Glock joins BMW in DTM after losing F1 seat

F1 Fanatic round-up

Timo Glock, BMW, DTM, Valencia, 2013In the round-up: BMW confirm Timo Glock will race for them in the DTM this year after losing his seat.

From the forum

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Gipfeltreffen mit Ecclestone in Maranello (Auto Motor und Sport)

Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull and Mercedes representatives met Bernie Ecclestone at Maranello in an effort to resolve the deadlock over the Concorde Agreement, which expired at the end of last year.

Marussia positive despite Glock’s exit (Autosport)

Sporting director Graeme Lowdon: “The key thing is that we cannot wait to get testing and see how the car performs ?ǣ and I think everyone is keen to see how we are going to do this season because we have worked really hard.”

Lewis Hamilton: I want to make Mercedes the most successful F1 team (The Guardian)

“I’m 28… I’ve got quite a lot of years left. I don’t plan going on like Michael [Schumacher, 44] but look at Mark Webber, who is 36. I hope I’ve still got a good ten years left in me.”

A pictorial history of F1 tyres (F1)

“During the ’60s it was not uncommon for a driver to use the same set of tyres over several races.”

Grand prix counts for nothing (The Age)

“They both hide behind the commercial-in-confidence shibboleth, the fig leaf of the age. They say that specifics would only give potential rivals for the right to hold the race an advantage. But who are they? Adelaide doesn’t want it back. Sydney has gone cold. There is Asia, where Ecclestone has threatened previously to take the race. Frankly, it is bound to go there one day anyway.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

Ncedi on Robert Kubica’s continuing recovery:

Feel incredibly happy for Robert!

Almost three years ago I was in a motorcyle accident which nearly took my life, now I’m left with a wrist which has almost every bone dislocated (among my other horrific injuries which I have fully recovered from). It means I can?t rotate my wrist/arm completely or bend it back very far. I thought I would never get to ride again, but I?m glad to report I?m back on them again and my body can compensate/adjust to ensure I cope.

What I’m trying to say is there is hope for Robert and I’m sure he’ll return to F1. He seems very upbeat which I was after my first ride so that can only be a good sign!
Ncedi

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Stealthman and Weasel Chops!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy birthday to new McLaren driver Sergio Perez who is 23 today.

Image ?? BMW ag

Advert | Go Ad-free

46 comments on Glock joins BMW in DTM after losing F1 seat

  1. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th January 2013, 0:07

    “They both hide behind the commercial-in-confidence shibboleth, the fig leaf of the age. They say that specifics would only give potential rivals for the right to hold the race an advantage. But who are they? Adelaide doesn’t want it back. Sydney has gone cold. There is Asia, where Ecclestone has threatened previously to take the race. Frankly, it is bound to go there one day anyway.”

    Typical of The Age: “We’re bound to lose the race anyway, so let’s just give it up now and be done with it”. Not once do they mention any of the benefits of the race, and instead campaign to have it removed because they don’t like it. If ever they were successful with their lobbying, they’d probably be the first to complain that the government gave up a world-class event.

    • dragoll (@dragoll) said on 26th January 2013, 0:13

      Newspapers tend to sensationalise issues and take extreme points of view… The race won’t be taken away, all the sponsors and businessmen I deal with in Melbourne keep saying how important the race is to their business. One even said that without it, they would lose up to 15% of their annual revenue.

