Meet Me at the Corner: Adelaide 1994

How the chopping maneuver was judged before and after the Schumacher-Hill collision.

A few days ago marked the 30th anniversary of Michael Schumacher's first world championship. A tainted tittle for a lot of fans due to, among other things which I wrote about before, the circumstances it was clinched.

Heading into the final race of the 1994 season in Adelaide, the German held a one-point lead over Damon Hill. He led the race from his rival until lap 36, when he lost the car at the exit of Turn 5 and whacked the wall. Hill closed in and dived on the inside. Schumacher chopped across and took the corner at Turn 6 as if his rival wasn’t there. They collided and, as a result, neither of them finished the race.

Schumacher triumphed. Since he benefited from the collision, the prevailing narrative has been that he outright took out Hill or at least committed a professional foul.

Intimidation Tactics

Schumacher was well-acquainted with the chopping maneuver, having experienced it firsthand at Kyalami in 1993, courtesy of Ayrton Senna, which ultimately resulted in a DNF for the German.

The Brazilian was the main user/abuser of the move during the 1980s and early 1990s. The incidents with Keke Rosberg at Brands Hatch and Riccardo Patrese at Hockenheim in 1992 are among the most notable examples, but Senna typically employed this tactic against anyone attempting to overtake him. And he was not the only one.

Eddie Cheever cut across Teo Fabi in Detroit in 1987, Berger did the same to Senna in the rain at Silverstone in 1988. Pierluigi Martini also made similar moves against Thierry Boutsen in even worse conditions at Adelaide the following year, and Nelson Piquet cut across in front of Nigel Mansell in 1990 at the same venue, on the final lap. After further research, I’m sure that many more examples can be found.

At that time, taking a corner as if there were no one on the inside was a common defensive maneuver intended to intimidate a rival attempting to overtake and force him to yield. Whenever this tactic resulted in a collision, such as the one between Senna and Schumacher at Kyalami in 1993, the stewards, as far as I know, generally did the same: nothing.

Regardless of one's opinion on the Schumacher-Hill clash at Adelaide, deeming it a racing incident was consistent with how these type of collisions had been viewed.

Post Adelaide

This approach remained unchanged in the subsequent years.

Hill received the short end of the stick during an incident with Jean Alesi at Nurburgring in 1995, and had to pit for a new front wing. The same story as in Adelaide: the Brit attempted to overtake on the inside, the Frenchman aggressively cut across. No investigation, even though it’s not as if the stewards hadn’t acted when they believed someone had crossed the line; Schumacher had received a suspended race ban for weaving on the straight against Hill at Spa.

Speaking of the German, he collided with David Coulthard in Argentina three years later when the Scot attempted the maneuver on him. As a result, the McLaren ended up facing the wrong direction. Both drivers blamed each other. The stewards didn’t bother to intervene.

The other prominent German driver of the time, Heinz-Harald Frentzen tried this type of defense against Rubens Barrichello in the opening race of the 2001 season at Albert Park, with a lamentable result. He spun out and mowed the grass outside of Turn 10. No action was taken against either driver.

Assigning Blame

As far as I know, the first time the stewards assigned blame in an incident caused involving cutting across occurred at Fuji in 2007. Lewis Hamilton turned on Robert Kubica and they both pirouetted in unison. The Pole got slapped with a drive-through penalty.

In the same race, Fernando Alonso and Sebastian Vettel collided after the Spaniard took the racing line in the first corner as if no one were alongside him. The stewards didn’t intervene.

Given the challenging conditions and the fact that the maneuver had become increasingly less common in previous years, it is possible that the McLaren drivers simply didn’t see their rivals, and that intimidation was not their intent. Nevertheless, a penalty was issued, so I bring them up.

Another penalty was issued during the first Indian Grand Prix in 2011. Felipe Massa cut across Hamilton, causing contact and damage to both cars. The stewards verdict was: a drive-through penalty for the Brazilian.

Modern F1

The chopping maneuver nearly vanished in the 2010s, or at least I cannot recall it leading to any notable collisions. However, this may simply be a result of my fading memory.

One thing is certain: the move has made a comeback under the current ground effect regulations. Max Verstappen employed it in the closing stages of the 2022 British Grand Prix against Mick Schumacher, who wisely chose to back off.

The Dutchman, the perpetrator in the aforementioned duel, became a victim the following year in Las Vegas, thanks to George Russell, who initiated contact between the two via the chopping maneuver. The Brit received a 5 second penalty for this action.

The other Mercedes driver, Hamilton, cut across Alonso at Spa in 2022, and at Losail, he did the same to Russell, and on both occasions he took himself out of the race. The stewards didn’t intervene in either instance. However, I don’t think these incidents are relevant here, as Hamilton was overtaking, not defending. I only mention these instances only in case someone argues that I’ve omitted them.

Back to Adelaide

According to the rules currently in force, Schumacher was at fault in the collision with Hill. No doubt about it. However, that is not how these incidents had been judged in the past, nor how they were evaluated several years later.

Of course, considering that the German had whacked the wall and may have damaged his suspension, it’s reasonable to suspect that he intended to take his rival out, instead of bullying him into yielding. What he exactly thought in those seconds before aggressively turning right will forever remain a mystery.

However, the answer to the question of whether the chop that secured the championship for him was against the rules, is no.