In Montmelo, Spain, the less flattering side of Max Verstappen, recalling his old `Mad Max` nickname which he previously disliked, resurfaced during the final laps of the Spanish Grand Prix on Sunday.
Despite his impressive driving earlier in the race near Barcelona, Verstappen`s performance was marred by a seemingly angry reaction in the closing stages. After being instructed by his Red Bull team to return a position to Mercedes` George Russell, the reigning world champion slowed down coming out of Turn 4 to let Russell pass on the outside. However, he immediately accelerated again and made contact with the side of Russell`s car.
In the cool-down room, where the top three finishers watch race highlights, their reaction to Verstappen`s incident with Russell was telling.
“Oh my god,” exclaimed Charles Leclerc, who finished third, as the footage played. Race winner and championship leader Oscar Piastri simply commented, “Yikes.” Lando Norris, the runner-up, light-heartedly remarked he had done something similar, but “on Mario Kart.”
Many within the paddock viewed the move as deliberate, a moment where frustration seemingly boiled over, leading to an impulsive and questionable decision. When Sky Sports F1`s Rachel Brookes asked Verstappen if the contact was intentional after the race, his reply was dismissive and, perhaps surprisingly for a four-time world champion, lacking in seriousness: “Does it matter?”
Many would argue that it certainly does. George Russell, the driver whose car was struck, was clear about his belief regarding Verstappen`s intentions.
“It felt very deliberate, to be honest,” Russell stated Sunday evening. “It`s somewhat disappointing because Max is undeniably one of the best drivers globally, but maneuvers like that are completely unnecessary and detract from his reputation. It sets a poor example for young aspiring Formula 1 drivers watching.”
Russell was one of the few downplaying the events of the night. Former world champion Nico Rosberg, serving as a pundit for Sky Sports F1, was among the most critical, arguing Verstappen`s action warranted immediate disqualification.
“It appeared to be a clear intentional retaliation,” said the 2016 champion. “Waiting for the opponent, then ramming into him, seemingly in response to feeling rammed at Turn 1. That is absolutely unacceptable, and under the rules, I believe it should be a black flag. If you wait for your opponent to crash into them, that`s grounds for a black flag.”
Instead, Verstappen received a 10-second time penalty, dropping him to 10th place by the finish, along with three penalty points on his super licence. He is now just one point away from a full race ban, requiring him to navigate the upcoming races in Canada and Austria without further penalty points before his tally resets on the rolling 12-month period.
Legacies of two former world champions are marked by intentional incidents with rivals. Ayrton Senna controversially secured the 1990 world championship by colliding with Alain Prost`s Ferrari at the Japanese Grand Prix. Michael Schumacher famously won a title in 1994 and lost another in 1997 through collisions with Williams drivers Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve, respectively.
At least Senna and Schumacher`s most contentious moments occurred when a championship was at stake. Verstappen`s incident happened while battling for fourth position.
As has often been the case in his distinguished career, Verstappen`s racecraft will be a major topic of discussion leading up to the Canadian Grand Prix. His response to the Sky Sports question and his comment about Russell`s concerns regarding setting a bad example for young viewers (“I`ll bring some tissues next time”) suggested he might treat the renewed scrutiny lightly. (However, the day after publication, Verstappen showed remorse, acknowledging the clash with Russell “was not right” and “shouldn`t have happened.”)
Most recent F1 viewers have witnessed numerous examples of his exceptional on-track skill. His stunning victory in Brazil last year is considered one of the sport`s modern masterpieces. His pole lap at Suzuka this season was hailed as one of the finest ever seen in Formula 1. His brilliant overtake on Piastri for the lead at the Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix two weeks prior will be remembered as a great pass. Such praise is well-deserved.
Equally valid is criticism regarding the less admirable aspects of his racecraft.
Much of the positive reputation Verstappen has built in recent seasons as one of the sport`s truly great talents was damaged on Sunday by a single moment of poor judgment. It was perhaps fittingly Russell – a past critic of Verstappen – who best articulated the frustration of watching the brilliant yet seemingly flawed four-time world champion.
“Max is an incredible driver, and so many people admire him, it`s simply unfortunate that such incidents continue to occur,” the Mercedes driver remarked. “It`s completely unnecessary and rarely seems to benefit him.”
Russell highlighted the contrast in Verstappen`s driving with examples: his various clashes with Norris last year versus his superb move on Piastri for the lead at Imola recently.
