I can only go by what you write.
No, I'm not at all. I'm saying that talk of luck or otherwise is a discussion of the outcome of a process, not the process itself. If in every instance your teammate suffers the exact same failure, then that's not bad fortune, that is poor engineering. But if you have more failures compared to your teammate, then that is misfortune.
One final comment, before your logic self destructs.
If a given process is not a process of chance -- and I suppose we both agree F1 cars are not build by process of chance but by engineering knowledge -- then the outcome, good or bad, cannot be assigned a value of something that measures chance; in this case that of luck or bad luck.
Ergo, F1 team building an unreliable car did not do so, because they had bad luck. A part that is defect was not so because of bad luck -- and ultimately the driver driving the car that breaks down did not suffer bad luck. His car was unreliable due to (fill in the technical reason) and he could not finish the task. Not because of bad luck, but because something in the chain went wrong.
One can, from an emotional point of view, sort to making animal offerings, reading tea-leaves, do some voodoo -- whatever makes you happy, but factually none have any bearings to the reality. The same is true for all the lucky vs unlucky chatter taking place here.