2026 F1 Bahrain Grand Prix 199
Follow Ferrari at the relocated 2026 Bahrain Grand Prix, exceptionally being held at the Sepang International Circuit in Malaysia. This archive covers practice, qualifying and the race, alongside strategy, tyre performance, technical analysis and every major development involving Lewis Hamilton, Charles Leclerc and Ferrari. For full event history, circuit context, records and Ferrari’s past Bahrain Grand Prix performances, visit our Bahrain Grand Prix circuit guide.
Malaysian GP return: Sepang considers rotating F1 calendar deal after 2026 success
Malaysia is considering a rotating Formula 1 calendar agreement as part of its efforts to bring the Malaysian Grand Prix back to Sepang following the circuit’s successful return in 2026. The Malaysian government remains interested in securing a permanent place in the championship, but it is now prepared to explore alternative arrangements, including sharing a calendar slot with another country.
The potential Malaysian Grand Prix revival has gained momentum after Sepang hosted the Bahrain Grand Prix in October 2026, bringing Formula 1 back to the circuit for the first time in nine years. The strong attendance and quality of the racing have strengthened the case for a return, although competition for places on the increasingly crowded Formula 1 calendar remains a major obstacle.
Sepang’s successful 2026 F1 return revives Malaysian Grand Prix ambitions
Formula 1’s return to Malaysia is no longer simply a possibility dependent on an available calendar slot. The success of Sepang’s comeback has reopened discussions that appeared to have ended nine years earlier, when the Malaysian circuit disappeared from the World Championship schedule.
The Malaysian government is now willing to consider different arrangements to secure a lasting presence in Formula 1, including a rotating agreement with another venue.
This willingness represents a significant change in its negotiating approach. The stated objective remains securing a permanent place on the calendar, but growing competition between race organisers and the limited number of available slots mean Malaysia must consider less straightforward solutions.
With 24 events originally scheduled for the 2026 season, obtaining a regular place requires considerable financial resources, organisational capability and commercial conditions that are increasingly difficult to reconcile with the ambitions of every prospective host.
The 2026 Formula 1 calendar illustrates how tightly contested those places have become, with established circuits and newer destinations competing for limited opportunities.
Sepang’s return in 2026 took place under unusual circumstances. Rather than hosting a conventional Malaysian Grand Prix, the circuit staged the Bahrain Grand Prix as an alternative venue following the cancellation of the original event at Sakhir.
What initially appeared to be a temporary arrangement became an opportunity to demonstrate that Sepang still possesses considerable sporting and commercial value within international motorsport.
The 2026 Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang brought the championship back to a venue that had been absent from Formula 1 since 2017. The event also allowed Malaysia to demonstrate its ability to organise a modern Grand Prix despite the exceptional circumstances surrounding its return.
The attendance figures and the quality of the on-track spectacle strengthened the arguments of those supporting a permanent revival of the Malaysian Grand Prix.
Sepang is not an unfamiliar venue seeking to establish itself on an already crowded calendar. It is a circuit with an established history in Formula 1, having played an important role in the championship’s development across Asia for many years.
Its successful return demonstrated that genuine interest in Formula 1 remains in Malaysia, giving the government a stronger position from which to discuss the possibility of hosting future races.
The circuit’s significance is also reflected in its Formula 1 history and Ferrari’s record at Sepang, which underline the venue’s established place in the championship rather than presenting it as an entirely new destination.
Malaysia takes F1 return discussions to the highest political level
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim met Formula 1 president and CEO Stefano Domenicali ahead of the 2026 Grand Prix to discuss the prospects of bringing the championship back to Malaysia on a lasting basis.
The meeting elevated the issue to the highest institutional level and demonstrated that the Malaysian government regards the project as a serious opportunity rather than simply an extension of the temporary arrangement used in 2026.
For Kuala Lumpur, the objective is to turn the momentum created by Sepang’s return into a longer-term agreement with Formula 1.
However, the competitive nature of the calendar means Malaysia must also evaluate the economic and organisational commitments required to stage the event regularly.
That is why the government has begun considering an alternative approach that could allow Sepang to return without requiring a race every season.
Malaysian GP rotation emerges as possible F1 calendar solution
The most significant new development concerns the conditions under which Malaysia would be prepared to rejoin the Formula 1 calendar.
The government is examining the possibility of a rotating Grand Prix agreement with another country, allowing the two destinations to share a place in the championship rather than each requiring an annual calendar slot.
Such an arrangement would represent an extension of the rotation model already adopted for established European venues. Formula 1 has explored alternating agreements involving circuits such as Spa-Francorchamps and the Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, allowing traditional races to remain part of the championship without necessarily appearing every season.
The approach makes it possible to distribute limited calendar opportunities across multiple venues while preserving events with established sporting and historical significance. Malaysia is now considering whether a similar arrangement could work for Sepang, potentially extending the concept of Grand Prix rotation beyond Europe.
The possibility has been confirmed by Malaysian Sports Minister Mohammed Taufiq Johari. According to Malaysian news agency Bernama, discussions include the option of holding the race at intervals of several years in cooperation with another venue.
However, the proposal remains at a preliminary stage, and no definitive agreement has been reached: “It has also been proposed to hold the race every few years in collaboration with another country, but this is still at an early stage,” Mohammed Taufiq Johari said.
The cautious wording is just as important as the government’s willingness to consider the proposal.
Malaysia has not secured a new Formula 1 contract, and the discussions do not guarantee that Sepang will return to the championship calendar.
Instead, the consideration of a rotating arrangement demonstrates that the government is expanding the range of possible solutions in an effort to make the project compatible with Formula 1’s scheduling and commercial requirements.
Financial and commercial challenges remain for Sepang’s F1 comeback
Beyond the sporting appeal of returning to Sepang, the central challenge remains finding the right balance between economic sustainability and commercial interests.
Formula 1’s growth has increased demand among countries and promoters interested in hosting a Grand Prix. However, the number of available calendar dates remains limited, making the selection process increasingly competitive.
In this environment, accepting a rotating race agreement could provide a useful compromise for both Malaysia and Formula 1. For the championship, such an arrangement would allow Sepang to remain among its potential destinations without requiring the calendar to expand further.
For Malaysia, it would provide an opportunity to resume investment in hosting Formula 1 with a more realistic long-term perspective, even if that did not involve staging a Grand Prix every year.
Nevertheless, several important questions remain unanswered. The financial terms of any potential agreement have not been established, while the duration of a proposed contract is also unknown. It remains to be seen which other circuit or country might be willing to share a calendar place with Sepang.
These details will be decisive in determining whether the concept can progress beyond preliminary discussions.
The 2026 return has reopened a door that had remained closed for nine years. Sepang’s successful hosting of the relocated Bahrain Grand Prix has given Malaysia a fresh opportunity to pursue a place in Formula 1, while the government’s willingness to reconsider its original requirements could make future negotiations more realistic.
However, there is still a considerable difference between political interest and an actual return to the championship calendar.
Malaysia has demonstrated that it is prepared to explore a more flexible arrangement, but only an agreement with Formula 1 can turn that ambition into a confirmed Malaysian Grand Prix comeback.
Martin Brundle identifies a worrying pattern behind recent Formula 1 mistakes
Martin Brundle believes the increasingly demanding Formula 1 calendar could be contributing to the technical failures and operational mistakes witnessed during the recent Grands Prix in Malaysia and Singapore. The former F1 driver and television commentator has raised concerns about fatigue among those responsible for running the championship, suggesting that the relentless schedule may be placing additional pressure on systems and personnel.
Two particularly notable incidents have brought those concerns into focus. Heavy rain at Sepang exposed an unexpected software problem that required an emergency correction, while Singapore Sprint Qualifying was affected by a Race Control mistake involving Overtake Mode. For Brundle, these episodes, together with other recent technical irregularities, suggest a wider issue involving the demands placed on Formula 1’s organisation.
Martin Brundle questions whether F1’s demanding calendar is increasing errors
Brundle identified fatigue as a possible explanation for the problems emerging during consecutive race weekends. His concern centres on the intensity of the championship’s schedule, which he described as involving six races across seven weekends and nine events within an eleven-week period.
