A mystery. A race that had started on the right track, with Charles Leclerc comfortably leading for over 40 laps, then suddenly a problem. The number 16 Ferrari lost two seconds per lap in the final 25 laps and ultimately finished only in fourth place.
You might say these things happen — a technical boredom, a reliability issue. But it was none of that. What slowed Leclerc down was not a mechanical failure but something apparently mysterious, something that never appeared in the radio communications during the race and became even more puzzling after contradictory statements made following the event.
Let’s start with the team’s official explanation, released yesterday in a press statement:
“On lap 20, Charles came into the pits to fit new hard tires, with a pit stop lasting exactly 2 seconds.
On lap 40, Charles made a second stop, fitting another set of new hard tires and rejoining in fourth position.
From that moment on, a chassis problem developed on Charles’ car costing him about 2 seconds per lap.
Because of the chassis issue, Charles lost ground and was overtaken by Oscar Piastri on lap 50.
In the last 10 laps, Charles fought hard to keep George Russell behind but had to give way 8 laps from the finish, ending in fourth place.”
In summary, once again, something went wrong, something that deprived Charles Leclerc of a victory after starting from pole position. But it was not due to strategic errors, nor because the Ferrari lacked pure performance: what betrayed Charles was a problem that actually began to show well before the second pit stop, well before the 40th lap mentioned in the statement, although it only became evident afterward in a clear way.
The first alarm on lap 27
After the first pit stop — with Leclerc switching from medium to hard tires — the number 16 SF-25 Ferrari was still leading the race. But something was already wrong by lap 27, when the Monégasque driver opened the radio with an agitated tone:
“I’m feeling exactly what we talked about before the race. We need to discuss this before making that choice again… we’re going to lose the race because of this. I’m already losing a lot of time.”
This was the first sign. It was not a question of mistakes or strategic choices: something was troubling Leclerc, who clearly saw something in the data on his steering wheel that did not convince him, especially since nothing had been communicated to him over the radio before his message, and overall his pace was still decent.
Meanwhile, Lando Norris, who had a poor start, decided with his race engineer to switch to a one-stop strategy. This seemingly conservative decision paid off, helped by the mysterious Ferrari problem. Free from Russell and with clear air ahead, Norris began stringing together fast laps on medium tires. However, toward the end of the race, with more worn tires, he should have been vulnerable to Leclerc’s attack. Leclerc, on paper, was expected to recover after his second pit stop, but instead, he found himself in a deep crisis.
The second radio message and the collapse
On lap 51, Piastri overtook Leclerc without resistance. Shortly after, came Leclerc’s second and very harsh radio message:
“If you had listened to me, I would have found a different way to manage the problem… the car is now completely undrivable.”
A few corners later, George Russell also passed him, taking the final podium spot. From there, Charles drifted aimlessly until the finish line, ending fourth with over 40 seconds behind Norris. Five seconds of that gap were due to a penalty for defending against Piastri, but the problem was much bigger.
Chassis or tire pressures?
After the race, Charles Leclerc tried to soften his tone following the furious radio messages:
“I have to retract what I said on the radio. I thought it was a problem related to the wing change, but then I received more precise information: it was an anomaly in the chassis.”
This version matches Ferrari’s official statement but contradicts what Fred Vasseur told Sky: “We had a problem with the tire pressure.”
What really happened to Charles Leclerc’s Ferrari
It’s hard to believe this is simply a discrepancy in describing such a serious problem. Analyzing the data, a plausible and probable explanation can be developed, also confirmed by post-race statements from George Russell, and deliberately kept secret by the Scuderia to avoid exposing weaknesses to their rivals.
The drop in performance, the poor top speed on the straights, the difficulty in maintaining ideal tire temperature: all suggest a car forced to run a higher ride height to avoid wear problems with the plank and therefore risk of disqualification. This fix was likely implemented during the race, possibly with the last set of tires fitted with unnaturally high pressures, which triggered a temperature and slipping problem that fed itself lap after lap. Certainly, power reduction from the engine was also applied to avoid high-speed squashing worsening wear on certain track points. From the second pit stop onward, sparks under Leclerc’s Ferrari disappeared or became extremely rare, a clear sign the car was running higher off the ground.
Dark faces
At the end of the race, the Ferrari team’s faces were grim, morale low, fully aware they had wasted one of their few chances to secure at least one victory this season. The reason for the cautious statements is clear and understandable: not to give opponents more information about a problem that could unfortunately recur during the rest of the season and that seems impossible to fix without a drop in performance.
Leave a Reply