Shame it now has to come to the final race, but it does make things more interesting.
Yep — Kimi should've secured the title already, but what can you do if your car's hydraylics let you down twice down the road. That unreliability means about 20 points advantage to Hamilton, who only has retired once for team stupidity. Same kind of stupidity cost Kimi points in Monaco, but there seems to always be at least one bogus race in the season and that just has to be accepted.
I hate this current points system which means reliability is everything. Victory is not valuable anymore. Back in 80's when not all races count there was a lot more racing going on. In my opinion F1 can have as many races during the season but only so many should be counted in to the championship. Say 10-12 or so. That would reward victors no matter the points system.
Pole is a joke as well, but that's another irrelevant story because they don't give points to the "fastest". In my opinion F1 should get back to the old qualifying rules, perhaps modifying it so only 10 fastest on friday quali would be allowed to enter the saturday quali, but whatever the change the race fuel load must go. It makes qualifyin boring, it is not even worth watching!
Ok, enough off-topic...
EDIT: checked out the facts. During 1985-1990 only 11 best results of 16 races were counted. That was a mighty interesting era! Since 1991 every race was counted and victory earned 10 popints instead of 9 — and that has been boring.
1991 was Senna's year, 1992 Mansell's and 1993 Prost's domination. Nobody could touch them. 1994-1995 had racing between Schumacher and Hill, but Schumi won because he bent the rules and didn't get caught. Had Senna not died in 1994 that would've been Senna domination again for many years, because 1992-1997 Williams had the invincible car and Senna finally got that in 1994, which ultimately wasn't a good move for him. So, that would have been 7 years of boring F1 had Senna not lost his life. Instead it was only 5 boring years as the Schumi-Hill battles were the most interesting racing since 1990 and old rules.
(speculation)Perhaps there would not ever have been the Schumacher era if Senna had not died in 1994, because a lot of Schumi's Ferrari domination was built with the personnel he got used to during the Bennetton years. If that wasn't success, most probably not many of them had followed him to Ferrari.(/speculation)
After the boring 6-year Williams-domination era FIA introduced groove tyres, which gave McLaren a chance, because after all they have always been good in getting used to new regulations faster than others. 1998-1999 saw good racing between Häkkinen and Schumi, but that was it, the rest of the series was boring. And we all know what happened between 2000 and 2004, nothing much, because Schumi took it all. FIA tried its best to make things more interesting and introduced a new points system in 2003, but that made things even less interesting because after the first season with new rules drivers got over-careful and began to fear making mistakes instead of driving boldly to the victory.
(speculation)This might become third time Kimi loses the championship title due to car unreliability. Or because Germany doesn't suit finns; each time (2003/2005/2007) a DNF in Germany due to car unreliability.(/speculation)
I know, I sound like old fart that longs back to one's youth. But the fact is, I enjoyed watching F1 racing more during the 80's when finnish drivers were not winning rather than now that Kimi is fighting for the title for the third time. There is very little racing in F1 today.