Such a demanding programme requires Formula 1 personnel to move repeatedly between circuits, often working within temporary facilities established specifically for each event. Brundle pointed to Singapore as an example of the environments in which the championship must operate, with infrastructure assembled around existing concrete and asphalt surfaces.
In his view, this constant movement and the pressure of delivering successive Grands Prix could be affecting the people and systems responsible for ensuring that events run correctly. Although he did not establish fatigue as the definitive cause of the recent incidents, he considered it a possible contributing factor.
The concern is particularly significant because Formula 1 depends on close coordination between teams, officials and technical systems. Even relatively small operational mistakes can create complications when sessions are interrupted or procedures need to be changed at short notice.
The wider demands of the season are reflected in the 2026 Formula 1 calendar, which requires the championship to operate across numerous international venues throughout the year.
Sepang software failure exposed unexpected F1 technical vulnerability
One of the incidents highlighted by Martin Brundle occurred during the rain-affected Grand Prix weekend at Sepang, Malaysia. Difficult weather conditions triggered an unexpected software malfunction, forcing Formula 1 officials and teams to find a solution before racing could proceed.
Brundle explained that the underlying issue had appeared in a specific sector of the circuit where a problem had not been anticipated. He acknowledged that the situation should not have occurred, but noted that those responsible identified the difficulty and developed a software correction relatively quickly.
Once the solution was prepared, the teams installed the updated software on their cars, allowing the race to go ahead. However, the process was not completed simultaneously across the field.
According to the former driver, one team required additional time to obtain approval from its headquarters before implementing the correction. That delay added another ten minutes to proceedings, although Brundle deliberately chose not to identify the team concerned.
The episode illustrated how an unforeseen technical fault can create additional complications when teams and officials must react under time pressure. The circumstances surrounding the incident, including the Sepang software problem during wet conditions, also demonstrated the importance of finding a workable solution before the event could continue.
Singapore Overtake Mode mistake adds to Race Control concerns
Formula 1 encountered another problem at Marina Bay, this time involving a human error during Singapore Grand Prix Sprint Qualifying.
The incident followed a red flag caused by Sergio Pérez’s accident at Turn 5. When the session resumed, Race Control failed to reactivate Overtake Mode, leaving the system unavailable despite the return to green-flag running.
Unlike the unexpected software malfunction in Malaysia, the Singapore issue involved an operational mistake. Both incidents nevertheless contributed to the discussion about whether Formula 1’s increasingly demanding schedule is placing excessive pressure on the personnel responsible for managing these procedures.
The FIA’s acknowledgement of the Singapore Overtake Mode error brought particular attention to Race Control’s responsibilities during session interruptions. The failure occurred at a point when drivers and teams were attempting to complete competitive laps following the red flag.
For Brundle, the sequence of problems across Malaysia and Singapore raised questions extending beyond any single malfunction. His concerns involved the broader reliability of the processes needed to operate modern Formula 1 weekends.
Timing systems and onboard data also raise questions
The former Formula 1 driver also referred to other unusual problems encountered during recent Sprint Qualifying sessions, stressing that not every difficulty could be attributed exclusively to the FIA.
He identified irregularities involving onboard cameras, driver-tracking systems, lap times, sector times and telemetry information. These different systems form part of the technical infrastructure used to follow and manage Formula 1 sessions.
Brundle considered the accumulation of such incidents unusual, particularly in a championship where technical accuracy and operational reliability are expected to meet exceptionally high standards.
The Singapore weekend had already demonstrated how several separate difficulties could emerge during the same qualifying session. Alongside the Overtake Mode mistake, the event experienced a distinct timing-system problem, further complicating an already interrupted session.
Further details of the governing body’s response to the Singapore Sprint Qualifying errors and subsequent FIA explanation illustrate the nature of the operational difficulties encountered at Marina Bay.
Why Martin Brundle believes F1 must avoid repeated operational mistakes
Brundle’s central argument is that Formula 1 may be placing its personnel and technical infrastructure under more pressure than they can comfortably absorb throughout such an intensive sequence of events.
He suggested that fatigue could help explain why unexpected software issues, procedural mistakes and irregularities involving technical information have appeared within a relatively short period. However, his comments stopped short of establishing a direct causal connection between the calendar and every individual problem.
The former driver also emphasised that such difficulties should not be considered acceptable simply because Formula 1 operates in demanding circumstances. The championship’s status and technical sophistication create an expectation that its systems should function reliably even under significant operational pressure.
With the recent incidents in Malaysia and Singapore providing several examples of what can go wrong, Brundle’s observations raise a broader question about the workload facing Formula 1 personnel and whether the sport’s demanding calendar is beginning to affect the precision required to run race weekends successfully.
Malaysia considers permanent F1 return after Bahrain GP success at Sepang
Malaysia is seriously considering a return to the Formula 1 calendar after encouraging figures emerged from the Bahrain Grand Prix held at Sepang. The event generated an estimated economic impact of nearly 950 million ringgit, strengthening the case for the country to examine whether Formula 1 could return on a more permanent basis.
Malaysia’s Ministry of Youth and Sports told parliament that the Bahrain Grand Prix, staged at the Sepang International Circuit from 2 to 4 October, attracted around 261,000 spectators across the race weekend, including approximately 103,000 on race day. The strong attendance and wider economic impact have now prompted further analysis of the costs and benefits of hosting Formula 1 in the future.
Sepang Bahrain GP generated nearly 950 million ringgit
In its written parliamentary reply, the Ministry said: “Based on information from Formula One Management, the event generated an economic impact of nearly 950 million ringgit. The championship was broadcast worldwide and was watched by 827 million viewers.”
It added: “More than 97,000 tickets were sold, with over 50,000 international tourists and around 5,000 foreign workers arriving in Malaysia for the race.”
The figures underline the scale of the event and the wider benefits associated with staging Formula 1 at Sepang, particularly given the international audience and the number of overseas visitors who travelled to Malaysia for the Grand Prix.
Malaysia highlights tourism and business benefits
The Ministry also stressed that the influx of international visitors benefited several areas of the Malaysian economy, including tourism, hospitality, aviation and local small and medium-sized businesses.
It said that the event also strengthened Malaysia’s profile as an international sports and investment destination, helping reinforce the country’s image on the global stage.
That wider exposure is now part of the broader discussion about whether Malaysia should seek a regular place on the Formula 1 calendar again.
Hosting structure reduced some costs for Malaysia
This edition differed from previous Formula 1 events at Sepang because Bahrain covered the hosting rights fees through its collaboration with the Sepang circuit.
However, the Ministry did not disclose the total costs borne by the Malaysian government, leaving the exact level of public financial commitment unclear. That unanswered question is one of the key reasons why a detailed assessment is now being carried out before any decision is made about hosting Formula 1 again on a regular basis.
Cost-benefit study will help shape Malaysia’s F1 decision
The Ministry confirmed that the Sepang International Circuit and an appointed consultancy company are currently carrying out a cost-benefit assessment following the conclusion of the event. The study will examine the organisation costs in detail and compare them with the economic benefits generated by the Grand Prix.
The Ministry explained: “The results of this cost-benefit assessment will be one of the factors taken into consideration when deciding whether Malaysia should consider hosting an F1 Grand Prix again in the future.”
The response came after a parliamentary question from Rodiyah Sapiee, who asked about the economic benefits of the race compared with government spending and whether a cost-benefit study would guide any decision over a regular Formula 1 return.
For now, no permanent comeback has been confirmed. However, the economic impact, strong attendance and international exposure generated by the Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang have given Malaysia concrete reasons to examine the possibility of returning to the Formula 1 calendar on a regular basis.
Lewis Hamilton says younger F1 drivers are more cautious in wet races
Lewis Hamilton believes Formula 1 wet-weather racing has become increasingly cautious, with the seven-time world champion pointing not only to modern safety considerations but also to a different attitude among younger drivers. After rediscovering the thrill of difficult conditions at Sepang, the Ferrari driver explained why racing on instinct still represents one of the purest tests of a driver’s ability, before turning his attention to the very different challenge of the Singapore Grand Prix Sprint weekend.
