The Mexican Grand Prix threw up one of the more controversial moments of the 2025 season — not because of who won (that honour went to Lando Norris) but because of how the open-wheel field behaved into Turn 1 and how the stewards responded. On the official F1 commentary desk and podcast, Martin Brundle didn’t mince his words: he believes that Max Verstappen should have been handed a drive-through penalty for his first-lap corner-cutting antics.
What Brundle had to say
On the opening lap at the Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, four cars drove abreast into the first corner. Verstappen, on the outside line, went straight across the grass/escape road rather than turn through the corner, later re-joining ahead of rivals. Brundle’s view is blunt:
“Max should have had a penalty, because if you put your car on the far left in four abreast … Max had no intention. You can see Max accelerate … But Max made no effort whatsoever to take Turns 1, 2 or 3 and that should have been a penalty.”
He went further:
“I might even have given somebody doing what Max did … a drive-through, as a proper deterrent to stop the silliness.”
What actually happened — and what the stewards did
Although multiple drivers (including Verstappen and Charles Leclerc) cut significant sections of the track during the lap-1 melee, the stewards did not issue any penalty for the first-corner incidents. Brundle notes that Leclerc “100 per cent” deserved a penalty, and by his logic Verstappen did too.
From a rules-perspective, the stewards judged that no lasting advantage had been gained (or was provable) by the excursions at that point, and thus no formal sanction was issued. Brundle objects to that interpretation — arguing that the sheer fact drivers used the escape road and gained or maintained position should have triggered disciplinary action.
Is Brundle right to demand a harsher penalty?
His arguments
-
Intent & advantage: Brundle highlights that Verstappen didn’t just go wide through a mistake; he seemingly took the off-track line deliberately, accelerated through the grass and rejoined with a clear track-position gain.
-
Deterrence value: His call for a drive-through is rooted in the idea that without meaningful penalties, drivers will keep testing how far the rules stretch. He says the start seemed to encourage “risk everything” behaviour knowing there was little punishment.
-
Fairness to other drivers: Drivers who stayed on track or took the safe line were arguably disadvantaged by those who didn’t. Brundle expresses sympathy for those trying to race cleanly.
Arguments against
-
Rule nuance: The rules require a “lasting advantage” to be penalised, and proving that can be complex. The stewards evidently judged that in this case the advantage either wasn’t proven, or the extra time gained was negligible.
-
Precedent & consistency: If one driver is penalised harshly for a similar event, that sets precedent. Brundle acknowledges the challenge of consistent stewarding.
-
Risk & spectacle: The chaos at Turn 1 is partly due to circuit design and racing conditions. Some argue steering more toward guardrails or designed runoff would reduce the incentive to exploit these margins.
What does this mean for Verstappen & the sport?
For Max Verstappen, Brundle’s comments add to ongoing scrutiny around his aggressive style. While the Dutchman is arguably the fastest driver of his generation, moments like this provide ammunition for critics who say he crosses the line from tough racer into calculated risk-taker.
For the sport, this debate raises broader points about stewarding and fairness: how much off-track cutting should be tolerated, and when should intent trigger the harshest penalties in order to maintain competitive integrity?
Final Thoughts
Martin Brundle’s call for a drive-through penalty for Verstappen isn’t borne of bias — it’s rooted in what he sees as a missed moment of stewarding enforcement. Whether the rules were broken in a way the stewards deemed punishable is another matter, but Brundle’s broader point is clear:
“If you allow this kind of off-track gain without meaningful penalty, you invite more of the same.”
In the end, Verstappen retained third place, but the perception of fairness — and the consistency of stewarding — will remain talking points long after Mexico. And in a sport where milli-seconds matter, perception can matter almost as much as reality.
