Is Max Verstappen, the Formula 1 phenom, really that good? A rising NASCAR star is stirring the pot with a bold claim that challenges everything you thought you knew about talent versus technology in racing. Connor Zilisch, the 19-year-old sensation set to join the Cup Series with Trackhouse Racing in 2026, is drawing comparisons to Verstappen, who burst onto the F1 scene as a teenager. Zilisch's impressive run of 10 Xfinity victories has fueled the hype, but he's not buying the direct comparison.
Zilisch, who humorously broke his collarbone celebrating a win at Watkins Glen, believes his path in NASCAR presents a steeper climb than Verstappen's in F1. He candidly suggests that success in NASCAR hinges more on raw driver skill, while F1 can be heavily influenced by the car itself. But here's where it gets controversial... Zilisch isn't dismissing Verstappen's talent; he acknowledges the four-time F1 champion as a "once-in-a-generation" driver. However, he implies that the inherent structure of F1, with its emphasis on car performance, might make it "easier to rise to the occasion."
"I feel that just the way he was brought up, it might be a little bit easier for him, and especially in F1, with how car-dependent it is. I feel it's easier to rise to the occasion," Zilisch elaborated. In essence, he argues that in NASCAR, where cars are more closely matched, the driver's ability to extract every last ounce of performance becomes paramount. In contrast, F1 teams invest heavily in upgrades that can dramatically alter a car's competitiveness, potentially overshadowing the driver's input. This is a key distinction, and one that sparks debate among racing enthusiasts. Is it the driver or the machine that truly makes the difference?
And this is the part most people miss... Zilisch's comments aren't solely based on speculation. He points to Verstappen's dominance, even when rivals like McLaren arguably had superior machinery, as an exception to the rule. While Verstappen continues to compete at the top, names like Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri are also in the mix. Zilisch recognizes Verstappen's exceptional abilities but maintains that the path to the top in NASCAR demands a different, perhaps even more grueling, kind of skill.
"So I think it is going to be a bit of a harder jump than maybe a guy like Max Verstappen going to F1," Zilisch said. "But, you know, it's definitely possible. And I get confidence from a guy like him who was able to do it at my age."
Zilisch isn't the first to weigh in on the NASCAR vs. F1 debate. Last year, Kyle Larson boldly stated that he considers himself a more "complete" driver than Verstappen. Larson's argument centers on versatility. He believes Verstappen couldn't replicate his success in disciplines like sprint car racing or NASCAR Cup races at challenging tracks like Bristol.
"I know in my mind I am better than him as an all-around driver," Larson said of Verstappen, according to FloSports. "There's no way he can get into a sprint car and win the Knoxville Nationals. There's no way he can go win the Chili Bowl. There's no way he can go win a Cup race at Bristol... That's what gives me ease and confidence that, like, I know I'm better than him. Maybe not in an open-wheel IndyCar or Formula One car, but that's one discipline. I think I would beat him in everything else. You can quote that."
These contrasting viewpoints raise some fascinating questions: Does the emphasis on car development in F1 diminish the importance of driver skill? Or does it simply demand a different skillset, one focused on providing feedback and working with engineers to optimize performance? Is NASCAR a purer test of driving talent, or does the relative parity of the cars create a different set of challenges? Where do you stand on this debate? Is Zilisch right to suggest that NASCAR presents a tougher road to the top? And do you agree with Larson's assessment that he's a more well-rounded driver than Verstappen? Sound off in the comments below!
