Quote:
Originally Posted by Skemer
I think it is not the fact the mechanical failure occured wich is called bad luck by some but when it occured was bad luck.Meaning:,would this have happened say at the time the leading #7 had a sensor failure in "14 the team maybe would have been able to consolidate a win in '16.
|
Going to the territory of hypothetical scenarios is always dangerous, because even the smallest of variations can radically change possible future outcomes - the butterfly effect... but had it happened somewhere else in the race they likely would've never had the chance to be in a position where they were anyway couple of minutes before the end of the race, but rather radically delayed (also reinforced by the fact that traditionally Toyota's been slower to fix problems than the VW opposition), if not altogether retired.
I get what you're saying but regardless of at which point the failure may or may not happen doesn't matter, everything that happens in a race matters just as much, whether it's in the opening laps (like ByKolles last year) or closing laps... sure you'd rather have it anywhere else but at the end, because as you say you can at least attempt consolidate and still get theoretical outcome - and better yet some events like Daytona 24 Hours artificially give you free gift laps back when caution occurs - but failure is a failure and is just as much your fault.
The opposition didn't get 'lucky' because of your failure, I think that's the specific phrasing I'm arguing for. Perhaps other definitions of luck could be utilized in some form, but not that one. So maybe I wasn't clear enough by what I said