The rain at Sepang brought back sensations that Lewis Hamilton felt belonged to another era of his career. It was not simply because he recovered positions through the field, but above all because of the pleasure of driving in difficult conditions and relying on instinct and sensitivity. Speaking ahead of the Singapore Grand Prix, Lewis Hamilton enthusiastically reflected on that experience and on how much wet-weather racing has changed during his Formula 1 career.
Lewis Hamilton on why F1 wet-weather racing has changed
“When it started raining, I said to myself: ‘Oh yes, now we’re going to have some fun,’” Lewis Hamilton recalled. “I was really looking forward to having the opportunity to battle with Max Verstappen and Kimi Antonelli, but with the delay and everything that happened, we didn’t get the opportunity.”
Lewis Hamilton did not, however, want to blame race control for what happened on Sunday. “There was an unforeseen problem and I think it was handled in the best possible way. The people making the decisions are trying to make sure everyone is safe.”
His view changes when the discussion broadens to the way wet races are managed in modern Formula 1. Lewis Hamilton believes the championship has gradually lost part of the challenge that once defined racing in the rain. In his view, the difference is not simply about caution, but also about the equipment available to the drivers.
“Wet races aren’t what they used to be. I remember the ones in 2008, when we had more opportunities to test and we had better tyres for the rain, thanks to the development work we could do with Bridgestone.”
There is another factor Lewis Hamilton considers significant: the different attitudes between generations of Formula 1 drivers.
“I think the people running the races today are much more cautious, but the young drivers coming into Formula 1 are also increasingly cautious. We from the old school say: ‘Come on, let’s race!’ A lot of the younger ones, instead, prefer not to. So the people making the decisions receive different feedback and end up being extremely cautious.”
Why Hamilton still embraces the risk of difficult conditions
Lewis Hamilton does not deny that racing in extreme conditions involves greater risk, but he believes those situations allow drivers to demonstrate qualities that can be less obvious on a dry circuit.
“Is it riskier? Absolutely, yes. But those are exactly the conditions in which we can really put ourselves to the test. When you have to drive by relying completely on feeling, sensing the car through your body and reacting instinctively, that’s where you can make the difference.”
Lewis Hamilton directly connected that idea to his race at Sepang, particularly the laps he completed on slick tyres while the track remained treacherous. The difficult tyre decision was one of the defining elements of Ferrari’s Sepang strategy, with conditions demanding constant judgement from the cockpit.
“I was out there on dry tyres in incredibly difficult conditions, but I love that kind of challenge. I think that was exactly the moment when I was able to make the difference.”
The role played by compounds and stint choices can also be explored through the ScuderiaFans F1 Tyre & Stint Analysis, which allows tyre strategies and stint patterns to be compared across a Grand Prix weekend.
Sepang recovery brought back Hamilton’s karting memories
The recovery also reminded Lewis Hamilton of the earliest years of his career, when talent had to compensate for a lack of competitive machinery.
“I had so much fun. It reminded me of when I was a kid racing karts. My first kart was fifth-hand, completely bent, and I was basically always starting from the back of the grid. I had to work my way through the field. This race brought me back to those moments.”
Lewis Hamilton nevertheless also criticised one characteristic of the current power units, particularly the loss of power that can occur towards the end of the straights.
“It’s something we hope will be changed over the next few years, because we should never find ourselves in that situation.”
Ferrari faces a very different Singapore Sprint challenge
With Sepang behind him, Lewis Hamilton is now preparing for a completely different test at Marina Bay. Singapore hosts a Sprint weekend, meaning Ferrari will have only one free practice session in which to find the ideal car balance. The restricted running makes Ferrari’s Singapore Sprint challenge especially demanding on a circuit where confidence and setup can be crucial.
Lewis Hamilton approaches the situation with curiosity despite recognising the difficulties Ferrari has encountered during the season. There are nevertheless reasons for optimism heading into Marina Bay, with the Briton having already identified several encouraging factors for Ferrari in Singapore.
“Generally, we manage to start quite well, also thanks to the excellent work of our simulator group. Then, though, session after session, some of our rivals get closer.”
With so little track time available, Ferrari’s initial preparation could therefore become even more important. Fans can also check the complete 2026 Singapore Grand Prix Sprint, qualifying and race schedule for the full Marina Bay weekend programme.
“We only have one hour, but everyone is in the same situation. It could go well or it could go badly. It’s an exciting challenge.”
Guenther Steiner believes Ferrari strategy culture is behind repeated F1 mistakes
Guenther Steiner believes Ferrari’s latest strategy mistake at Sepang points to a broader decision-making problem inside the team, arguing that the Scuderia too often gets finely balanced Formula 1 calls wrong and then struggles to reverse course quickly enough. His criticism followed the Bahrain Grand Prix in Malaysia, where Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc both started on Soft tyres despite the track remaining wetter than Ferrari had expected.
The gamble immediately proved costly. The Italian side was not alone in choosing slicks, with six other drivers making the same decision, but all eight slick runners occupied the final eight positions by the end of the first racing lap. By the time the Safety Car appeared on lap nine, the five drivers still using slicks, including Lewis Hamilton, had fallen more than 80 seconds behind the leader.
The Briton eventually produced an impressive recovery to finish third, but the seven-time world champion believed victory could have been possible with the correct tyre choice at the start. The result therefore added another strategic decision to the list of opportunities Ferrari feels it has failed to execute cleanly during 2026. The aftermath has already led to further discussions between Lewis Hamilton and Ferrari after the Sepang tyre gamble.
Guenther Steiner questions Ferrari’s approach to 50-50 decisions
Speaking on the Red Flags podcast, Guenther Steiner compared Ferrari’s situation to dealing with a person whose advice becomes so unreliable that doing the opposite can appear more successful. In his view, certain organisations can develop patterns in which the same type of judgement repeatedly leads to the wrong outcome.
The former Haas team principal did not suggest that the initial Sepang tyre call was simple. He acknowledged that choosing between wet-weather tyres and slicks was a genuine gamble because the circuit was not drying in the way teams expected.
Fred Vasseur had already explained that Ferrari lacked information, and Steiner accepted that point. Malaysia had not hosted Formula 1 for a long period, making it difficult for teams to know exactly how efficiently the circuit would drain once the rain stopped.
George Russell had also observed that the circuit remained wet despite the rain having stopped, reinforcing how unusual the conditions were. For Steiner, however, the difficulty of the original call did not fully explain what he sees as Ferrari’s wider tendency to come out on the wrong side of such decisions.
Why changing the decision became just as important as the original gamble
The key issue for Steiner was what happened after teams had more information available. Some drivers initially left the pits on slick tyres but reconsidered before the green flag. Oscar Piastri was among those who switched to intermediates, with his engineer acknowledging over the radio that the McLaren driver had made the correct call.
Ferrari instead persisted with its original approach. Hamilton remained on slicks while losing substantial amounts of time, with the decision to continue partly influenced by the British driver himself once the race procedure had begun.
Steiner believes that contrast may point towards a cultural difference. His interpretation was that McLaren recognised the initial decision was wrong and corrected it quickly, whereas Ferrari appeared more reluctant to abandon its original choice and accept that the gamble had failed.
That criticism goes beyond whether Ferrari should initially have selected slicks or intermediates. It concerns the ability to respond when new evidence shows that a strategy is no longer working. In changing conditions, the speed at which a team abandons an incorrect plan can be just as important as making the original decision correctly.
Safety Car transformed Lewis Hamilton’s race
Without the Safety Car, Hamilton’s afternoon could have looked very different. The neutralisation brought the field back together after the Ferrari had already lost an enormous amount of time, giving the seven-time champion an opportunity to recover positions rather than face the prospect of being nearly lapped.
Hamilton eventually climbed to third place, while Charles Leclerc also recovered to fourth. The final result therefore looked considerably stronger than Ferrari’s opening phase of the race had suggested, but the podium did not erase the strategic mistake that created the deficit in the first place.
