How the Verstappen v Norris answer could lie in Michael Schumacher case

Might the use of a championship disqualification threat by the FIA, like after Jerez 1997, work to keep a battle between Max Verstappen and Lando Norris fair towards the end of the F1 2024 season?

Verstappen picked up 20 seconds worth of time penalties for two separate incidents with Norris in Mexico and, unlike the previous week in Texas, couldn’t be said to have stayed within the limits of acceptable racecraft.

Max Verstappen penalised for Lando Norris incidents

In the space of about two minutes, Verstappen’s Mexico City Grand Prix fell apart after the Dutch driver had performed miracles to get himself into a strong position.

Friday had been difficult for Red Bull and Verstappen, with an engine problem in practice curtailing his running to the point where it wasn’t really possible to get a clear picture of the performance level of the RB20 at a venue where the team and Verstappen have excelled in the past.

Saturday looked like it was all going McLaren’s way, with a 1-2 in FP3 followed up by strong laps from Lando Norris in qualifying… until Q3 happened. As Verstappen is so good at, the reigning World Champion popped in a scintillating Q3 performance to wrest a front-row start on a day where it hadn’t really looked on the cards.

Mexican GP analysis: Max Verstappen vs Lando Norris

👉 Did Max Verstappen play the ultimate 4D chess move with Mexican GP penalties?

👉 How Max Verstappen telemetry data shows he fell into own trap twice

Even better for Verstappen, he had qualified ahead of Norris – one more of the hurdles cleared as the sessions in which Verstappen needs to do so can now almost be counted on one hand.

As he’s done in the past in Mexico, Verstappen proved the unstoppable force at the race start as he nailed his start. Vaulting off the line, he positioned his car perfectly to give himself the high ground on Carlos Sainz into Turn 1 while covering off Norris.

But, almost immediately, Verstappen showed the mentality he was taking into the race as he proceeded to push Sainz just wide enough to give himself the line he needed into Turn 2. It was cheeky, not overstepping the mark, but set out his stall early that this was not the passive Verstappen who had accepted his lot when the RB20 was in dire straits just a few races ago.

After the Safety Car intervention, Sainz latched straight onto Verstappen and got past without too much fuss, the Dutch driver picking his battles as the Ferrari driver doesn’t represent a threat to his championship. But Norris, right behind, very much does and Verstappen couldn’t have made that any more evident as the McLaren driver attacked.

Verstappen duly pushed Norris wide and across the grass at Turn 4/5 and, unlike the previous week in Austin, was not ahead at the apex, meaning the now-infamous Driving Guidelines dictated Norris was entitled to space. Unless Verstappen ceded the place, a penalty would come – he didn’t, and it did.

But it was the incident moments later, at Turn 7, that really showed the approach Verstappen is taking into the final races of this season.

Throwing his car up the inside of Norris’ McLaren into Turn 7, Verstappen didn’t have a hope of making the corner. Nor did it appear that he really was all that bothered whether he did or not – this, rather than his calculated and legal move at COTA, bore all the hallmarks of desperation that his dive on Lewis Hamilton at Interlagos in 2021 did.

Unsurprisingly, this got him another penalty – 20 seconds worth of driving infringements within five corners, which scuppered his race entirely. Falling down the order, Verstappen then proceeded to put in the type of drive more befitting his talent as he carved his way back up to sixth with some no-nonsense overtaking.

Arguably, having cost Norris the chance of fighting for the win, Verstappen’s tactics worked to his benefit, but it certainly wasn’t pretty.

Max Verstappen channeling Ayrton Senna’s ‘win-at-all-costs’ mentality

Given that Verstappen is perfectly capable of racing with the deft and expert racecraft befitting his talents, with his car control, positioning, and understanding second to no one, the argument is whether or not this is the type of racing F1 wants to see.

After all, Verstappen may be older and wiser, but his aggressive approach – beneficial as it may be for him – now isn’t winning him much favour as he desperately seeks to preserve his diminishing points lead. It’s a clumsy, hammer-and-anvil defence – albeit skillful in its own way – and very much at odds with the image of precision-based, fair, and delicacy that demarks wheel-to-wheel F1 racing.

While he won’t care about the damage to his image, it’s a title defence that is seeing Verstappen become denigrated rather than venerated, and it’s somewhat ironic that his chosen style is coming in a season in which F1 has celebrated the life and career of Ayrton Senna almost continuously in what is his 30th anniversary year.

Senna fans, Senna documentaries, corners named after Senna, and imagery of the late World Champion have been everywhere this season, but the Brazilian is the epitome of the win-at-all-costs mentality – the first proponent to blur the lines of acceptability as F1 became ‘safe’ enough for less gentlemanly driving tactics.