“You see some of the best moves ever in Austin last year, and then in Mexico, he slightly undermines himself. You see one of the best moves in a long time at Imola, and then this happens. It ended up costing him and his team valuable points.”
Boiling point
Verstappen`s frustration had been quietly mounting for some time before his contact with Russell. The FIA`s report explaining his 10-second penalty likely offered little solace.
Based on similar incidents earlier in the season, Red Bull anticipated the stewards would instruct Verstappen to give the position back to Russell and preemptively asked their driver to do so. The FIA statement noted that the stewards had no intention of making such a ruling. Red Bull was puzzled by this discrepancy Sunday evening, expressing frustration that Verstappen`s simmering displeasure had escalated into an entirely preventable situation.
That FIA admission will undoubtedly be frustrating for Red Bull, whose decision to pit Verstappen for hard tires near the end left him vulnerable. Leclerc and Russell, who pitted for softs, were then able to attack him at the restart, initiating the chain of events that led to the costly flashpoint. Verstappen had vocally expressed frustration over the radio upon seeing the tires Red Bull had fitted at the final stop; due to the three-stop strategy planned early for the No. 1 car, these were the only remaining new tires in his allocation.
Red Bull believed fresh hard tires were a better option than staying out, inheriting the lead, and defending against charging cars with a tire disadvantage. Neither scenario was ideal, but faced with defending a lead on slightly worn softs versus defending third on new hard tires against rivals on new softs, Red Bull chose the more difficult challenge – especially with only six laps of racing remaining after the restart.
“The McLarens would have passed him,” insisted Red Bull team principal Christian Horner, referring to the possibility of staying out and defending the lead. This was likely true, but among all drivers in Formula 1, Verstappen, known for his assertive wheel-to-wheel style, might be the one most likely to hold the lead in that situation. “With hindsight, it`s very easy to say `stay out`.”
It`s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Verstappen controversy was largely a situation Red Bull created for itself.
Even before the clash with Russell, there were signs of Verstappen`s frustration. He has consistently voiced his opinions about the shortcomings of this year`s Red Bull car. During the Monaco Grand Prix, he joked over the radio that his clutch felt like it was from the 1972 race. When Verstappen complained about a similar part of the car in Barcelona on Sunday, race engineer Gianpiero Lambiase referenced the Monaco comment, to which Verstappen suggested it might now feel like it was from 1974. The previous day, he had defended teammate Yuki Tsunoda, telling Dutch media that Tsunoda was no `Pannenkoek` (a Dutch slang term for `pancake`, meaning a useless person), implying that the repeated struggles of talented drivers in the other Red Bull car suggested the team had designed a very challenging car to drive.
And this is where Verstappen`s deeper frustrations becoming public are particularly interesting.
Although he has a contract until 2028, some within the paddock remain convinced he will leave the team before then. Aston Martin owner Lawrence Stroll is reportedly very keen to recruit the four-time world champion. Much attention has been given to a rumored clause in Verstappen`s contract allowing him to leave Red Bull if he is lower than fourth in the drivers` championship by the August summer break. Considering he left Barcelona with only a single point from the race, and facing a potential one-race ban if he incurs further penalties, this possibility suddenly seems less improbable than it did before the weekend.
Mercedes boss Toto Wolff offered an interesting perspective on Sunday evening. The two drivers involved in the contentious incident represent conflicting ideas that must have been on Wolff`s mind for some time.
Despite his excellent form this season, Russell has not yet signed a Mercedes contract extending beyond 2025. There are varying reports regarding the status of these negotiations. Regardless of the specifics, it is known that Wolff has long harbored a desire to bring Verstappen to Mercedes, and as long as Russell`s future remains uncertain, the prospect of Verstappen joining Lewis Hamilton`s former team is plausible.
Curiously, given Wolff`s usual tendency to strongly support his drivers in contentious situations, he remained somewhat neutral and, perhaps tellingly, avoided outright condemning Verstappen.
“I mean, if it was road rage, which I find hard to believe because it was too obvious, that is not good,” Wolff commented on Sunday. “But the thing is I don`t know what he intended. Did he want to let George past and immediately retake the position? Put the car, George`s car ahead, and then play like the old DRS games, letting him pass strategically? Or… to me, it`s just incomprehensible [if it was intentional]. But again, I don`t know the exact motivations, and I don`t want to judge it as road rage. Let`s hear his arguments. It wasn`t pleasant.”
