Damon Hill to hit Max Verstappen next with ‘incapable of fair racing’ jab

Sky F1 expert Damon Hill believes Max Verstappen lacks the ethos of fair racing in his repertoire, in a scathing assessment of Red Bull’s driver protection in Mexico.

Verstappen received two 10-second penalties while racing Lando Norris in Mexico. his rival in the championship.

Damon Hill: Max Verstappen refuses to give up territory

Verstappen is trying to extend his championship lead to clinch the title in a Red Bull RB20 that is now incapable of winning, prompting an extra level of aggression from the reigning world champion – especially against title rival Norris.

It was the second controversial moment between Verstappen and Norris in a week after their battle in the United States, and 1996 Formula One world champion Damon Hill shared his thoughts on the race in Mexico when he appeared on track. Sky F1 podcast.

“It was a five-second penalty for Lando in Austin. “I think the stewards clearly looked at it and thought there was so much pressure and so much discussion around it all that perhaps they felt they needed to do something more punitive,” Hill said.

“In each case they used 10 seconds. They concluded that this driver did something wrong twice and then applied a penalty, and for each of them he received 10 seconds.

“The problem with Max is that he simply refuses to give up any ground to anyone when overtaking. This is the situation.”

Analyzing the incident at Turn 4, the first moment for which Verstappen received a 10-second penalty, Hill said: “Coming out of Turn 4 he was clearly heading towards the edge of the track to prevent Lando from having any chance of winning. All.

“It’s very clear to me in the aerial footage that he didn’t try to back away, turn into a corner and leave room for Lando. It was just a case of, “You can’t handle it.”

“And that’s fine, but do we want to see it as a sport?

“I think there was a really good wheel-to-wheel collision between Liam Lawson and Checo (Perez) – it got a little more assertive and sharp, but I don’t think it was a malicious attempt to stop the other person from driving past. . They tried to maintain integrity and raced wheel by wheel.

“It’s the same with Lewis and George Russell, so you can race fairly, but I’m not sure Max is capable of that – it’s not in his repertoire. This is not in his philosophy. His philosophy is: “You will not pass by.”

Asked whether Verstappen’s selection depended solely on his championship position and the dynamics of the increasingly tight race, Hill replied: “It’s a challenge, isn’t it? They say sport doesn’t build character, it shows character, and by default it reverts to preventative methods rather than trying to keep it within the bounds of fairness.

“How do you define justice? It’s hard to define, but I definitely think you shouldn’t be allowed to use your car as a weapon and just block the track because you won’t see any overtaking if you’re allowed to let people just weave in and out of everything everywhere and do whatever they want .

“You’ll never see any overtaking because everyone will just sit there and say, ‘Well, there’s no point in that because he’s going to hit me.’ What’s the point of even trying?

More about Max Verstappen in Formula 1

👉 Max Verstappen car collection: What supercars does the Formula 1 world champion own?

👉 Max Verstappen net worth: how the world champion earned his incredible fortune

Damon Hill plans Turn 7 to promote ‘Dick Dastardly’ material

Moments after the Turn 4 incident, Verstappen dove on the inside of Norris into the mid-speed corner of Turn 7, with both drivers running wide as the Red Bull failed to stick to the line.

This allowed Charles Leclerc to slip past on both occasions, with Verstappen maintaining his position ahead of Norris, earning himself another 10-second penalty for running off the track and taking the advantage.

“I think he was right to take the penalty,” Hill said.

“I don’t know if 10 seconds was the right penalty, but I definitely think the second move he made was just stupid. These were Dick Dastardly’s things.

“He just accelerated to the apex and it got in Lando’s way, which looked like Lando was giving him the opportunity to take the place back – Lando didn’t really have much of a choice and they were actually touching each other, so it was stupid driving.

“Max went down there. He has such talent and obviously such a huge competitive spirit, but I don’t think there was anything to be proud of what he did there.”

Verstappen’s action comes just days after a controversial defense in Austin went his way as he stuck to the wording of the FIA ​​Driving Rules, despite also missing the mark when defending against Norris.

As a result, Hill said the rules were somewhat unclear and said the sport had gone in the wrong direction by being overly prescriptive about what was and was not allowed.

“Question: what’s in the regulations? And the rules are a little vague. They are not very clear,” he said.

“That’s what frustrates everyone because we look at it and it really shouldn’t be allowed to happen, but then if the rule says you have to be ahead at the top, the other guy has to then pull away.

“We had a lot of discussion about whether Lando had accelerated into Turn 1 into Turn 4 to get past Max, and then the debate was could he have gone through the corner?

“But that’s not a problem. The problem is the driver’s behavior on the track and I don’t think that can be defined scientifically or legally – that’s just the stewards’ point of view.

“This brings us back to another important issue, which is the role of driver-stewards. Driver-stewards were initially brought in and it is a good idea to bring in stewards to help the stewards make decisions on driving issues for which they had very little experience or knowledge.

“The idea was to get drivers who had raced at this level, in Formula 1, and could say: ‘When I look at this, I think it’s right or wrong.’

“What has happened is that those driver stewards who were brought in to advise the stewards have become stewards themselves and so are now bound by all the other rules, positions and responsibilities that stewards have.

“So they are no longer stewards as such. They are the same as other stewards.

“Let’s say Martin Brundle was the guy advising the stewards, he said, ‘I don’t like this,’ which is what he did at the Grand Prix. He looked at it and said: “No, this is wrong. This can’t be true.

“We can also apply that point to Lewis’s late change of direction when he was being overtaken by George Russell in the straight, and I have to say I saw that and just thought it was a bit unseemly.

“Now, if you are a steward, you have to try to make a decision, but if this driver, who is giving you feedback based on experience and many years of watching Grand Prix racing, looks at this and says: “No, this is really indecent. This shouldn’t happen,” then it will be much easier for you to make a decision.

“You don’t have to go into the wording of the rules, because if you go that route, you’ll get lost.

“You will stay there forever and we will discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

“You will simply follow the legal path. This is where I think things went wrong. The more rules you introduce, the more loopholes you create. So I think it’s a big can of worms.”

Read more: Max Verstappen ‘sacrificed himself’ to beat Lando Norris over ‘unfair racing’ claims