      When it comes down to it, I will go to the Australian Grand Prix no matter where it was hosted. I live in Melbourne, but don’t mind travelling to see it :)

      • Funkyf1 (@funkyf1) said on 26th January 2013, 8:05

        it’s interesting to see the reactions over the past week regarding the newspaper articles in Melbourne about the cost of the AustralianGrand Prix. The Age and Herald Sun are running a business and making sales with stories that are absent of all of the information. I read The Age article (cannot remember the reporters name) on the Lance Armstrong/Oprah I interview( which I have watched), it was totally one sided, biased and provocative just like these recent stories regarding the Aus Gp. As a fan of F1 I have my own biased opinions and have clearly stated prior that I believe the event could be run better at a lower cost, but this isn’t even a option accordining to those against it and sure enough as @prisioner-monkeys says above they will be the first to stab the government in the back when/if they lose the event.
        Negative media/news sells and that is why they write it. It will be back again next year when “my” taxes pay Bernie an even higher fee.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th January 2013, 12:30

          As a fan of F1 I have my own biased opinions and have clearly stated prior that I believe the event could be run better at a lower cost

          I’m curious as to how you think that would work, since Bernie Ecclestone has made it known that most of the money goes towards covering the costs of the teams, and that the current fee isn’t enough to cover all of those costs. If you’re running the event for less money, that means the teams will get even less from the event.

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th January 2013, 15:09

            @prisoner-monkeys, “Bernie has made it known” but we know that CVC take +-50% of all income so I guess that is part of the cost the teams have to pay. Bernie also said the cost per race per team was $15 to 18 million which equates to $300 to 360 million a year just for the racing, what about that budget cap?

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th January 2013, 19:06

            No, we don’t know. You’re just assuming, and you’re assuming the worst because you don’t like it. How can you reasonably claim to know where all of the money is going when no details of a contract have ever been made public?

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th January 2013, 22:58

            @prisoner-monkeys, yes we do know, CVC publish annual reports, but you are right I don’t like it.

          • Funkyf1 (@funkyf1) said on 26th January 2013, 23:54

            @prisoner-monkeys I wasn’t referring to the fee being lower. more so to the cost of the whole event, minimizing the overall loss. The fee is what is is and not a debatable subject, it just remains the best way to get a knee jerk reaction from the public. 30m is nothing to hold a world class event, the government spend that without blinking a eye, it’s the poor event management, construction costs, road closures etc… where the money is lost. This could be done better, made more affordable in-return soaking up the missing 22m loss that nobody has bothered to address.

    • Prof Kirk (@prof-kirk) said on 26th January 2013, 0:35

      We should be grateful that Australia is in the position where we can complain about if we should or shouldn’t be able to hold the Melbourne GP, and that this debate constantly makes the headlines in the press.

      It’s a silly issue, but I’d rather silliness then serious disaster and depressing articles in the press.

    • Tommy C (@tommy-c) said on 26th January 2013, 0:47

      It’s funny how the journalist tries to make it sound like Formula One is a tiny insignificant international sport that few overseas would bother watching the race due to the time zone. I don’t know about you, but I certainly make sure I get up at ridiculous hours to watch every race in the Americas and I’m sure fans in Europe are much the same. Besides, it seems the coverage of the races elsewhere is somewhat more comprehensive than it is here in that you can simply watch a replay or highlights the next day or week if you’re not quite so dedicated.

    • How are the other media voicing their opinion? I usually just read the roundup, and I see the headlines of The Age. Are the other news outlets in Australia voicing a more positive opinion?

      To what can we compare The Age anyway? Kind of like Daily Mail or something? Or more serious?

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th January 2013, 7:35

        To what can we compare The Age anyway? Kind of like Daily Mail or something? Or more serious?

        Oh, it’s much more respectable a publication than a tabloid rag. But that’s the problem – it has a distinct political leaning to it, and a reputation that means it can get away with stuff like this without being condmened as sensationalistic.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th January 2013, 15:20

          As pm says “respectable” but whether it is left leaning or centrist depends on your point of view, if you think of the Torygraph or Fox news as fair and balanced then you will be an “Australian” reader, however, much as we may not like it, it is the job of the press to question government expenditure and the Governments job to justify it, the Govt. in Austin TX have done an excellent job of this, the Vic. govt. should do the same.

