In a gripping twist during the Austrian Grand Prix, Max Verstappen found himself at the center of controversy following a collision with Lando Norris. What unfolded next was not the crash itself but the aftermath that had tongues wagging throughout the motorsport community.
As the race headed into its final stretches on lap 64, Verstappen and Norris were vying for the lead. Verstappen, who had maintained a significant gap, found his lead threatened after a botched pit stop and a critical mistake. Norris seized this opportunity to mount an aggressive challenge for the top spot. However, as he tried to overtake in the Turn 3 braking zone, Verstappen moved to the left, leading to a forceful clash that left both cars with punctured rear wheels.
Norris, unable to continue, had to retire from the race, whereas Verstappen, after a pit stop, managed to finish in fifth place. This was despite receiving a 10-second penalty from the race stewards, who deemed him ‘predominantly’ responsible for the incident. Marc Priestley, drawing from his experience as a former McLaren mechanic, argued that this penalty was deserved but felt it odd that Verstappen wasn’t penalized earlier for defensive movements under braking.
Verstappen’s actions during the race seemed to echo his earlier career days when his aggressive style often bordered on reckless. Priestley pointed out that despite the recent reputation of Verstappen and his team for handling pressure with finesse, the race was a stark reminder of those formative years. The crash wasn’t just about the contact; it highlighted Verstappen’s tendency to move under braking—a risky maneuver banned due to its sheer danger.
Priestley further elaborated on the precariousness of moving under braking. Drivers push their cars and themselves to the absolute limits, especially during braking, to extract every possible fraction of a second. A sudden change in direction by the driver in front during these moments can spark unavoidable collisions, as exemplified by the lap 64 incident.
Despite earlier incidents where Norris managed to avoid a crash and protested over the radio, the stewards took no action. The decision raised eyebrows particularly when it came to the incident on lap 64, where Verstappen’s move to the left left Norris no room, culminating in the collision. Priestley found the 10-second penalty appropriate, suggesting even a harsher penalty could have been justified given the potential dangers involved.
The real drama unfolded after the collision. Verstappen, realizing his tire was punctured, seemed more concerned with preventing Norris from gaining any advantage. According to Priestley, Verstappen veered towards Norris, attempting to edge him off-track. This act of ‘retaliation’ as described by Priestley was seen as dangerously immature, reminiscent of an earlier, impulsive Verstappen.
Verstappen’s conduct post-collision arguably posed a greater risk than the initial crash itself. His determination not to let Norris pass, despite the evident disadvantage, betrayed a rare glimpse of frustration. Priestley, like many others, found this uncharacteristic of the Verstappen celebrated for his matured driving style in recent seasons.
Max Verstappen’s actions in Austria have reopened discussions about his racing style and the potential risks involved. As the season progresses, how Verstappen and his team address these criticisms will be of great interest to both fans and pundits alike.
