69 replies to this topic

[Pothead4Philosopher]

But if the team makes an engineering mistake, that's the driver's bad luck, isn't it?

Isn't the driver part of the said team? Team process failed -- next time let's make a better job.

Seriously, is it just me or do you folks want to wallow in some strange "my driver is so unlucky, oh my God, how can this happen -- he shoulda, woulda, coulda been WDC"-mode, 'cos that's OK by me.

I rather watch paint dry than argue semantics over simple basics of motor sport and what that entails.

[stanga]

Well, I am so happy you think to know what I am saying.

I said what I said. If you want to call defective part of a car breaking down as being 'unlucky' feel free. I do not.

I think you are confusing manufacturing process with a game of chance.

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.

[Ravenak]

Isn't the driver part of the said team? Team process failed -- next time let's make a better job.

Seriously, is it just me or do you folks want to wallow in some strange "my driver is so unlucky, oh my God, how can this happen -- he shoulda, woulda, coulda been WDC"-mode, 'cos that's OK by me.

I rather watch paint dry than argue semantics over simple basics of motor sport and what that entails.

It's important to educate people about how a driver won, so they don't speak bullcrap during years and years after that.

It's now or never.

Edited by Ravenak, 26 November 2012 - 11:37.

[ensign14]

Good thing that you are here to officially proclaim who deserves to be in F1 and who doesn't.

Well, I thought, if somebody has to, it should be me, on the basis that I'm a godlike genius.

[krapmeister]

It's important to educate people about how a driver won, so they don't speak bullcrap during years and years after that.

But who cares how when it's just the points that count?

[prty]

Well, I thought, if somebody has to, it should be me, on the basis that I'm a godlike genius.

Yeah it's hard to look past when reading the posts.

[Ravenak]

But who cares how when it's just the points that count?

You don't only remember drivers for the points, thank god.

[Pothead4Philosopher]

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.

[stanga]

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.

Arrogant, much?

Of course the whole luck/misfortune debate is subjective appraisal of the events after the fact. No one is suggesting there is some measurable variable that one driver has over another.

But by any definition, if two parts are shipped to an assembler, one of which is defective, and the defective one finds it's way into your car... that is misfortune. Which is what this thread is about. An appraisal of the outcome, not some mystical input into the process.

By the way, if the subject was so much 'chatter', I would have to question why you bothered posting at all. Were you trying to educate the ignorant masses perhaps?

[UPRC]

Vettel had the best luck. He avoided Grosjean all season long!

[ForzaGTR]

Bad reliability is NOT bad luck, it's bad reliability.

Being crashed into IS bad luck.

Fernando Alonso was the unlucky one.

Anyone can play that game, being crashed into is not bad luck, it's bad driving...

We are talking about events the driver has little or no control over, so being crashed into or suffering unexpected mechanical failures is bad luck.

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

Vettel had the best luck. He avoided Grosjean all season long!

Also had good luck in that he could easily have retired on lap 1 yesterday, or suffered damage which required a pitstop (ie new front wing) which would've put him even further behind by the end of lap 2.

[Anonymous]

Luckiest driver of the season: Alonso
Worst luck: Hamilton

[Pothead4Philosopher]

Arrogant, much?

(.....)

By the way, if the subject was so much 'chatter', I would have to question why you bothered posting at all. Were you trying to educate the ignorant masses perhaps?

I believe it was you who was making the initial presumption of knowing better what I was saying than I did -- reply in kind.

Was I or am I? -- Good question. Are you learning?

I am taking, here and there, opportunities to notch debates into a place where words have a meaning and logic has some semblance of -- well -- logic. Uphill battle, I know.

To opine aimlessly is a sign of an uneducated mind, shouldn't we all be eager to snap out of such trivia?

[stanga]

I believe it was you who was making the initial presumption of knowing better what I was saying than I did -- reply in kind.

Was I or am I? -- Good question. Are you learning?

I am taking, here and there, opportunities to notch debates into a place where words have a meaning and logic has some semblance of -- well -- logic. Uphill battle, I know.

To opine aimlessly is a sign of an uneducated mind, shouldn't we all be eager to snap out of such trivia?

First class. The pseudo-intellectual condescension is very well done.

Good luck with your quest to rid the internet of 'trivia'! Have you made a start with the 'Hello!' magazine forums?

[darkkis]

Luckiest was definitely Alonso.

Worst luck goes for Hamilton.

[Lambo]

Hmmmm pretty interesting that 50% of people think Alonso had more good luck than Vettel. I thought Vettel/ Hamilton would be the stand out scores for good/bad.

All those safety cars in Abu Dhabi and surviving that thump from Senna seems to me incredible luck the like of which I am not sure I have seen but guess you guys see it different.

Anyway guess we pretty much agree on bad luck and Lewis, not that you can blame a guy for taking the good luck that comes his way.

[Coops3]

I believe it was you who was making the initial presumption of knowing better what I was saying than I did -- reply in kind.

Was I or am I? -- Good question. Are you learning?

I am taking, here and there, opportunities to notch debates into a place where words have a meaning and logic has some semblance of -- well -- logic. Uphill battle, I know.

To opine aimlessly is a sign of an uneducated mind, shouldn't we all be eager to snap out of such trivia?

If you take your argument to its conclusion, does that mean there's no such thing as luck?

I think luck is a concept we apply to describe an outcome over which we have very little control. I think for most people, a manufacturing defect in an F1 engine which slips under the radar of a very stringent checking process would count as "unlucky".

[karne]

Lucky: Vettel/Raikkonen

Unlucky: Hamilton/Webber

[SpartanChas]

Vettel luckiest purely because of how he came out from turn 4 yesterday enabling him to carry on and win the championship.

Hamilton unluckiest. Should have been in contention for WDC yesterday or already had it sewn up. Schumacher almost as unlucky.