The adage “never meet your heroes” stems from the reality that people we admire from a distance are often idealised, and they can fail to live up to our unrealistic expectations in real life. Meeting them can be a disappointing experience that shatters the image we’ve built up in our heads. And in Formula One this truth is stark.
Martin Brundle is perceived as a Formula One UK ‘national treasure’ much of which is based on an average racing career which saw him compete against Ayrton Senna in F3 in the 1980’s and in F1 a year alongside Michael Schumacher and Mika Hakkinen where he was not competitive.
His transition to becoming a broadcaster along with the now infamous ‘grid walk’ he pioneered has placed Brundle on the screens of the UK F1 fans for over two decades. Having a racing driver as a commentator has given fans the feeling they are closer to the action in understanding what’s going on on screen.
Is Brundle past his sell by date?
Yet for many, Brundle is past his sell by date. His observations are becoming stale and his analysis at times appears as though its through the prism of a by gone era. He often walks the narrow line between offering valuable insight or revelling in the fact he has inside information which on the basis of some strange journalistic honour principle, he can’t share.
Brundle gleefully informed the TV audience it was ‘his job’ to know what the “consequences” were for Lando Norris then proceeded to tell the audience confidentiality prevented him from revealing the punishment. Better to stay silent than dangle that carrot and leave people wondering what is the big deal McLaren made over a something and noting situation the stewards green flagged.
His grid walk is often now chaotic and uninformative and at the races where he has been recently absent, the likes of Rachel Brooks and Karun Chandhok have offered a fresher alternative. Brundle as the grandfather of the Sky broadcasting team is revered for his insight amongst his peers and at times remains unchallenged when pontificating on a divisive matter
The latest foray into handing out judgement has come following the Mexican Grand Prix, where the usual turn one chaos prevailed. Speaking on the “F1 Show podcast” Brundle I adamant that Max Verstappen “100 per cent” should have received a penalty.”
Verstappen accused of cheating
Brundle was absent from Mexico and should have had time to see the copious replays of the various incidents on lap one of the Grand Prix but he remains obstinate, “For me, at least Charles made an attempt at Turn 1, [Max] didn’t like the look of the way it was shaping up, so just ignore Turn 2. And that, for me, was a 10-second penalty.”
Unfortunately today much of the debate over whether a move in F1 is legitimate of not has been removed by the FIA’s “driving guidelines standards” issued each year to the race stewards. The potential incidents including overtaking moves have been codified to the point where we go racing by numbers.
However, the ultimate principle is that a driver should not gain an unfair advantage by either leaving the track or forcing another inappropriately from the asphalt. Brundle argues that Verstappen had no intention of making it around turn one but was playing the game to the “technical” wording of the stewards driving standards guidelines.
Russell lets slip Mercedes contract clause
Max deserves ‘biggest punishment of the year’
“Max should have had a penalty, because if you put your car on the far left in four abreast, it will go on the kerb. But Max had no intention. You can see Max accelerate,” Brundle argued. “Really skilful driving through the grass, I must say. But Max made no effort whatsoever to take turns one, two or three, and that should have been a penalty.
“Max took the risk on the outside, knowing full well he could just bury the throttle and carry on. The sort of thing if the fireproof boot had been on the other foot, Max would have been screaming about on the radio, saying he had no intention of making that corner. He didn’t.
“I might even have given somebody doing what Max did, a drive-through, as a proper deterrent to stop the silliness, because then it all gets chaotic.” A drive through punishment is far more significant than a five or ten second time penalty and therefore Brundle is arguing Max’s actions should have received the most severe sanction issued for the entirety of this season.
“I completely can understand those drivers that were minding their business actually staying on the racetrack, going like, ‘Well, hang on, I’m losing out here. I might as well have just made my own race track up in the first few corners and gain some gain places,’” Brundle concludes.
Hamilton the most serious offender
First of all. The Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez is in many ways another Monaco, where overtaking is nigh on impossible for cars on the same race strategy. Whilst pole position is not necessarily the guarantee of a win, the race since its return in 2015 has only been won from the front three starting grid slots. Due to the longest run down to turn one on the calendar, beating the pole sitter is a real opportunity.
Turn one, lap one is often the highlight of the entire Mexican Grand Prix, but alternative tyre strategies created by Pirelli’s choice of rubber compounds kept the 2025 Grand Prix racing action right to the chequered flag.
In terms of Verstappen. He did gain an advantage off track through the opening sequence of corners, but in the melee that followed he emerged in fourth place which was where he sat comfortably before having to ride the kerb four wide into turn one.
So no net gain for Verstappen, yet Brundle wants him punished more harshly than any other move performed in F1 across the entire 2025 season??? In fact it was Verstappen who fell victim to another drivers off track excursions when Lewis Hamilton refused to give the world champion racing room he had eared by definition in the stewards “guidelines” not only did Verstappen lose a position to Hamilton, but it set up the opportunity for Oli Bearman to make a pass on the world champion. Something which cost Max valuable time for more than fifteen laps.
More fuel to the “anti-Verstappen” lobby
That is why Hamilton got what many suggested was a ‘too severe’ ten second time penalty. He retained a position gained illegitimately and also caused his rival to suffer an overtake from the Haas F1 car.
Since last weekends racing in Mexico City there have been calls for gravel to be inserted on the outside of turn one, to prevent the regular chaos. A wall has even been suggested, although given the speeds the cars have reached over the 800 metre approach, this would be deemed too dangerous by the FIA.
Yet the real culprit for much of the ‘need’ for such codified driving standards in F1 is because the FIA have allowed the cars to become behemoths, with almost double the footprint of their predecessors just twenty years ago. The FIA claimed they would be onto this with the new 2026 generation of cars, but after bowing to the manufacturers demands next year they will be just 25kg lighter.
The width of the car has been reduced by a whopping 100mm, just 5% of the current dimensions and whilst the overall length is unspecified, the maximum wheel base has been reduced by 200m, from its current allowance of 3600.
The point of racing is to have some form of competition. The current cars and FIA driving standards regulations are driving F1 in the opposite direction. And the likes of dinosaur Martin Brundle calling for drivers to be ever more punished for trying to race, is clearly ridiculous and once again feeds the narrative that the British media are “Anti-Verstappen.”
Oscar Piastri’s decline at McLaren: The analysis
It all looked so good just five race weekends ago for Oscar Piastri. At the Dutch Grand Prix the Australian entered the exclusive Formula One drivers’ club – there Grand Chelm – by claiming pole position, fastest lap and leading from lights out to the chequered flag.
Jim Clarke leads this iconic group of drivers with eight Grand Chelms and of the current drivers Lewis Hamilton and Max Vertsappen each have six – Max’s latest in Baku this season – Fernando Alonso, Charles Leclerc and now Oscar Piastri have just one.
A Grand Chelm is particularly difficult to achieve as Lando Norris found out last weekend in Mexico. Although he claimed pole position and led every lap, it was George Russell who claimed the fastest lap of the race, by a whopping 7/10ths of a second from the McLaren driver who was clearly looking after his tyres…. READ MORE
The Judge, a nom de plume of an experienced F1 journalist and site founder with long-standing sources across the paddock. With over 30 years of experience in Formula 1 as an insider journalist, I have built trusted connections across the paddock, from race engineers and mechanics to senior team figures. At The Judge 13, I and a handful of trusted colleagues share exclusive Formula 1 news, expert analysis and behind-the-scenes stories you will not find in mainstream motorsport media.
