How to Understand a Max Verstappen Dive-bomb
April 30, 2025
By: Jane Ebbert
In recent events, my driver did a rare, aggressive maneuver against another driver.
By "recent events", I mean the 2025 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix; by "my driver", I mean Max Verstappen; by "rare, aggressive maneuver", I mean an incredibly audacious, dangerous, and increasingly common dive-bomb; and by "another driver", I mean Oscar Piastri.
I will break this specific instance down in parts. Who?, What?, Why?.
In the 2025 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, Max Verstappen did an incredibly audacious, dangerous, and increasingly common dive-bomb against Oscar Piastri.
✨
✨
Who?
Max Verstappen and Oscar Piastri. I'm pretty good at this whole writing thing.
What?
That.
dive-bomb
/ˈdīv-ˌbäm/
verb
• to attempt an overtake by braking very late on corner entry.
Why?
An actually interesting question! Let's make it more questions! Mitosis!
Why Would You Dive-Bomb?
Why Did Max Dive-Bomb?
A dive-bomb can simply be an overtaking maneuver, or it can be a defensive maneuver . However, as mentioned, here—and henceforth in this article—I am referring to an overly-aggressive, borderline dangerous, penalty-worthy dive-bomb. A la Verstappen. This is a dirty racing move. Are dirty moves bad? Not necessarily. However, in excess, this can injure the integrity of the sport. More on this later.
As with most racing tactics, a dive-bomb is a bet. You are betting that by braking late, the other driver will back down—that they will not call your bluff and by doing so, "let" you have the corner. High risk, likely higher reward.
I do not have insight into the strange place that is the mind of Max Verstappen. This is my professional, heavily biased opinion.
The amount of risk in dive-bombing so drastically into turn one is not enough to outweigh the reward. What is the risk? A penalty, mostly. Turn one of Jeddah has a large run off zone; the consequence of running off track is not as great as somewhere with, for instance, a gravel trap. So, crashing (into a barrier as a result of not braking early enough) is not as big of a risk as you might think. Of course, crashing into Oscar was still a possibility. I'm sure if you asked Max about that, he would tell you that crashing into Oscar is always a possibility.
So, the likely possible outcomes for Max here include:
a) crashing into Oscar
b) exiting T1 in P1
c) a penalty* (with or without a T1 P1)
1. for pushing another driver off the track
2. for leaving the track and gaining an advantage
*note: the FIA has been inconsistent and—at times—unfair with penalties
What happened?
b+c2
✨
(my driver is an idiot who takes calculated risks for dumb reasons)
TLDR (that was 200 words just read the fucking thing); Max dive-bombed because the possibility of successfully coming out of T1 in first position and utilizing the clear air gained by being in said position—even for a few laps—was more likely (he's Max Ver-fucking-stappen) and beneficial than outcome a and outcome c without a successful overtake.
Did Max Deserve the Penalty?
As aforementioned, Max did receive a five second penalty after completing his T1 P1 hopes and dreams. The FIA stewards would call this leaving the track and gaining an advantage. The purpose of this penalty is to stop exactly what Max did from happening (driving straight through the track instead of on it).
In a typical, non-unhinged dive-bomb, a driver brakes late. This still means that they plan to brake for the corner. In this instance, there is a moment where instead of braking for the corner when he was held off by Oscar, Max sped up or at least maintained his speed and sent it through the run-off.
Of course, the aspect that the FIA looks at is whether or not the car coming from behind has a right to the corner. This determines if the car coming from behind (Oscar) has to yield to the driver ahead (Max). Despite Christian Horner literally printing out a screenshot of the incident and showing the stewards as defense against Max's penalty, Oscar had the right to the corner. He did not have to yield to Max. Look at the tapes.
I do believe that this was an apt penalty. That being said, I also believe the FIA's system of dealing with on-track issues of this nature is God-awful (per FIA). The FIA should be able to instruct a driver to swap a place back after an incident like this. This is done in other racing series, and would prevent discourse about whether *insert guilty driver here* should have a five second penalty or a ten second penalty or get beaten up by Mohammed Ben Sulayem post-race or whatever.
Does It Matter If It Was Good Racing?
Yes. As mentioned earlier, this damages the integrity of the sport in excess. In excess. I do not believe this damages the sport more than, for example, something stupid like the FIA making swearing a fineable offense. Innovation is what pushes this sport forward. Whether that innovation be mechanical or a driver trying to skirt the rules. That being said, if one driver passes another on track, it should be a proper overtake on track. With proper racing and everything. Y'know, like Formula One.
We know Max Verstappen can wheel-to-wheel race like a maniac when he wants to; find any moment of his on track with Charles Leclerc. I just wish he would. Do I know Max is desperate for any on-track advantage he can get? Of course. Is broadcasting it in such a blatant way a good idea? Of fucking course not. It's sloppy—planned or not. I am less so mad at Max and more so mad at the system that lets this behavior prove profitable. Max is—over-simplistically—pushing boundaries in the sport, albeit in a dangerous way.
Listen, Max Verstappen will always Max Verstappen. And what Max Verstappen does is be a menace to the FIA, and that is a mission I can support. Just leave the Aussie out of this, man.