As borderline – or worse – as Verstappen’s choices are on occasion, his transgressions pale by comparison to what the aforementioned were willing to do. Verstappen is yet to plough straight into his rival to seal the deal, as Senna did, and nor is he yet to turn in on Norris with a broken car, as Schumacher did.

Verstappen’s driving is nothing new or revolutionary – while not as extreme as his F1 champion forefathers, he is employing similar tactics on a more consistent basis.

He is placing his car in positions where his rival has the option of a collision or not, placing the responsibility on them on whether or not to have them. Somewhat amusingly, the flashpoint of Austria didn’t appear to be one of these moments as both he and Norris traded blows in what was the first proper battle between them – an aperitif for what has come recently.

Given how recent races have played out in an unpalatable way for modern F1 to be conducted, not to mention the optics of legally questionable manouevres becoming de rigeur as Verstappen aims to hang onto his lead, how can F1 change this path?

With the FIA’s Driving Guidelines set to change for next season, directly as a result of Verstappen’s Austin defence, the path seems somewhat clear – Verstappen has shown he is willing to go right up against the boundaries of the rules and, until Mexico, had stayed on the right side of them.

In Mexico, he exceeded them, and got duly penalised, twice.

But the benefits of doing so outweighed the negatives, in theory – so something more draconian is needed.

Jerez 1997 provides a starting template to tackle driver aggression

But what to do in unique scenarios like this season, in which a driver willing to employ desperate measures has the championship lead while his rival has the edge? Perhaps F1 and the FIA need to harken back to the example of 1997, when Michael Schumacher crossed the line with Jacques Villeneuve at Jerez.

The Mexico City weekend, on Saturday to be precise, marked 27 years since Schumacher attempted to replicate his Adelaide 1994 move on Damon Hill.

While it worked with great success on that day in Australia, as Schumacher – who had made a mistake and bounced off the wall to damage his B194 just outside of Hill’s vision – turned in on the Williams and got flipped onto two wheels. The collision damaged Hill’s car and, with both out, Schumacher was crowned Champion.

Schumacher’s remarkably similar attempt to take Villeneuve out at Jerez as the French-Canadian dived up the inside of the Ferrari backfired only on himself. He bounced off the Williams and went off into the gravel, bogging down and forcing him to retire. Villeneuve kept going and finished third to win the title.

The blatant attempt at taking Villeneuve out cost Schumacher second in the championship as he was duly disqualified from his championship position – the FIA and president Max Mosley choosing to make an example of him for his choices by disqualifying him, albeit allowing his results to stand in terms of victories and pole position earned, as well as his points counting towards Ferrari’s championship total.

With four race weekends left this season, perhaps a clear line in the sand needs to be drawn and the FIA can utilise this precedent further.

Verstappen has shown he is willing to engage in similar tactics to Schumacher and Senna – but how far is he willing to go?

One would like to think he wouldn’t deliberately take out his rival in the final race or two if it were of benefit to him, but can it be said with certainty that it’s beyond him if the red mist descends?

For the final triple-header, perhaps the FIA should adopt a tougher stance, and take it on board for future championships.

With the racing rules as they are, if a collision occurs that can be seen to have had the intent of damaging the other car, then dangle the threat of repeating the 1997 disqualification of Schumacher as a possibility.

And, unlike in 1997, go a step further – if the driver is disqualified from the championship, their points also don’t count towards the Constructors’. This will ensure the team must play its part to keep their drivers in check.

While it’s the particular circumstances of this championship battle that have brought this particular dynamic into the spotlight, using the precedent of 1997 as a foil is something that could be formalised into the regulations for the future to prevent scenarios like this from occurring in general.

Imagine, for simplicity’s sake, entering the final quarter of a championship – collisions with intent result in race disqualification and, in a championship showdown (in whichever round applies), result in championship disqualification.

That would soften the cough of any driver, even the battle-hardened Verstappen – if the whole season were in vain for both the driver and team, it would focus the mind far more on ensuring fairness in battle. It certainly wouldn’t be easy to implement, as intent is not simple to verify.

In this particular season, Norris certainly isn’t going to be the instigator of such an incident given his dwindling opportunities. This would mean Verstappen (or whichever applicable driver) would be forced to drive with greater consideration when battling their rival – while collisions are still certainly a possibility, a lack of caution or an unwillingness to leave racing room would open the door for the harsher penalty to be considered by the FIA.

Glaring examples such as Adelaide 1994, Jerez ’97, or Suzuka ’90 would thus become far more avoidable.

Otherwise, aside from doling out the time penalties and accepting that collisions are increasingly likely as the season end hoves into view, F1 must accept tactics like Verstappen’s as the modern-day example of Senna’s and let nature take its course.

Which is the more palatable option?

Read next: How Max Verstappen telemetry data shows he fell into own trap twice