2008 Formula One French Grand Prix

[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.

[henk4]

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?

[Matra et Alpine]

again, thank you .... if we "assume" Hamilton's actions then how can we legitimately punish him so severly ?

And sorry, but NO F1 driver is going to "plan" an off like that as there's far too many aero devices which coudl be damaged and drastically affect the car performance.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

again, thank you .... if we "assume" Hamilton's actions then how can we legitimately punish him so severly ?

And sorry, but NO F1 driver is going to "plan" an off like that as there's far too many aero devices which coudl be damaged and drastically affect the car performance.

Then why was he taking such a great risk?
The car was not damaged and Hamilton knew the track (and the trick?), and he was not "severely" punished, it was only a drive through and not a stop and go...

[Matra et Alpine]

erm, he wasn't taking a "great risk" ... you're applying that 20:20 hindsight again
Equally the car MIGHT have been damamged and so it wouldn't make sense to plan to take that route.
He WAS "severly" punished as 30 seconds is a LONG time ... yes not as long as the up to minute that a stop go incurs. BUT I keep pointing out ... the penalty was severe. It coudl have been done post-race as a fine or grid drop or a simple warning.

[henk4]

so there is a feeling that he did something wrong as you call the punishment too severe. Now if a punishment is due then it should affect him during the race, otherwise it is like a yellow card and a suspension in soccer, which does not help the opponents team during the match, but the team that is playing next week
The bottom line is that Hamilton entered himself in a overoptimistic overtaking move, passed somebody, but could not keep the track. Due to the favourable condition of the run-off area he was able to maintain position. He should have let Vettel pass again and make another attempt. No steward would then have considered a punishment, because he had rectified the situation by himself.

You may disagree, but this is it for me. (as they say: over and out)

[Matra et Alpine]

only one thing ... WHY shoudl punishment be during the race ?
MANY punishmenst have and are handed out post race.