          • Funny, I would say it’s the press’ job to bring news in a nonobjective way. It’s easy to criticize government spending while not bothering to report on the benefits. Hear both parties. What The Age seems to be doing here is report on one side of the story without even bothering the slightest on the other side of the story. How can readers form a proper opinion if a news outlet does that?

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th January 2013, 23:04

            Mo, this particular jounalist obviously prefers ball-sports to motorsports but how can his paper publish the other side of the story if the Govt. don’t make the figures available?

          • @hohum a good journalist would be able to figure it out. There’s always the freedom of information act to find out about such things. But of course that would mean more (read: proper) work for him, and bashing is just so much easier in the end.

  2. dragoll (@dragoll) said on 26th January 2013, 0:16

    Mark Gallagher’s tweet raises an interesting point, if he’s right, we’ll be hearing a well timed announcement at some point. When I say well timed, it’ll be of benefit to Marussia.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th January 2013, 7:48

      @dragoll – I think they’ll be hard-pressed to upstage McLaren on that front. When there was increasing talk that the annoucement of Lewis Hamilton’s future would be made within a few hours or days, McLaren managed to get in first and announce that Sergio Perez would be racing for them just hours before Hamilton was announced at Mercedes. At the time, there was plenty of speculation linking Hamilton to both McLaren and Mercedes, so McLaren really managed to steal Mercedes’ thunder by announcing Perez. I have to wonder if Mercedes only confirmed Hamilton because of McLaren’s announcement, reasoning that there was no sense drawing things out if McLaren had already said Hamilton was leaving.

      So if Marussia want to get in a well-timed annoucement of their own, it would probably have to be when Caterham are on the verge of making an announcement of their own. Especially if they poach someone that Caterham are currently considering.

      • dragoll (@dragoll) said on 27th January 2013, 2:09

        @prisoner-monkeys you are right, McLaren are king of positive press releases.Maybe the PR department of the Australian GP Corporation could borrow a few of the McLaren staff, things would be rosey all round ;)

  3. BenH (@benh) said on 26th January 2013, 1:35

    Yes I am not surprised that it was fairly well sealed behind the scenes for Glock before the press got wind of it. Looking at the test pictures, it all seemed very placed to say he had only supposedly lost his job less than 48 hours before. To arrange a test session, show up in full BMW team clobber, smiling throughout and not looking bitter that he has only just lost an F1 drive and to have a deal signed and sealed within another 48 hours? Very convenient turnaround. Wouldnt also surprise me if the Glock deal was in place fully before Marussia announcement and possibly Marussia even helped Glock get the seat to sweeten the pot a bit and make him want to walk away from another F1 year and a nice pay cheque from that.

  4. Gumby said on 26th January 2013, 8:37

    To be honest, there needs to be a rule in F1 that guarantees that a drivers contract will not run out because a team has taken their sweet time deciding on who to pick for a driver.

    kinda like, all driver contracts expire at the same time every year, and teams cannot wait until there are no seats left before they decide to dump a driver. Force India does not even deserve a driver for how they handle the contracts. Make em put their driver on the market (or hire him), WELL before the season ends, or WELL before the season starts.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th January 2013, 12:50

      kinda like, all driver contracts expire at the same time every year, and teams cannot wait until there are no seats left before they decide to dump a driver

      So what happens when a team waits until the day of the deadline to let a driver go, giving that driver no opportunity to find another seat?

      Your solution is not a solution because there is no problem that needs to be fixed. Formula 1 does not owe its drivers anything, and you cannot reasonably expect teams to prioritise their current drivers over the drivers that are best for the team simply so that their current drivers can find a seat at another team. It might be a littel cruel sometimes to see a driver squeezed out of his seat through no fault of his own, but there is no way around it, and assigning an arbitrary deadline for driver line-ups to be confirmed doesn’t change anything, as I demosntrated above.

      • Gumby said on 26th January 2013, 22:07

        “So what happens when a team waits until the day of the deadline to let a driver go, giving that driver no opportunity to find another seat?”

