Brazilian Grand Prix 2010, Interlagos Circuit - Race 18/19
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
it's quite simple.
It is ok to describing something as luck as it is easier that defining the actual parameters, which often you wont know what they are.
However when analysing the season, or saying if only such and such had more luck. then that's not ok. As there is no such thing as luck. It's not measurable. It is not evolved in any equation to predict the outcome. For example vettle could have been using more revs, or pushing the engine harder, which is why it blew, or that the engine had been used for x-races already and was at the end of it's life. It didn't blow because of luck.
Right, ok, so I get you on that part now. Of course nothing happens because of luck, but how does that mean we can't say "if x had more luck"?
When somebody says "if only Vettel had more luck" in your scenario, they don't mean "Oh if only he possessed the magical power of making beneficial things happen to himself", they mean "If only he hadn't been pushing the engine at more than it could handle in that particular instance, or if only they'd picked another engine to use".
Or essentially, "if only those unmeasurable variables we had no control over had been slightly different unmeasurable variables in certain particular instances". What's so wrong with that?
EDIT: Also, I was going to stop, but given that we have an Abu Dhabi thread now to do proper F1 discussion in, I though I'd carry on.
Vettel could have been unlucky in respect to the overall quality of the engines he received, as a driver there's nothing he can do about issues during manufacturing. It could also have been his aggressive driving style but then why haven't all of his engines blown?
