Verstappen Before Verstappen Was Even Born
A look back at the 1994 Australian Grand Prix
A common thread among the “old guard” of Formula One fans is that the newer fans seem to think the entire sport didn’t exist before Drive to Survive. I personally think the concerns are a bit overblown. There might be a general knowledge gap, but that’s only normal. F1 has been around for 75 years now, and you can’t expect every fan to start off knowing everything about every era before the current one. I also think some of the outrage I’ve seen online is genuinely a bit hypocritical. You can complain all you want about newer fans not understanding the brilliance of Schumacher, Prost, or Senna. But can you say you know all about how great Lauda, Stewart, or Fangio were during their careers? I doubt most can, and I won’t be the one to say my knowledge of earlier F1 history is picture perfect either.
The fact is, we as fans are all a product of the generation of F1 we were introduced to. For me, that would be the latter half of Schumacher’s heyday at Ferrari. He was the first athlete who I really followed and whose accomplishments I understood. It’s no surprise, then, that I find myself somewhere between confused and flabbergasted when “newer” F1 fans dismiss or don’t properly acknowledge Schumacher’s achievements. But any “older” F1 fan could feel the exact same way about me when it comes to the likes of Prost or Senna. Don’t get me wrong—I fully believe they’re legends. But watching their best drives doesn’t evoke the same emotion in me that watching Schumacher’s greatest races does. And that makes sense: if you grew up watching Prost and Senna, you can remember just how intense the rivalry was, and how great it felt to watch them live. I only watched them after the fact, so anything I experienced while doing so was secondhand at best.
That being said, I do think one area where F1 appears to be regressing is in keeping its history alive. I don’t mean this in a “let’s maintain tradition” way. Rather, when I say F1 is losing its history, I mean that there isn’t enough being done to keep the stories of past races and drivers alive in the minds of current fans. I won’t necessarily say this was being done incredibly well when I first got into the sport, but I can distinctly remember times where my knowledge of past F1 champions was influenced by older fans actively using their platforms to discuss the champions they grew up watching for a younger or newer audience. My knowledge of Senna, for example, was jumpstarted by the tribute segment Top Gear did.
But in today’s F1 media ecosystem, there seems to be even less time dedicated to F1’s history. This is where I hold Drive to Survive partially responsible. The popularity of the series means it draws a lot of attention from fans and the media, but the nature of the show means the focus is always on the previous season (the most recent season of the show released earlier this month is about the 2024 season). At a certain point, spending all that time covering a season that is probably still very fresh in the minds of F1 fans becomes redundant. And that’s before we get into questions over whether or not the show even provides an accurate portrayal of what goes on behind-the-scenes.
It’s one thing if Netflix or any other platform won’t invest resources to create something that talks about F1’s history. They care about their own pockets, and those pockets will stay at their most bloated if they focus on what’s happening right now. But if Netflix and F1 won’t do it, I would argue it’s up to the fans to help keep the sport’s history alive. This is where I hold some of the people online claiming to be “older fans” responsible. You can complain all you want about the newer generation not knowing who Mikka Hakkinen (1998 and 1999 world champion) is, but you’re better off fixing that by telling them about him rather than making a meme about how they don’t know him.
And that’s where this new segment of Omakase Formula’s F1 coverage comes in.
We’re heading into F1’s landmark 75th season, meaning there are more than plenty of drivers and races to talk about. As such, before every race, I’ll be taking a look back into history and discussing a previous edition of a grand prix. Hopefully, this will give newer fans an opportunity to learn more about the sport’s rich history and help them appreciate the sport more.
Today’s race? The 1994 Australian Grand Prix.
Context:
Australia is once again the season opener this year, returning to a role it held from 1996-2019 (with the exception of 2006 and 2010). But before the Australian Grand Prix was the season opener, it was actually the season finale from 1985-1995. The track for those races was also different, as the transition from finale to opener coincided with the race moving to the current Albert Park Circuit from the Adelaide Street Circuit (pictured below).
The 1994 season was largely overshadowed by Senna’s tragic death midseason. But it also featured one of the closest championship battles. Heading into the race, both the Drivers’ and Constructors’ Championships were up for grabs. Michael Schumacher (Benetton) lead Damon Hill (Williams) by one point, and Williams lead Benetton in the Constructors’ Championship by five.
Race:
Schumacher qualified 2nd, with Hill right behind him in 3rd. Hill’s teammate, 1992 world champion Nigel Mansell, started on pole. However, Schumacher and Hill moved up to first and second at the race start, where they stayed until lap 35. Schumacher went wide at Turn 5, rejoining the track and cutting across to the left side just as Hill exited Turn 5 himself. As Hill attempted to pass Schumacher on the inside at Turn 6, Schumacher turned in and the two made contact, with Schumacher’s car tilting onto its left-side wheels (seen in the photo at the top of the post).
Schumacher was forced to retire on the spot, while Hill pitted immediately but was forced to retire due to a damaged suspension wishbone. This secured Schumacher’s first of seven Drivers’ Championships, while Mansell secured the Constructors’ Championship for Williams by winning the race. Gerhard Berger (Ferrari) and Martin Brundle (McLaren) rounded out the podium.
Aftermath:
While the stewards deemed the collision a racing incident, most in the media placed blame for the crash on Schumacher. If you look at the video of the crash, it’s easy to see why. In my opinion, it looks like he first goes outside to try and block Hill, and once Hill maneuvered on the inside, turned in to try and cut him off, causing contact. In today’s F1, that move would have probably got him penalized, though anything more severe like a ban or disqualification would still be overkill.
Did Schumacher have any malicious intent? Schumacher himself always maintained it was a racing incident, but the British media will forever say yes. Given their stranglehold on English F1 coverage, there’s no doubt the crash dictated how Schumacher was covered in English moving forwards. But besides the media, I will say—even as a Schumacher fan—that the other person who made the biggest argument for Schumacher being guilty in this incident was Schumacher himself. Despite possessing legendary skill behind the wheel, he would find himself at the center of various controversies throughout his career. Subsequent controversial moments (notably at the 1997 European Grand Prix, which got him disqualified for the season) would only enforce the idea that he was Machiavellian and “ruthless.” From then on, every controversy involving Schumacher would undoubtedly bring up talk about the crash at Adelaide.
I’m biased as a Schumacher fan, but I can understand why some view him as being a poor sport. I think he made an incredibly aggressive and cynical calculation in approaching that moment in Adelaide, but it’s a stretch to say he was ready to take Hill out of the race completely. As the championship leader by one point, he knew he had to stop Hill passing him. The possibility of a crash and double retirement benefitted him in this instance, and probably helped him commit to the decision. But to say that he was willing to collide with another driver with no regard for their safety or his own feels like a stretch given the entire F1 world was still reeling from Senna’s death that year.
I will also say that, even if you think Schumacher is ruthless to a fault, it would be unfair to pick on him as the only driver in F1 who has demonstrated questionable moments of sportsmanship. He wasn’t the first, and he certainly won’t be the last. Newer fans of F1 probably associate words like “ruthless” and “Machiavellian” with the current reigning champion. They wouldn’t be wrong—the parallels are quite obvious. So next time you see Max Verstappen being embroiled in some on-track controversy, remind yourself and the newer fans around you that Verstappen isn’t doing anything new: Schumacher was Verstappen before Verstappen was even born.