The Sepang episode is particularly significant because both Fred Vasseur and Lewis Hamilton have already acknowledged that Ferrari’s execution has not consistently been good enough this season. Ferrari’s broader strategic performance, including pit timing and race execution, can also be followed through the Ferrari pit-stop and strategy data.
Steiner sees a longer-term Ferrari problem
For Guenther Steiner, the concern is not limited to one wet race in Malaysia. He believes similar issues have appeared across several seasons, turning individual mistakes into what he sees as a recurring pattern.
That is why the former team principal’s criticism focused as much on Ferrari’s willingness to acknowledge and correct a poor decision as on the original tyre gamble itself. The initial call was difficult and other teams made the same mistake. What differentiated the outcomes was how quickly some of those teams reacted once it became clear that slick tyres were not working.
Ferrari now heads into another demanding weekend with strategy and execution again under scrutiny. The Sprint format in Singapore will give the team less preparation time than usual, adding further importance to clean decisions and rapid reactions throughout the weekend. Fred Vasseur has already outlined Ferrari’s main challenge for the Singapore Sprint format.
Sepang ultimately delivered a podium for Lewis Hamilton and fourth place for Charles Leclerc, but Steiner’s argument is that the result should not disguise how costly the opening decision could have been without the Safety Car. For Ferrari, the larger question is whether the team can become quicker not only at making difficult strategy calls, but also at recognising when one needs to be changed.
Charles Leclerc warning exposes serious F1 2026 wet-weather safety issue
Charles Leclerc’s words after the chaotic Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang have raised a much more serious question than a simple software bug. Under certain wet and low-speed conditions, Formula 1 drivers can find themselves without full control over how much power their cars receive from the Power Unit. That turns what happened in Malaysia from a technical inconvenience into a genuine F1 2026 safety issue.
“Can these cars be driven in the wet?” The question put to Charles Leclerc after the Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang already contains, by itself, everything Formula 1 should have the courage to address after what happened in Malaysia. The Ferrari driver’s answer was not a joke, not simply a complaint and, above all, not about the behaviour of a tyre or the aerodynamic balance of a car. It concerned something far more fundamental: whether the person behind the wheel genuinely has control of the car.
“There are definitely risks. They can be driven, yes. But there are risks: what we don’t like, and I think it’s the same for all the drivers, is that there are situations in which we don’t have control of the car and of the power we receive from the Power Unit.”
That is the sentence worth stopping on for a moment. Charles Leclerc had already warned about drivers losing control of the 2026 cars in wet conditions, and the significance goes well beyond whether the new generation of machinery is difficult to drive. If a Formula 1 driver says there are situations in which he cannot control the power arriving from the Power Unit, the matter immediately stops being merely about spectacle, reliability or software. It becomes a question of safety.
And safety, by definition, should not be something that is corrected only after the problem appears on track in front of millions of people.
The problem was not just the software bug
Sepang produced a paradoxical situation. After the start had been delayed by the rain, the cars went out behind the Safety Car for the formation laps. Max Verstappen was the first to suffer a loss of power, then Lewis Hamilton virtually came to a stop, while other drivers encountered similar problems. The procedure was interrupted and Formula 1 remained stationary for around 40 minutes while the FIA and the teams tried to understand what had happened.
The unusual episode became one of the defining moments of the 2026 Bahrain Grand Prix weekend at Sepang, even before the race itself could properly begin.
An explanation emerged later. Electrical-energy management has become an even more intrusive part of how the 2026 cars behave and, in wet conditions, the system provides for a reduction in the amount of electrical power available. At Sepang, however, an extremely particular combination of low speed, low engine revs, poor grip and energy-management logic triggered unexpected behaviour from the FIA software. In practical terms, some cars were no longer able to recover the power required to continue normally.
The FIA explained that the software had been tested, but not in that precise combination of circumstances. Technically, that is an understandable explanation. Yet precisely because it is understandable, it raises a much more uncomfortable question: why had that combination of conditions not been considered beforehand?
Formula 1 presents itself as the pinnacle of automotive technology. It therefore cannot afford to discover during a Grand Prix that a particular combination of weather conditions, engine speed and circuit configuration can disrupt the system responsible for managing a car’s power delivery.
This was not a vibrating wing, a temperature rising further than expected or a strategy turning out to be wrong. It was a situation in which, under specific circumstances, a Formula 1 car could stop responding in the way its driver expected. That changes the perspective completely.
Safety cannot depend on a software patch installed in the pit lane
Perhaps the most concerning detail is also the one most likely to be overlooked. In order for the race to take place, the FIA had to modify the software and distribute an update to the teams during the lengthy suspension of the start.
Max Verstappen recounted the situation with some irony, while Lewis Hamilton confirmed that the delay had been used specifically to install the new software on the cars. The seven-time world champion’s event had already been complicated before racing began, adding another unusual chapter to Lewis Hamilton’s Ferrari season.
Formula 1 therefore had to solve a problem in real time that ideally should have been identified during the design and validation process.
This is where Charles Leclerc’s statement becomes particularly important. Put simply, the Ferrari driver was not saying the car is difficult to drive in the wet. He was not saying the Power Unit lacks performance. He was saying there are moments when the driver does not fully control what the Power Unit is delivering.
That is exactly the kind of scenario that should be simulated, stress-tested and validated before a set of technical regulations becomes competitive reality, particularly when those regulations so significantly increase the car’s dependence on electronics and automated energy management.
The broader technical characteristics of Ferrari’s SF-26 at the Malaysian venue were already visible in the post-race analysis of Ferrari’s Sepang performance, but the power-management problem affected a much more fundamental area than outright performance.
F1 2026 has shifted enormous complexity towards energy management
Formula 1’s 2026 regulations have moved a huge part of the complexity of performance towards the hybrid system, energy management and the algorithms that determine when and how that energy can be used.
The FIA is perfectly aware of the complexity it has introduced. That has also been demonstrated by changes already made during the season to energy parameters and systems intended to improve safety during starts and the behaviour of the cars in low-grip conditions.
For Ferrari in particular, the interaction between the Power Unit, energy deployment and chassis behaviour has repeatedly formed part of the season’s SF-26 technical analysis. Sepang, however, showed what happens when that complexity moves beyond performance optimisation and begins affecting the driver’s ability to predict the car’s response.
That is precisely why it is difficult to dismiss the Malaysian episode with a simple “we learned the lesson”.
The 16th race should not be the proving ground
Formula 1 reached the 16th race of the season before encountering, for the first time in real conditions, a situation in which all these systems had to operate together in the wet, at low speed and behind a Safety Car. The result was what everyone saw.
There is no need to suggest that the FIA deliberately created a dangerous situation. That would be an exaggeration and, more importantly, an absurd claim. Nor would it be correct to turn every software malfunction into a catastrophe waiting to happen.
Complex technology can create unpredictable combinations. That is a fact. But precisely because this is true, the validation process has to be even more rigorous.
If a technical regulation introduces a system capable of intervening in the amount of energy reaching the wheels, engineers have to ask what happens when the car is travelling at extremely low speed. What happens when the tyres have little grip? When the driver is dealing with standing water and poor visibility? When the car is following the Safety Car? When the engine revs fall? When several cars are forced to slow down at the same time?
These are hardly science-fiction scenarios in Formula 1. They are part of motor racing. The unusual combination of conditions at Sepang had already made the weekend a major technical challenge for Ferrari, as shown by the team’s technical preparations for the SF-26 at Sepang.
If scenarios involving low speed, poor grip and restricted energy deployment were not tested sufficiently before the rules were introduced, then the problem is not simply the bug. The problem is the method.
Charles Leclerc brings the argument back to the driver
The highest category of motorsport cannot become a laboratory in which the consequences of regulatory choices are progressively discovered during Grand Prix weekends. A certain degree of evolution is inevitable, but there is a substantial difference between correcting a performance parameter and discovering that a particular combination of circumstances can leave a driver without the throttle response he expects.
In that sense, Charles Leclerc did something much more important than simply criticise the new generation of Formula 1 cars. He brought the discussion back to its starting point: the driver has to control the car.
