Originally Posted by
Matra et Alpine
I knwo the track and that's why in my comment I'd raised about how MUCH of grass was cut.
In critical analysis of a system then exploring where thoses limits exist are important. A full vut is clear to everyone. A 50% cut possibly also, a 25% cut ? debatable and repeating THAT is the point about the penalty given. There's no independant evidence and Hamilton's situation is open to huge interpretation and no evidence. So thus the penalty was inappropriate.
Your eau rouge example is a differnet issue. Repeatedly cutting has always been known to be a situation where you will be given a warngin flag adn if you copntinue you'll get a black flag. Different situation entirely.
Why can't we assume that Hamilton was so cunning that he lifted his speed to "ludicrous" levels, knowing that if he could not make the corner he would always be able to carry on in a straight line and find the track again, and knowing that the condition of the run-off area was good enough to let him maintain position?
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams