Brazilian Grand Prix 2010, Interlagos Circuit - Race 18/19

sunama · 10 Nov 2010 at 20:34

PinkFloyd said:
So reserving the champion status to specific drivers.

Not specific drivers.

If a driver like Webber (who is average), performs out of his skin in any given year and is the best driver/car package, then of course he deserves to win the title. But to win the title simply because your team-mate's car keeps breaking down isn't right.

There is no rule that states that a driver who is performing poorly, cannot up his game. Button did this in 2009, where in 2008, he was beaten by Barrichello. The following year, he upped his game and comprehensively outperformed Barrichello. He won 6 out of 7 races that year and rightfully won the title.

Webber on the other hand is getting beat in pretty much every race, by Vettel. In every race he starts, he is (realistically) aiming for 2nd place, behind his team-mate because his team-mate is untouchable.

Glaucus · 10 Nov 2010 at 20:57

sunama said:
Webber on the other hand is getting beat in pretty much every race, e.

That's utter BS, just look at the points.

PinkFloyd · 10 Nov 2010 at 21:05

Vettel may have had a few reliability problems, but I think that the amount of times he has broken his car by driving like an absolute fool are far more telling of who is more deserving to win a title.

Glaucus · 10 Nov 2010 at 21:05

No such thing as luck.

Cavallino · 10 Nov 2010 at 21:12

AcidHell2 said:
No such thing as luck.

I depair... I really do.

Glaucus · 10 Nov 2010 at 21:13

Cavallino said:
I depair... I really do.

why?

everything is a result of something else.

What's the chances he always gets the poorer machined parts, or is it to do with how hard he pushes his luck.

Either way luck is not involved.

Or have you got some scientific evidence and support for such a claim as luck exists.

arknor · 10 Nov 2010 at 21:16

sure there is but you make your own luck.

which is why barrichello never had any!

Glaucus · 10 Nov 2010 at 21:17

arknor said:
sure there is but you make your own luck.

the fact you make it, means it's not luck.

the force that causes things, especially good things, to happen to you by chance and not as a result of your own efforts or abilities

In other words a random event not caused by anything. That is never ever the case.

however it's easier to use the word luck, especially when the reasons aren't known. So still a useful word.

el_dazza · 10 Nov 2010 at 21:18

AcidHell2 said:
Didn't you say that last year with JB,
Who ever wins it deserves, there is no devaluation going on. Webber won;t be in the same league as them. They all won multiple times.

I can spot 2 that didn't in that list..

PinkFloyd · 10 Nov 2010 at 21:19

Changed my post to not use the word luck - save us going on a tangent on whether luck exists or not!

dannyjo22 · 10 Nov 2010 at 23:32

FrankJH said:
Reubens moaned because he legitimately couldnt keep up in most of the races in the same equipment

For all we know if Reubens had been faster - for whatever reason - JB could have pushed harder when out front also (from qualifying further up , which is what he was doing most of the time early last season compared to his teammate)

That isn't what happened though, I suggest you watch the 2009 spanish gp again. Rubens led, rubens was pulling away and they switch JB's strategy right before rubens stop to give JB the fastest option for the rest of the race.

They engineered Jb into first place, anyone who watched that race know Brawn laid down the marker as to who was no 1. Yes they didn't get Rubens to move over, they did it on the sly.

The british press would have gone mental had it been the over way around.

I wanted JB to win the title, I really dislike rubens but it was clear what happened.

deko · 10 Nov 2010 at 23:51

dannyjo22 said:
I really dislike rubens

That's impossible.

sunama · 11 Nov 2010 at 00:18

deko said:

Fantastic!!!

sunama · 11 Nov 2010 at 00:29

AcidHell2 said:
In other words a random event not caused by anything. That is never ever the case.

however it's easier to use the word luck, especially when the reasons aren't known. So still a useful word.

Some good points there.

I'm not sure though if Vettel's driving style is causing the car failures.