That is not a nostalgic demand. It is not an attack on technology. It is the bare minimum.
A Formula 1 car can be complex, sophisticated, electrified, algorithm-driven and filled with control systems. It can even be built around energy management that continuously changes the behaviour of the car.
But the moment a driver presses the accelerator and can no longer be certain what response the Power Unit will provide, something is no longer working as it should.
And if that something concerns safety, it should have been discovered in simulators, testing programmes and validation procedures. Not at the 16th race of the championship.
Lewis Hamilton defends Ferrari over Sepang strategy error and questions McLaren criticism
The Singapore Grand Prix weekend is beginning, but Ferrari is still facing questions over what happened at Sepang. The decision to start both drivers on slick tyres generated widespread debate and renewed criticism of the Maranello pit wall, but Lewis Hamilton has now strongly defended the team while also echoing Fred Vasseur’s concerns about what Ferrari sees as excessive negativity surrounding the Scuderia.
The seven-time Formula 1 world champion addressed both the comparison with McLaren and the internal process that produced Ferrari’s unsuccessful tyre decision. Lewis Hamilton stressed that responsibility should not fall solely on the strategists because the final call emerged from a wider discussion involving several members of the team.
Lewis Hamilton says Ferrari receives more criticism than its rivals
Lewis Hamilton highlighted two important aspects of the controversy. The first concerned McLaren, which made the same initial mistake before the start, although it partially corrected the decision by calling Oscar Piastri in at the end of the formation lap to switch to Intermediate tyres.
Despite that, Lewis Hamilton argued that the reaction towards McLaren was very different. “One interesting thing is that, for some reason, as a team we receive much more criticism than others. McLaren made the same decision and nobody said anything. Or they found some excuse. McLaren made the same mistake and made the same choice. In the end, it was a mistake.”
The comments continue the discussion that followed Ferrari’s difficult wet-to-dry call at Sepang, with Lewis Hamilton having already confirmed further talks inside Ferrari after the failed tyre strategy.
Lewis Hamilton explains why Ferrari strategists are not solely responsible
The second point concerned who actually made the decision. In Malaysia, Lewis Hamilton had explained that Ferrari chose to use slick tyres despite his observations that the circuit was drying more slowly than expected. In Singapore, however, the British driver was careful to distribute responsibility across the group rather than blaming one department.
“It is not the strategists’ fault. Unfortunately, my strategy team ends up taking most of the criticism, but in reality the decision did not come from the strategist. It is the result of collective work: Fred Vasseur, Matteo Togninalli, me, my engineer… we decide together. We discuss it and bring together our contributions, our ideas and the information available.”
Lewis Hamilton then reconstructed the moments leading up to the decision to remain on slick tyres. “As I said, when I entered the pit lane I thought: ‘It’s wet’. I go to the pit wall and say: ‘It’s wet’. I go back to the garage and say: ‘Guys, we should fit the intermediates’. At that point, everyone offers a different point of view.”
The Ferrari driver explained that receiving several different opinions eventually persuaded him to follow the collective decision. “And when you have three people giving you different opinions, in the end you let yourself be convinced and say: ‘OK, I’ll do what you say’. That is how you work as a team, you hope that three heads are better than one, but in some cases the opposite happens.”
Lewis Hamilton acknowledged that his original instinct had ultimately been correct. “You were right, your instinct had seen it correctly, and then you think: ‘Damn, I should have followed my instinct’. However, generally everyone is trying to do their best. It was not enough, we discussed it at length and we will try to understand how to make better decisions more consistently in the future.”
Lewis Hamilton holds no grievance against the FIA
Lewis Hamilton also took a conciliatory approach when discussing the FIA and the software problem that delayed the start of the Bahrain Grand Prix. Despite the disruption, he did not criticise the governing body.
“I was excited for a wet race when it started raining, and I thought, yes, this is going to be fun. And we did the formation laps on the grid, there was clearly a lot of water being thrown up, and then with all the delays and everything else, in the end we did not get to have the battle I wanted with Max Verstappen, which I was excited about, and with Kimi Antonelli.”
Lewis Hamilton added: “I really do not have any resentment towards the FIA. I think ultimately they do their best to keep us all safe.”
Despite the difficult start to the race, Lewis Hamilton was at least able to enjoy his recovery through the field to the podium. “It was a lot of fun. Honestly, it reminded me of my days when I was young, as a kid, when my first kart was fifth-hand, all battered, and I would basically start at the back of the grid and have to work my way through the field. It took me back a little bit in that sense.”
Lewis Hamilton optimistic about Ferrari at Singapore
With the previous Grand Prix now behind him, Lewis Hamilton turned his attention towards Singapore, a circuit where he has frequently produced strong performances. His 2018 pole position remains regarded as one of the standout qualifying laps of the modern Formula 1 era.
“Every time I come here I try to find that same feeling, but the tyres are always different every time we return,” Lewis Hamilton explained. “There is the overheating problem… but the preparation also changes: certain practices we used at Mercedes, or that other teams used at the time, such as solutions for cooling the rear tyres, get banned. And so new ways of managing the tyres emerge.”
The characteristics of Marina Bay leave Lewis Hamilton reasonably optimistic about Ferrari’s prospects, although he acknowledged that there are still uncertainties. The reasons behind that optimism have already been explored in more detail in the analysis of why Singapore could offer Lewis Hamilton and Ferrari a stronger opportunity.
“I think our car generally works well on street circuits, especially when there are no particularly long straights. If we look at the last few races, we were fast in the corners but not as fast on the straights.”
Lewis Hamilton believes Marina Bay’s high-downforce nature could help reduce the impact of Ferrari’s straight-line disadvantage. “This is a high-downforce circuit, so I hope the advantage the others had on the long straights is reduced a little, allowing us to level things out thanks to the pace we can maintain through the corners.”
The Marina Bay layout places particular emphasis on traction and cornering performance, making Ferrari’s behaviour through the technical sections especially important this weekend.
Lewis Hamilton concluded that establishing a predictable platform will be essential around Singapore’s uneven street surface. “For us, therefore, the important thing is to have a solid and stable base, especially through the bumpy sections, because the surface here is uneven.”
With Ferrari looking to put the Sepang strategy controversy behind it, Singapore offers an immediate opportunity to apply the lessons learned while exploiting a circuit that may better suit the SF-26’s cornering strengths. More developments involving the seven-time world champion can be followed through the Lewis Hamilton Ferrari news archive.
FIA reveals cause of Sepang F1 power-loss chaos and confirms Austin software update
The FIA has completed its investigation into the extraordinary problems that disrupted the start procedure at Sepang, identifying a software energy-management issue involving low engine speeds and restrictions on electrical power. The governing body has also confirmed that a further wet-weather software update will be introduced at the United States Grand Prix in Austin.
The problems emerged during the formation laps of the Bahrain Grand Prix in Malaysia, when several cars suffered unexpected power losses and race control was forced to suspend the start procedure. The unprecedented situation raised questions about the reliability of the software managing Formula 1’s new power units and about the validation procedures completed before its introduction.
The FIA has now issued a statement explaining the cause of the anomaly, detailing the measures intended to prevent a repeat and rejecting criticism that the software used at Sepang had not been adequately tested.
FIA identifies the cause of the Sepang F1 power-loss problem
The investigation confirmed that the issue was triggered by a specific combination of very low internal-combustion-engine revs and restrictions on electrical power in certain sections of the circuit. Under those conditions, some cars suffered a greater-than-expected loss of available power without being able to recover it through the affected sectors.
The system was designed to reduce the available power by 250 kW in specific areas of the track. However, the power units operating at particularly low revs produced consequences that had not been anticipated. The problem became apparent during the formation laps, when the cars were travelling at very low speeds on a wet circuit.
The FIA therefore traced the problem to software management of energy rather than to a mechanical reliability failure within the power units. The distinction is significant because it highlights how the increasing complexity of the electronic systems controlling the new engines can create unexpected behaviour even in apparently less demanding conditions such as a formation lap.
The Sepang weekend formed part of a revised 2026 Formula 1 calendar in which the Bahrain Grand Prix was staged at the Malaysian circuit before the championship moved on to Singapore and then Austin.
Singapore configuration retained before new Austin software arrives
If similar weather conditions occur at the next Singapore Grand Prix, the software configuration established for the Sepang event will be restored. A further update specifically designed to improve power unit management in wet conditions will then be distributed for the United States Grand Prix, scheduled for 25 October.
The FIA has also announced stronger verification procedures while acknowledging the limited opportunities available for on-track testing. The aim is to improve the ability to identify potentially critical combinations through simulation work, independent assessments and closer cooperation between the governing body, Formula 1 teams, power unit manufacturers and the supplier of the standard electronic control unit.
The change therefore comes at an important point in the calendar, with Singapore preceding the Austin weekend. Ferrari’s preparations for the next event can also be followed through the site’s Ferrari technical analysis coverage.
FIA rejects claims the Sepang software had not been tested
One of the most significant parts of the FIA statement concerns the checks completed before the Sepang Grand Prix. The governing body directly addressed suggestions that the software had been introduced without prior testing.
According to the FIA, teams and power unit manufacturers had already carried out simulator exercises to validate the package before implementation. The software had also been tested on track during FP1 at both the Belgian and Dutch Grands Prix.
The clarification indicates that the problem was not caused by a complete absence of validation. Instead, the issue arose because it is not possible to reproduce every operational combination that may occur during a race weekend during the testing phase. That limitation becomes increasingly important as the electronic systems responsible for controlling Formula 1 power units become more complex.
How the FIA solved the Sepang software issue in under 50 minutes
The FIA also reconstructed the sequence of events on Sunday to underline how quickly the anomaly was identified and corrected.
At 15:45, after two formation laps, the start procedure was suspended because several cars were suffering power-loss problems. Just five minutes later, at 15:50, the FIA technical group had already identified the cause and distributed an updated software configuration intended to resolve the issue.
Further technical instructions were sent to the teams at 16:03 to clarify how the new configuration should be installed and operated. Integration was completed by 16:20, and the ten-minute signal preceding the start procedure was issued at 16:22. At 16:33, the cars left the pit lane.
In less than 50 minutes, the FIA and the power unit manufacturers had therefore identified a software anomaly, prepared a solution, distributed it and completed its integration across the cars. The intervention was particularly complex because the revised configuration had to remain compatible with the systems used by the different engine manufacturers.
At the end of its statement, the FIA explicitly thanked the teams, power unit manufacturers and its own technical staff for their cooperation during the interruption, stressing that the combined effort allowed the issue to be resolved and the race to take place safely.
The championship now moves from the unusual Sepang weekend towards the Singapore Grand Prix before the United States Grand Prix, where the next dedicated wet-weather software package is scheduled to arrive.
Why Ferrari misread the wet-to-dry transition at Sepang with Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc
The chaos of the Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang was not simply about the weather. The rain exposed a more interesting problem: how well did the teams really understand the behaviour of the Malaysian circuit in wet conditions?
Ferrari, in particular, paid for the wrong strategic choice at the most delicate stage of the race. When the Grand Prix finally started after more than an hour and a half of waiting, the circuit appeared to be drying but was still too wet for slick tyres. Ferrari chose Softs for both Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton, while other teams opted for intermediates. The result was immediate: both Ferrari drivers lost ground, while those on intermediates benefited from the actual track conditions.
But that leads to another question: was it really so difficult to anticipate that Sepang might take considerable time to dry?
Sepang is not an ordinary circuit
The recent history of the Malaysian circuit contains information that should not simply be ignored. Sepang was completely resurfaced in 2016, and the work also included changes to certain track profiles and the drainage system.
Some sections were specifically reprofiled to improve the evacuation of water during the intense tropical downpours for which the region is known. Additional drainage grilles were also installed at points considered particularly critical.
What happened in the years after that resurfacing is even more relevant. Problems involving water remaining on the track surface were subsequently reported, and in 2023 the circuit underwent another significant programme of work.
The section between Turns 7 and 12 was resurfaced, with further work carried out around Turn 9. Sepang International Circuit itself explained that the previous major intervention had taken place in February 2016 and that corrective work had later become necessary following reports concerning water on the track.
One thing is therefore certain: Sepang was not a surface that had remained unchanged since 2016.
Sepang was different in 2026, but not completely unknown
Before Formula 1 returned to Malaysia, Pirelli analysed the circuit directly. The tyre manufacturer highlighted that Sepang had a relatively abrasive surface and confirmed that several areas had been resurfaced in 2023.
Pirelli also explained that, despite those interventions, the general characteristics of the asphalt remained very similar to those measured in 2017.
More importantly, Pirelli made another fundamental point clear: the teams had very little genuinely significant data relating to the current generation of Formula 1 cars because the previous race at Sepang had taken place in 2017.
That is where the challenge becomes important. When recent data from current cars is limited, teams have to compensate by analysing everything else available to them: the circuit’s history, changes to the asphalt, previous track behaviour, weather conditions, drainage and, above all, earlier episodes of heavy rain.
The question Ferrari needed to answer before choosing Soft tyres
No engineer could reasonably be expected to calculate with mathematical precision exactly how many minutes Sepang would need to dry after a specific tropical downpour. But that was not the fundamental question Ferrari needed to answer.
The real question was much simpler: after an enormous amount of rain falls, how quickly can the circuit become suitable for slick tyres?
That distinction matters enormously. At Sepang, it is not enough to observe that the rain has stopped and that a drier racing line is beginning to appear in certain areas. Teams also need to understand how quickly that line will widen, how long the areas away from it will remain wet and, most importantly, whether enough water remains on the surface to make slick tyres the wrong choice.
That is exactly what Ferrari encountered at the start. The circuit appeared to be drying, but remained too wet. Ferrari fitted Soft tyres to both cars and immediately paid the price, an error the team subsequently acknowledged after the race. The consequences of that opening call and the recovery that followed are detailed in the analysis of Ferrari’s Sepang tyre mistake and Lewis Hamilton’s comeback.
Did Ferrari focus too heavily on the track looking dry?
This is perhaps the strongest criticism that can be directed at Ferrari’s pit wall. It does not necessarily mean that anyone inside the team was unaware of the history of Sepang’s asphalt.
There is not enough evidence to claim Ferrari possessed a specific document capable of predicting the exact drying time of the circuit. The issue is different.
The strategy appears to have placed greater emphasis on the possibility that the track would dry quickly than on the opposite risk: that the surface could remain extremely wet even after the rain itself had stopped.
At that moment, the tyre choice was decisive. Max Verstappen and Kimi Antonelli were among the drivers who opted for intermediates, while Ferrari committed to Softs. The comparison on track quickly favoured the first interpretation.
The different compound choices and stint structures from the race can also be examined through the ScuderiaFans F1 Tyre & Stint Analysis.
Old asphalt was not the problem at Sepang
There is also an important misunderstanding to avoid. It would not be accurate simply to say that Sepang’s asphalt was old and therefore no longer drained properly.
Pirelli assessed the general characteristics of the surface in 2026 as remaining very similar to those recorded in 2017, while the circuit had undergone further work in 2023 as well as additional levelling and cleaning in the weeks leading up to the Grand Prix.
It therefore cannot be claimed that ageing alone had simply closed the pores in the asphalt and caused water to remain on the surface. That would be a technical oversimplification.
The more relevant point is that a circuit which has undergone different interventions over time, and which has historically required particular attention to drainage, also needs to be studied in terms of how it behaves in wet conditions.
Ferrari had an even bigger problem during the Sepang race
The decision to start on Soft tyres was not Ferrari’s only problem at Sepang. The conditions completely reshuffled the race, while Charles Leclerc’s contact with Nico Hülkenberg and the subsequent puncture complicated the situation further.
Despite everything, Lewis Hamilton recovered to the podium and Charles Leclerc climbed back to fourth place. Ferrari therefore demonstrated that the potential to rescue the weekend was there. More coverage of the two drivers’ race can be followed through the dedicated Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc sections.
That makes the initial mistake even more interesting. This was not a race that had been lost from the beginning. Ferrari had the opportunity to choose the right tyre at the decisive moment, but misread the transition from wet to dry conditions.
The track had already provided clues
The point is therefore not to accuse Ferrari of failing to understand that Sepang is an old circuit. That would be far too simplistic.
The more relevant question is whether every available piece of information was used to construct the worst-case scenario before the tyre decision was made.
There were several factors to consider. Sepang was returning to the Formula 1 calendar after nine years. The 2026 cars were completely different from those that had competed there in 2017. Pirelli had highlighted the shortage of current data, while the circuit itself had undergone substantial work.
Some sections had been resurfaced again in 2023, and drainage had already been modified during the circuit’s recent history. Sepang is also exposed to extremely intense rainfall, making the circuit’s behaviour in wet conditions one of the most important variables to understand.
None of those factors makes it possible to predict the future perfectly. But together they certainly make one question worth asking: “If a downpour arrives, how long will this track really take to dry?”
Given Ferrari’s tyre choice at the start, that is now a difficult question to avoid.
Ferrari lacked more than outright pace at Sepang
Lewis Hamilton eventually reached the podium, while Charles Leclerc finished fourth. Considering how disastrous the opening laps had been, that result could even be viewed as positive.
Yet that recovery is precisely why the strategic question remains. Ferrari did not necessarily need to predict the exact amount of water covering every centimetre of the circuit. It needed to interpret the wet-to-dry transition correctly.
In a race where rain had already caused a delay of more than 90 minutes and completely transformed the circuit conditions, the margin available for an aggressive gamble on slick tyres was probably too small. A broader breakdown of how the team managed the changing race can be found in the Ferrari Bahrain Grand Prix strategy analysis.
Modern Formula 1 teams have access to an enormous amount of data, and Ferrari’s wider car and performance developments can be followed through the ScuderiaFans Ferrari technical analysis section. But data is useful only when the individual pieces are connected.
Perhaps the most important lesson from Sepang is therefore a simple one: knowing that a track is drying is not enough. The crucial questions are how it is drying, how quickly that process is happening and, above all, where the remaining water is located.
This time, Ferrari got that prediction wrong.
Why Formula 1’s Full Wet tyres are becoming almost impossible to use
The heavy rain at Sepang brought one of modern Formula 1’s biggest wet-weather paradoxes back into focus: Full Wet tyres still exist and are transported to every Grand Prix, yet it has become increasingly rare to see them actually used in racing conditions.
The question is simple but increasingly difficult to ignore. If Formula 1 cars are not allowed to race when the amount of standing water is high enough to genuinely require Full Wet tyres, what purpose do the extreme-weather tyres now serve?
Formula 1’s Full Wet tyre paradox exposed at Sepang
The situation at Sepang provided a clear example. The circuit was completely wet and the Grand Prix was heavily affected by rain, forcing the start to be delayed while Race Control waited for conditions to become sufficiently safe.
Yet once the cars were finally able to return to the track, drivers largely turned to intermediate tyres. As the asphalt began to dry quickly, some even attempted to switch to slicks rather than use the Full Wet compound.
That creates the central contradiction. Formula 1 has a tyre specifically designed for the wettest possible racing conditions, but when those conditions actually occur, the cars are often unable to race. The complete compound and stint sequences from wet races can also be explored through the F1 Tyre & Stint Analysis.
In the hybrid era, genuinely extreme rain has increasingly resulted in delayed starts or suspended running until enough water has cleared from the circuit. By that point, the intermediate tyre can already be the more appropriate choice.
A tyre that risks becoming practically redundant
The problem does not concern Pirelli alone. The Italian manufacturer can design and supply tyres capable of coping with large quantities of water, but if those conditions are judged too dangerous for racing, actually using them becomes extremely difficult.
The result is a paradox: Formula 1 possesses a specialised tyre for the heaviest rain, but the very conditions for which that tyre was designed can prevent the cars from competing.
Full Wet tyres have therefore become an increasingly uncommon sight during races, while the explanations offered over the years have included both regulatory and technical factors.
The problem goes beyond Formula 1’s tyres
Sepang also highlighted another issue. The new cars appeared to struggle even while travelling slowly in wet conditions, with several cars becoming stationary during the formation-lap sequence.
The behaviour raised questions over how the cars’ electronic systems were interpreting inputs while travelling at unusually low speeds. Michele Brusiadelli also highlighted how some cars slowed dramatically or stopped during the reconnaissance lap because of how their electronic systems responded to those conditions.
That leads to an even broader question: are modern Formula 1 cars genuinely designed to race effectively in heavy rain?
The issue is not limited to tyre grip. Visibility, aquaplaning, the amount of spray generated by the cars, aerodynamics and race management all contribute to the decision over whether conditions are safe enough for competitive running.
Formula 1 increasingly waits for the circuit to dry
The contradiction was visible away from the track as well. During the lengthy delay at Sepang, television coverage had to fill time while the Grand Prix remained suspended and everyone waited for the circuit to become sufficiently driveable again.
It illustrated a situation that has become increasingly familiar in Formula 1: heavy rain arrives, but racing cannot resume until the rain weakens or enough water clears from the surface.
Once that threshold is reached, however, the track may already be moving towards conditions in which intermediate tyres are the logical option. At Sepang, tyre strategy became particularly significant as conditions evolved, with Ferrari also having to manage a difficult transition towards slick tyres during the race. The consequences of that choice can be explored in more detail in the analysis of Lewis Hamilton’s Ferrari talks after the Sepang tyre strategy.
Does Pirelli still need to develop the Full Wet tyre?
The question is deliberately provocative, but technically relevant. If Full Wet tyres are effectively ruled out precisely when the weather becomes severe enough to require them, Formula 1 may eventually need to reconsider how it manages racing in heavy rain.
That does not mean the responsibility lies entirely with Pirelli. Visibility, aquaplaning, standing water, spray, car aerodynamics and Race Control procedures all play a role. But the end result remains the same: one of the conditions that historically produced some of Formula 1’s most memorable performances has become increasingly difficult to manage.
The question therefore remains open. If Formula 1 is no longer prepared to race in genuinely heavy rain, what purpose does it serve to keep bringing Full Wet tyres to the circuit?
Lewis Hamilton’s Sepang tyre call prompts telling Charles Leclerc comparison from Christijan Albers
Lewis Hamilton’s decision to resist a Ferrari tyre change at Sepang has been highlighted by former Formula 1 driver Christijan Albers as an example of the judgement that separates the seven-time world champion from Charles Leclerc. The two Ferrari drivers ultimately finished third and fourth in the Bahrain Grand Prix despite following sharply different strategies through the changing conditions.
Both started the race on slick tyres on a circuit that proved wetter than Ferrari had anticipated. Leclerc quickly abandoned the gamble and switched to intermediates, while Hamilton chose to persevere as he sensed the track beginning to improve.
Charles Leclerc initially gains from early switch to intermediates
Charles Leclerc’s decision was influenced in part by damage sustained in a collision with Nico Hulkenberg. The Monegasque stopped on Lap 4 and dropped more than 30 seconds behind the pack, but the move initially appeared to be working.
By Lap 8, Leclerc had already passed six drivers who remained on slick tyres, including his Ferrari team-mate. With the intermediate compound working better in the wet conditions, his early loss of track position was quickly being recovered.
The strategic picture then changed completely when Valtteri Bottas spun his Cadillac into the gravel and triggered a Safety Car. The neutralisation erased the advantage built by the intermediate runners and brought the drivers who had remained on slicks back into contention.
The dramatic swings in tyre performance were another example of how sensitive the crossover was at Sepang, with the full sequence providing useful context alongside the ScuderiaFans F1 Tyre & Stint Analysis.
Lewis Hamilton pushes back against Ferrari intermediate call
Ferrari then wanted Lewis Hamilton to switch to intermediates, but the Briton believed the circuit was already beginning to dry. He felt the team had committed to a risky slick-tyre strategy at the start and that, with little left to lose, it made sense to continue with that gamble rather than reverse course just as conditions were moving back towards dry tyres.
