1. Renault - Far, far too many failures this weekend.
2. Sky's commentary team - Insipid, biased and utterly moronic commentary all race long, constantly talking about whether Vettel's move at the start was deliberate (spoiler alert Ted, it wasn't). Make the most of Channel 4's coverage while you can folks, this is the reality you face from 2019 onwards.
Fetzie on Ferrari wrote:How does a driver hurtling around a race track while they're sous-viding in their overalls have a better understanding of the race than a team of strategy engineers in an air-conditioned room?l
1.Renault -- As I said in the IRC, Renault are like Trump. They both can't stand Mexico.
2.DC -- The man won his fourth title, an achievement only achieved by so few others previously. Let the man celebrate and don't ask him questions before he's taken his damn helmet off.
My friend's USB drive spoiled, spilled tea on her laptop and had a bird poo in her hand.
1. Renault: Awful engines, robbed Hülkenberg of a great finish (the second time this year he retired from fourth place). 2. Sebastian Vettel: Good recovery, yes, but he crashed at the start again (which I predicted would happen). Thanks for that, we wouldn't have had two Finns on the podium otherwise.
I'm giving all sixteen points to Renault. Maybe you can split that as ten for the engine and six for the team, if you want. Earlier this year I said the Renault RS-17 was capable of fifth place in the Constructors' Championship - and I stand by that, it would have been had it not been for the kind of failures we've seen today, and last week in Austin. It's looking more and more like Hülk can stop being quite so hard on himself (if he has been) for the error in Baku and more tilted towards these kinds of reliability problems and the shoulda, coulda, woulda that was when they'd drop Jolyon Palmer - had they done so earlier, the other driver, Carlos Sainz or otherwise, might have been able to bring home the bacon more. Instead, they're now only a point ahead of Haas when they should be well ahead of Toro Rosso, and in front of the ailing Williams as well. Fernando Alonso may have moaned about the number of points that McLaren-Honda have pissed up against the wall this season, but I'd say Renault have been more guilty of that. We expected horrors from Honda, after all. And as we all know, it's all about the Constructors' Championship where the money is - fifth pays a lot more than seventh.
James Allen, on his favourite F1 engine of all time: "...the Life W12, I can't describe the noise to you, but imagine filling your dustbin with nuts and bolts, and then throwing it down the stairs, it was something akin to that!"
All points go to Renault. When the commentary team is talking about how a viable strategy is to simply ride around and wait for the lead cars engine to explode, you have a few issues.
Professional Historian/Semi-Retired Drag Racer/Whiskey Enthusiast
"When I was still racing, I never once thought 'Oh, I can't damage the car here'." - Jolyn Palmer
Me either Jolyn, maybe that's why we're both out, eh?
1. DRS - Hamilton couldn't follow or overtake anyone without it. This was a race for the championship, and as far as I'm concerned, Ericsson and Alonso were the only ones who even challenged him for position. His car was beaten up, and he got given a lot of help all day, despite the first-lap issue. 2. Renault - hard not to nominate them. Engine or team.
Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.
1 and 2 because there is nothing that was really rejectful compared to Renault with their failures. You can blame it on the thin air, yes, but the fact that Renault had so many failures is absolutely rejectful.
1. Renault 2. Raikkonen - wasn't involved in any shenanigans, but ended up nearly a minute off the lead and only 16s in front of his teammate who was totally in the wars. He's obviously only there to keep Seb happy.
Other dishonourable mentions:
The Stewards' inconsistency - Vettel passed Massa totally off track and didn't get a penalty. It does seem that a lot of inconsistent decisions go in Ferrari's favour!
The title protagonists - Vettel why put yourself in that position when you have to finish top 2 no matter what? And Hamilton you honestly think it was deliberate - why he would risk putting himself out when he had to be top 2?
"Poor old Warwick takes it from behind all throughout this season". (Tony Jardine, 1988)
1. Renault - Both works cars fail along with two others 2. Hamilton - All those radio messages felt more like whinging than nervousness
I can't give anything to Vettel; even though that collision was his fault (not to be confused with intentional), without it there wouldn't've been any doubt regarding the championship other than hoping for a mechanical issue
Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
Somebody mentioned it, dishonourable mention to the lack of action on the Vettel / Massa overtake. Looked pretty illegal from what I saw. But oh well.
Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.
RoTR: 1. Renault (the team): Wasted a good qualifying (and both drivers' pretty decent chances at podiums) with two DNFs, on a day when Williams and Haas scored points. 2. Renault (the engine supplier): Out-Honda'd Honda with reliability problems. DHM: Hamilton: Moaned throughout the race while Vettel (in the exact same circumstances, but more pressure) just got on with overtaking. Ericsson's engine: Ruined his half-decent chance at points.
1. Renault Engines. It's exceedingly difficult to make Honda look reliable. You managed to do so. 2. Renault themselves. Double DNF when a double points finish looked very likely.
HM: Haas. I realize KMag came 8th, but god damn, they looked out to lunch for the majority of the event.
1. Renault engines ....what happened? We may never know, but the impression is that they were unable to cope 2. Raikkonen..didnt make much impression on Bottas . Maybe he saved his engine ...but ..
I started supporting Emmo in 1976 (3 points )....missed 75, 74, 73, 72...
1/ Renault engines - For blowing up. 2/ Renault F1 Team - For blowing what should have been at least P4 and P5, potentially better if the safety car had worked out for them.
Now normally you're not allowed to put two nominations on the same thing, and I could the "all points to ___" as 10 points with no second nomination. However, under the circumstances, Renault is being referred to as both a manufacturer and as an engine supplier, and both were equally nominated. Therefore the results are:
1. Renault 310 2. Sebastian Vettel 22 3. Kimi Räikkönen 16 4. Hamilton being disingenuous / whinging 12 5. DRS 10 6. The title battle 6 - David Coulthard 6 - Sky's commentary team 6
So Renault wins by a country mile. I'm pretty sure that's the biggest nomination in terms of points all year. The engine was crap, two of the six cars finished, the one that won is technically a TAG-Heuer one, and neither of the two Renault constructor cars actually finished the race because of it. Sebastian Vettel was a very distant second for his first-lap collisions that lost him the championship for good.
Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.
(Tony Jardine, 1988)