        Make em put their driver on the market (or hire him), WELL before the season ends, or WELL before the season starts.

        Didja miss that part?

        “Formula 1 does not owe its drivers anything,”

        loll Wowww, who are you?.. Bernie who said he was gonna hold the races without the drivers a couple years ago? That’s exactly what that sounds like. Ok, screw the drivers, go race without em Bernie.

        I have been following the site for quite awhile and really enjoy the input you provide pm. Really good informative stuff, but when you start sound sounding like Bernie, then I will start to respect you like I do Bernie. Sorry.

  5. andae23 (@andae23) said on 26th January 2013, 9:50

    Loved that little photo gallery on F1.com. Just unimaginable that they used the same set of tyres for multiple races.

    • @andae23 – that probably wouldn’t have been unprecedented in the Bridgestone era, those tyres could easily last several race distances! It just shows how time has progressed really, budgets were much less of an influential factor then to performance which I suspect was related to the more open rule book and of course the lack of sponsorship and media coverage.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th January 2013, 15:30

        @vettel1, but surely, Max, it is much more economical to use the same tyres for several races than it is to use several tyres for one race, and this was way before Bridgestone were involved and also before wings and downforce. At least the drivers were able to “attack ” all race long without fear of “the cliff”.

        • @hohum – if by economical you mean durable and environmentally-friendly then yes indeed. If by economical you mean cost-effective though then not so: the tyre war cost many more monies than Pirelli have spent. For sure though a single tyre supplier designing tyres that lasted more than 20 laps would save money over one which designed there’s to last about 10 minutes (obviously I’m exaggerating but I’m just trying to emphasise the point).

          You have to also consider the increased TV revenues associated with the “improved show” however and I think that probably negates any extra cost (I’m sure the news of exciting races attracted audiences). Of course that is not certain but I doubt either way it would significantly affect costs having “designed to degrade” tyres and whether you support that trend or loathe it is just a matter of personal opinion (personally I would like to see slightly more conservative tyres but I feel Pirelli have struck a decent balance).

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th January 2013, 17:09

            @vettel1, I’m not supporting a tyre war, Pirelli make the tyres that Bernie wants, they could make any tyre they were asked to make and with all the handwringing about costs in F1 I think a durable tyre could be advantageous.

            That said I am still mystified by the contradictory beliefs that lack of grip on a wet track makes for exciting races (remember Bernie suggesting sprinklers) and the other belief that lack of ultimate grip due to durable tyres makes for boring racing. It just doesn’t make sense.

          • @hohum

            the other belief that lack of ultimate grip due to durable tyres makes for boring racing. It just doesn’t make sense.

            I absolutely agree with you on that account, we merely have to look to Austin to back up that statement! I don’t think that would be the case though: durable doesn’t necessarily equate to slippery and so I think durable tyres wouldn’t really have a noticeable effect on the racing in that respect.

            I’m in favour of Pirelli’s approach because I like to see strategy played out in races as well as wheel-to-wheel racing and that has been achieved with the new tyres, something I don’t think was achieved with refuelling. Obviously it is not perfect (I would like to see a less pronounced “cliff” so drivers feel more inclined to take a bit more life out of the tyres and a slightly longer range & operating window) but I prefer this to pit stops only ever being made because they were mandated by re regulations.

            A slightly different construction and a rule alteration I think could keep both parties happy: make the tyres less sensitive and allow teams to choose there own tyre selections for each weekend. That would mean you could pick softer compounds and qualify higher but at the expense of race strategy or pick the harder compounds, compromising qualifying but improving your race prospects. That would give us some very intriguing strategies and provide wheel-to-wheel, flat-out racing. A win win!

          • I should also add that the “use both compounds rule” should be deleted but the “start on tyre on which you set your fastest time” rule should stay, to prevent the super-soft being used like a qualifying tyre just to be ditched for the medium/hard at the start of the race. I would probably have it too that you have an “option a” (softs) or an “option b” (hards).

