Bernie Collins has questioned Ferrari’s handling of Lewis Hamilton’s Dutch Grand Prix, expressing particular surprise that the team considered asking the seven-time world champion to complete the race on a one-stop strategy at Zandvoort. The former Formula 1 strategist argued that Ferrari delayed two important decisions: how to manage Hamilton’s convergence with Charles Leclerc and whether the Briton should attempt to reach the chequered flag without another pit stop.
Hamilton lost a position at the start but recovered ground by extending his opening stint until lap 25, four laps longer than Leclerc. The fresher tyres then allowed him to overtake Oscar Piastri and close the gap to the other SF-26, creating a situation Ferrari had ample time to anticipate.
Bernie Collins says Ferrari failed to prepare for Hamilton-Leclerc convergence
Speaking on the F1 Show, Collins explained that it had been apparent from the moment Hamilton rejoined the circuit that the two Ferrari drivers would meet before the end of the stint. In her assessment, the pit wall had around 10 laps in which to choose between three clear options.
Ferrari could have allowed Hamilton and Leclerc to race, although that risked costing both cars time. Alternatively, the team could have reversed their positions, disadvantaging Leclerc but potentially improving the Scuderia’s overall result, or brought the Monegasque into the pits to clear Hamilton’s path.
Collins believed the team appeared unprepared when the cars finally came together. Hamilton felt his progress was being obstructed and asked for his teammate to move aside, but no instruction followed. Several laps passed before Ferrari decided to pit Leclerc, who eventually stopped on lap 43.
Leclerc appeared to disregard the initial call to pit because he wanted to build a greater tyre advantage over George Russell, who had stopped his Mercedes on lap 40. By the time Ferrari removed Leclerc from Hamilton’s path, Collins argued that the British driver had already surrendered significant race time.
The episode added to the radio tension between Lewis Hamilton, Charles Leclerc and the Ferrari pit wall. Hamilton later apologised on social media after sarcastically praising the team over the radio for wasting time.
Ferrari’s Lewis Hamilton one-stop strategy raises questions
A second strategic uncertainty emerged when Hamilton expected Ferrari to mirror Leclerc’s approach but was instead kept on track. Hamilton briefly led the Dutch Grand Prix before Kimi Antonelli and Lando Norris rapidly caught him on substantially fresher tyres.
After seeing the two cars approaching in his mirrors, Hamilton asked whether Ferrari was using him as a test case. He remained on track until lap 55, when Esteban Ocon stopped and triggered a virtual safety car, allowing the Maranello team to make a less costly pit stop.
Before the virtual safety car, Ferrari had been evaluating whether Hamilton could reach the finish without stopping again. However, the team did not explain that possibility to its driver. Team principal Fred Vasseur later indicated that Ferrari wanted to avoid broadcasting its strategy to its rivals, although Piastri’s McLaren engineers ultimately recognised the plan.
That communication choice was central to Collins’ criticism. She maintained that a driver must know whether a stint is expected to last approximately 20 laps or twice that distance because the required tyre management is fundamentally different. At a circuit such as Zandvoort, where degradation is relatively high, the decision needed to be made early enough for Hamilton to adapt his pace and protect the tyres.
The former strategist was therefore taken aback when Ferrari began discussing the possibility of avoiding another stop. She doubted that the gamble would have succeeded and suggested Hamilton would have become highly vulnerable to rivals on fresher tyres during the closing stages.
Why Ferrari’s delayed decisions mattered at Zandvoort
The concern was not simply that Ferrari selected the wrong option, but that the team appeared to delay committing to a plan in both decisive phases of Hamilton’s race. First, the pit wall allowed its drivers to converge without having clearly settled how their positions would be managed. It then considered an extreme tyre strategy without giving Hamilton the information he needed to execute it effectively.
Those decisions contributed to the wider debate surrounding Ferrari’s strategy behind Hamilton’s Dutch GP frustration. They also placed greater scrutiny on how the team coordinates two drivers with competing strategic priorities when both are fighting for the strongest possible result.
Vasseur has defended Ferrari’s thinking by explaining that the team did not initially swap the cars because Leclerc was due to pit and Hamilton was being considered for a run to the finish. Collins’ analysis, however, focused on the timing and communication surrounding those choices rather than simply their intended purpose.
For Hamilton, the virtual safety car ultimately ended the one-stop discussion by creating an inexpensive opportunity to change tyres. Yet the sequence still underlined the importance of decisive pit-wall management, particularly when the seven-time world champion must tailor his driving to a strategy that differs significantly from the plan being followed by Leclerc.
With both Ferrari drivers losing time during the same strategic sequence, Collins’ verdict was that the pit wall should have recognised the developing problem earlier, selected its preferred solution and communicated enough information for Hamilton to manage the decisive stint appropriately.
Leave a Reply