in the future.

    • Snafu (@snafu) said on 21st January 2013, 10:48

      I’d very like to see this as a COTD!

      You’re absolutely right…F1 needs to revise prize money policy more than anything else…but I’m not sure if more cost cutting will benefit sport…it’ll further slow down the cars which is not good!

      • andae23 (@andae23) said on 21st January 2013, 10:50

        I’d very like to see this as a COTD!

        Would be two in a row for him – you’re on fire! :)

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 21st January 2013, 11:05

        @snafu

        I’m not sure if more cost cutting will benefit sport…it’ll further slow down the cars which is not good!

        Um … how? The idea behind cost-cutting is to reduce costs so that everyone can be competitive for less than they are currently spending. The likes of Caterham and Marussia will probably be unaffected – it’s the teams like Red Bull and Ferrari (who spend hundreds of millions of dollars per season) that will feel it the most.

      • Girts (@girts) said on 21st January 2013, 11:15

        Thanks very much guys, I’m sure that Keith will have a lot of other comments to choose from today!

        As for the slower cars, I think it’s possible to find a good compromise solution. It’s true that the cars are now a few seconds slower than they were in 2004 when most of the current lap records were set but I don’t think that it has generally made F1 less appealing. For sure, the times shouldn’t fall to GP2 levels but I don’t think that would happen if costs were cut further. Even if Ferrari’s budget was suddenly as low as Caterham’s, Ferrari would still be quicker because they have been in F1 for so long and possess many facilities that Caterham don’t have. Furthermore, I believe that the rules and the number of tyre suppliers (single or more) probably have bigger effect on the speed of the cars than the actual budgets.

  11. It simply does not make financial sense for a new team to enter at the moment.

    It’s obvious that not everything is right in F1 and further cost cutting and fairer distribution of the prize money are vital to ensure healthy development of the sport in the future.

    Which makes doubling engine costs from 2014 a monumentally stupid idea.

    • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 21st January 2013, 10:35

      Someone has to pay for them…

      • @optimaximal I wasn’t referring to the manufacturers’ (undoubted) need to recover the substantial development costs resulting from the change of regulations. That’s Economics 101.

        I was criticising the decision of the sport to abandon the existing engines, for which the development costs have been well and truly amortised, in favour of these wonderful new turbos. Which will increase costs (from about 8 million euros per season to 15 million according to the reports I’ve seen) to the detriment in particular of the backmarkers and make pay drivers more, not less, prevalent. You can’t buy half an engine, and the smaller teams won’t be able to avoid this cost. So they’ll reduce their budgets on everything else, to accommodate a change that will do nothing to improve the racing (and will in fact detract from it, given they’ll result in heavier, slower cars and will spread the field as we reintroduce the engine wars).

  12. ltsh (@ltsh) said on 21st January 2013, 10:51

    Realy not happy about this! Glocks such a good driver and I’m just hoping another team grabs him! Only benefit is that Il now marussia will be more financially stable. Lets hope Bruno senna gets the seat

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 21st January 2013, 11:00

      Lets hope Bruno senna gets the seat

      Why? He was mediocre in a HRT. He was mediocre in a Renault. He was mediocre in a Williams. What evidence is there to suggest he would be anything other than mediocre in a Marussia, and how does being mediocre help the team?

      • ltsh (@ltsh) said on 21st January 2013, 16:34

        He was more than mediocre at Williams because he was scoring points on a regular basis. Also he was only given a year or less with those teams so if he could have more than a year with marussia then he might surprise us

  13. zimkazimka (@zimkazimka) said on 21st January 2013, 10:59

    So i guess Petrov’s got a chance now.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 21st January 2013, 11:14

      I’d say it’s more than a chance – when Nikolai Fomenko confirmed that Max Chilton would join the team (a day before the team announced it), he openly said that he wanted to get Petrov into the team if he could.

      • HUHHII (@huhhii) said on 21st January 2013, 16:06

        @prisoner-monkeys Oksana Kosatshenko said today that they’re only discussing with Caterham and that they are not planning to negotiate with Marussia. Though obviously the situations may change pretty fast if Caterham chooses someone else…

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 22nd January 2013, 1:31

          @huhhii – I’ve noticed Oksana is very, very good at playing the media, probably because she knows stuff can get lost in translation when it makes the transition from Russian to English. For instance, she admitted that Petrov had lost all of his government funding in the middle of last year. This was reported in the English media as Petrov losing all of his sponsorship. They were then able to report that they had funding from the private sector – Russian Helicopters is not a State-owned enterprise – and let the English-language media make of that what they will. Petrov never lost all of this funding; he always had backing from Russian Helicopters. But Oksana was savvy enough to let the media built her client up by having them run a story that made it look like he had found some sponsorship that he already had.

  14. K0V4LA1NEN said on 21st January 2013, 11:01

    even though he has said he probably won’t drive this year, does this open the door to kobayashi, as he has lots of sponsorship money now and does have reasonable experience, espeacially when compared to the majority of the field…

  15. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 21st January 2013, 11:03

    Sad news, I quite like Tim o’Glock.

    I don’t think that the possibility of him getting the Force India drive (as many are speculating about) is really going to happen. FI seem to be taking ages to decide if they want a young paying driver (ala Bianchi) or an experienced old hand who is known to the team (Sutil). If Glock had a bit of a budget behind him he could tick both those boxes (having driven for Jordan in 04) but he doesn’t.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.