          • Peter_H said on 26th January 2013, 19:50

            wheel-to-wheel racing and that has been achieved with the new tyres

            When have the pirelli’s ever produced good wheel to wheel racing?

            as soon as you have 2 drivers fighting for position on different compounds or with tyres at different stages of wear, The car on the fresher tyres or softer compound simply drives clean past with relative ease with the car on the harder compound or more worn tyres unable to do anything to defend.

            That certainly isn’t good wheel to wheel racing, Its uncontested highway passing which is about as (un) exciting to watch as a drs pass.

          • I think the “highway passing” you talk of is mainly DRS and very infrequently do drivers cruise by because another’s tyres have gone off. For sure we se it happening but normally there is good racing which is being spoiled by DRS, not the tyres.

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th January 2013, 23:11

            @vettel1, I agree with everything you say except I have to point out that the more durable the tyre the harder the compound, and the harder the compound the less grip, if it were not so cars would qualify on the hardest compound available.

          • @hohum – of course, I don’t think I was very clear on what I actually intended to say in that statement! What I meant to say really was that of the tyres weren’t “designed to degrade” that wouldn’t automatically lead to less grippy compounds: the current Pirelli’s aren’t exactly operating at peak efficiency! ;)

  6. Alex Brown (@splittimes) said on 26th January 2013, 11:10

    Great COTD.

    I can see Toro Rosso giving him a shot in a couple of years. He has the race-proven speed and mentality Helmut Marko’s looking for, but the doubt is on his fitness. No-one doubts Ricciardo or JEV’s fitness; the question mark surrounds their ‘future-champion’ status.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th January 2013, 12:37

      @splittimes – Red Bull has plenty of young talent lined up in the junior formulae. I don’t think they’d take a chance on Robert Kubica being totally recovered from his injuries when they can get the likes of Antonio Felix da Costa.

      • Alex Brown (@splittimes) said on 26th January 2013, 16:17

        @prisoner-monkeys They’re loyalty to any talent seems somewhat limited to me. I’m sure its within their capabilities to leave one of their proteges out in the cold. And If Kubica can’t deliver, I’m sure they’ll offer him a role as reserve driver.

        • @splittimes – I don’t find it very likely that Toro Rosso would sign him: Helmut Marko is the head of the young driver development programme and so will be more interested in the drivers whom Red Bull have sponsored/are sponsoring in the junior categories, such as Felix Da Costa.

          I think it would be more likely that if he were to be up to fitness next season he would drive with one of the other midfield teams, perhaps Lotus as he has had previous connections with the Enstone team and he is a known quantity for them. Of course though that all depends if a seat is vacant which may seem unlikely but they could tire of Grosjean possibly or perhaps Räikkönen will move? Toro Rosso I doubt though.

          • AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 27th January 2013, 10:21

            @vettel1 I reckon his days are numbered. There’s plenty of room in F1 for his talent but even guys like Glock are being forced to retire through no fault of their own; money. If we didn’t have the pay driver situation in F1 I reckon his chances would be much higher.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 26th January 2013, 19:12

          Sorry, but I think the idea of Kubica joining Toro Rosso is a little contrived. It reads like you’re trying to fit the facts into a conclusion you have already come to, as opposed to looking at the facts and coming to a conclusion.

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 27th January 2013, 3:35

            While I am thrilled for Ncedi that he survived his motorcycle accident and has also found the courage to ride again, and has found a way to adapt/compensate for his arm limitations, that is not the equivalent of returning to the pinnacle of racing, F1, after being out for so long and going up against fully healthy competitors in an environment of split second reactions often making all the difference.

            I admire Ncedi’s courage and conviction, as I do RK’s, but I just don’t see how a return to F1 for him is feasible.

  7. For anyone who might not have seen it yet, you’ve got to check out this amazing motorsport clip, DTM 2012 – The Movie

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.