Cavallino · 11 Nov 2010 at 00:55

Acid here's an examle for you.

Ceteris Paribus on the grid.
Theres a 50% of rain on Sunday. You change the setup of the car to that of a wet setup.

Come race day, it does rain.

Are you considered lucky that it has rained and ergo, conditions suit your car?
(And likewise unlucky vice versa?)

Glaucus · 11 Nov 2010 at 01:00

no., its called playing the odds, luck does not exist.

Cavallino · 11 Nov 2010 at 01:09

AcidHell2 said:
no., its called playing the odds, luck does not exist.

I see Luck/Unluck is the result of playing the odds.

Otherwise if the result of a choice is 100% known there would be no uncertainty element and in this scenario luck would cease to exist.

Hence "try your luck".

You a roll dice 100 times and I will bet you a fiver that you will roll a '6' 99 of the 100 rolls. You'd say that was very unlikely and would take that bet (and I'd agree with you of course).

And it is the fact that the liklihood of such an outcome is so improbable that if indeed achieved, you would label such an outcome as lucky (or unlucky if you lost the money).

Luck is not a physical entity or a measurable quanitity. Its the unlikely/unexpected result of an event or series of events.

Glaucus · 11 Nov 2010 at 01:12

AcidHell2 said:
the fact you make it, means it's not luck.

In other words a random event not caused by anything. That is never ever the case.

however it's easier to use the word luck, especially when the reasons aren't known. So still a useful word.

even throwing a dice is not random if you have the veribles and did some complicated maths you could find the result.

arknor · 11 Nov 2010 at 07:54

dannyjo22 said:
That isn't what happened though, I suggest you watch the 2009 spanish gp again. Rubens led, rubens was pulling away and they switch JB's strategy right before rubens stop to give JB the fastest option for the rest of the race.

They engineered Jb into first place, anyone who watched that race know Brawn laid down the marker as to who was no 1. Yes they didn't get Rubens to move over, they did it on the sly.

The british press would have gone mental had it been the over way around.

I wanted JB to win the title, I really dislike rubens but it was clear what happened.

they have done the same to msc this year aswell... even though theres no championship at stake , ferrari and red bull have less team orders. so im convinced barrichello always had the bad pit stratergies on purpose much like msc has at most races this year

schumachers pitstops for the last few races nearly always put him behind a slower car or give rosberg the lead.

they did it for sure in suzuka , in brazil he needed 1-2 laps to come out infront of sutil and button was already to close for stopping schumacher to make a difference.

they seem to really care about rosberg finishing 7th in the championship for some reason.

schumacher even let rosberg back through after rosberg has his pitstop behind the safety car :S

why did they only want rosberg on fresh tyres :confused:

most people seem to think schumacher is playing along though so next year when its rosbergs turn he has to suck it up.

schumacher was obviously quicker in suzuka , quicker in brazil before his stop so hes probably convinced he can start the season next year and be instantly quicker than rosberg especially in a car hes had some input into

Cavallino · 11 Nov 2010 at 09:26

AcidHell2 said:
even throwing a dice is not random if you have the veribles and did some complicated maths you could find the result.

You can also say that most people throwing the dice are not aware of which are the most favourable results as a result of the "complicated maths".

It maybe the case that a certain number (over a long period of time) crops out more often than others. But the point is that if they are throwing the dice from scratch and have no history or info concerning the previous rolls (which in a perfect world would have no bearing on the results of the future), the thrower not be able to make such "calculations".

Ergo, with that in mind, they are throwing with "uncertainty".

It is that "uncertainty", betting on that "uncertainty" and attaining that which is uncertain, that is synonymous with "luck".

Also I'm not sure if you realise what you said there. To me it suggests that you are claiming the results of dice throwing can be predicted/calculated using "complicated maths", if that we're true then I'm sure this would have been exploited. However if you are stating that the "likelihood" of the results can be calculated, then this is just fundamental statistics, which goes back to my original argument of uncertainty.