Quote:
Originally Posted by Aysedasi
Bearing in mind that one car was eliminated through no fault of it's own, can you give me your 'several things'?
|
Start on pole, finish the race, take it more conservatively in order to finish the race (if they were told to be more conservative in traffic and Nakajima had been a little more patient, then who knows? For a podium, all it woud have taken would have been to go a bit faster than the Rebellions - aside from the small matter of having no issues
), split strategies as I previously mentioned (although this would have been made redundant by Davidson's unfortunate accident anyway), been a little less conservative with the whole project.
Basically, my point is, if Toyota chucked millions at it, started this project sooner, and already had their race debut, they'd have had a better debut. Which is kinda obvious really - if Toyota was a dream team, it would have had a dream debut. That hasn't happened and it's not TMG's fault. I'm not blaming them. But this poll doesn't mention context, and I don't see how Toyota's debut can better Peugeot's near-perfect debut (don't forget how wet that race was to compound the challenge).
As I said, I'm not belittling Toyota's debut. They did superbly well. They could have done better though, because we can all agree it's not perfect. Toyota #7 didn't finish, Peugeot did, and that's what Le Mans is about.
This question should be asked a little longer after the race. I think when the TS030 reaches its potential, Le Mans 2012 will be seen as only a mini-demo of what was to come, while Peugeot's 2007 effort wasn't far short of what the car was capable of anyway.
No idea why I wrote so much on this subject, as I like to draw a line on the Pug era and I want Toyota to be seen as a new team. I never particularly liked the Peugeots and I'm glad this season we lost some diesels. But when I vote on something I like to defend myself