Hamilton consequently stayed out during the first Safety Car period and moved up to 15th before the restart. Leclerc, meanwhile, later had to stop again and return to slick tyres once the track finally reached the crossover point.
The sequence followed an already difficult strategic opening to the race for Ferrari, with Lewis Hamilton having questioned the initial tyre choice before the start. His concerns and the subsequent team discussions are also covered in the report on Hamilton’s Ferrari talks after the Sepang strategy decision.
Christijan Albers sees world champion quality in Hamilton’s judgement
Christijan Albers, who raced in Formula 1 between 2005 and 2007, believes the episode demonstrated a clear difference between the two Ferrari drivers. In his assessment, Hamilton showed the authority and judgement expected of a seven-time world champion by resisting the call to pit once he felt the slick tyres beginning to generate temperature and grip.
Albers contrasted that response with Leclerc’s decision to follow the team’s instruction and switch compounds. He argued that Hamilton recognised there was little to lose by remaining committed to the original strategy and considered the eventual decision to stay out the correct one.
From the Dutch pundit’s perspective, Leclerc’s extra stop illustrated the downside of changing course. The Monegasque moved onto intermediates and then had to return to slicks shortly afterwards, while Hamilton avoided that additional transition. Albers viewed that difference in decision-making as evidence of a gap in experience and race judgement, comparing the trait he saw in Hamilton with similar qualities shown by Max Verstappen.
Charles Leclerc had questioned Ferrari’s original slick strategy
Leclerc had not been entirely comfortable with Ferrari’s original plan either. In an unbroadcast radio message before the green flag, he asked the team to calculate how much time the cars were likely to lose during the opening phase if the conditions proved too wet for slicks.
Hamilton also had doubts after taking to the circuit, although Ferrari initially instructed both drivers to stay out. Leclerc theoretically had the option of fitting another set of dry tyres when he eventually stopped and maintaining the original gamble, but instead chose a short stint on intermediates.
The contrast demonstrates how rapidly strategic decisions changed as conditions evolved. Ferrari had to judge not only which compound was fastest at a particular moment, but whether any immediate gain justified the time required for another pit stop if the circuit was approaching the crossover back to slicks.
Ferrari’s wider strategic performance throughout the season can be followed through the Ferrari pit-stop and strategy data.
Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc still finish together on track
Despite taking very different routes through the changing conditions, Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc eventually converged again near the front. Both passed Isack Hadjar late in the race, with Hamilton finishing third and Leclerc fourth.
Only two seconds separated the Ferrari drivers at the chequered flag, an unusually small margin considering how different their races had looked during the opening stages. The final positions therefore hid much of the strategic divergence that had defined their afternoons.
For Christijan Albers, however, the key moment came earlier. Hamilton’s willingness to challenge the proposed Ferrari call and remain committed to the slick tyres stood out as the decisive example of the race-management experience he believes differentiates the seven-time world champion from his team-mate.
Aston Martin found a way to outperform Ferrari despite its Honda power deficit
Aston Martin found an unexpected way to outperform Ferrari in acceleration at Sepang despite continuing to struggle with a significant Honda power-unit deficit. The AMR26 remained the slowest car through the Malaysian speed traps, but shorter gear ratios allowed Fernando Alonso to extract considerably stronger acceleration through third, fourth and fifth gear.
The approach formed part of Aston Martin’s strongest weekend of the 2026 Formula 1 season. Both cars reached Q2 for the first time this year, while Fernando Alonso finished eighth to secure both his and the team’s best race result of the campaign. The performance came without a new aerodynamic upgrade package, placing greater attention on changes elsewhere in the car.
Aston Martin finds performance without an aerodynamic upgrade
Sepang’s characteristics were more favourable to the AMR26 than several previous circuits, but the improvement was also linked to technical work carried out by Aston Martin. Honda’s power unit remains significantly down on performance despite upgrades, leaving the team at a disadvantage whenever outright straight-line speed becomes decisive.
That weakness was still visible in Malaysia. Speed-trap figures showed Aston Martin at the bottom of the order on the straights, yet its deficit had been reduced to only a couple of tenths. At certain points on the long acceleration zones, the AMR26 was even able to perform more strongly than George Russell’s Mercedes.
A major part of that progress was attributed to the gearbox introduced in Baku. The revised unit reduced the car’s weight by around 15 kilograms, providing a useful improvement even before considering the way Aston Martin subsequently adapted its gearing.
Shorter gear ratios help compensate for Honda power deficit
Aston Martin is well aware that it cannot currently rely on the Honda engine to match its rivals at the highest speeds. Instead of focusing solely on maximum velocity, the team shortened the AMR26’s gear ratios to extract more of the available power during acceleration.
The objective was to use the power unit more effectively at lower speeds rather than chasing a top-speed figure the car was unlikely to achieve. Aston Martin remains particularly vulnerable once speeds rise beyond 300 km/h, so the technical compromise was designed to reduce the deficit from around 250 km/h upwards.
That philosophy produced a notable result through the lower and middle gears. In third, fourth and fifth, the AMR26 was reported to accelerate more strongly than Ferrari. The difference helps explain the bursts of pace Fernando Alonso displayed at Sepang and his ability to progress through the field.
The contrast is particularly notable given Ferrari’s own continuing concern over outright power and straight-line performance. Lewis Hamilton has previously highlighted the remaining Ferrari power deficit despite progress elsewhere on the car, making Aston Martin’s ability to gain ground through gearing an interesting comparison between two very different technical approaches.
Why Aston Martin can accelerate better but still lose at top speed
The Malaysian performance illustrates the compromise created by shorter ratios. By keeping the engine in a more useful part of its operating range, Aston Martin can improve the rate at which the AMR26 builds speed. That does not eliminate the underlying Honda power deficit, however, and the car becomes more exposed once the advantage from acceleration gives way to the need for maximum velocity.
In effect, the team has attempted to strengthen the area where it can make the most effective use of the power currently available rather than trying to disguise the power unit’s weakness entirely. That approach helped produce Aston Martin’s most competitive weekend of the season without relying on fresh aerodynamic parts.
The wider development battle remains particularly important under the 2026 regulations, with power-unit performance and car efficiency both shaping how teams exploit different circuit profiles. Further developments around Ferrari’s side of that equation can be followed through the ScuderiaFans Ferrari technical analysis.
Ferrari still takes stronger Sepang result
Aston Martin’s acceleration advantage in specific gears did not translate into a better overall result than Ferrari. Lewis Hamilton finished third in Malaysia, while Charles Leclerc took fourth, giving the Maranello team a strong points haul despite an early strategic problem.
The result nevertheless gives Aston Martin encouragement because its gains arrived while the Honda power unit remained one of the AMR26’s major limitations. The recent engine development picture also remains significant, with Honda continuing to work on further power-unit progress.
For Ferrari, being outperformed by Aston Martin in a specific acceleration window is a reminder that competitive differences do not always follow the overall finishing order. A car can remain slower at maximum speed while still gaining time during the phases leading towards it, particularly when gearing is deliberately configured around that weakness.
Fernando Alonso capitalises on Aston Martin’s strongest 2026 weekend
Fernando Alonso made the most of the improved package to finish eighth. Oscar Piastri described the Spaniard as a master of chaos during the Sepang weekend, and the result provided Aston Martin with its clearest sign yet that the AMR26 can become more competitive when circuit characteristics and technical compromises align.
However, the Malaysian progress does not remove the team’s fundamental limitation. Honda’s power unit remains both slow and unreliable according to the assessment presented, restricting how far Aston Martin can progress through the remainder of 2026 and into 2027 unless the engine situation improves.
The shortened ratios and lighter gearbox therefore represent an effective way of mitigating part of the problem rather than eliminating it. Sepang showed that Aston Martin can use the AMR26’s available performance more efficiently and even gain an acceleration advantage over Ferrari in certain gears, but outright power remains the larger obstacle Adrian Newey and the team still have to work around.
Charles Leclerc omission from Bahrain GP Power Rankings sparks fan debate
Charles Leclerc’s omission from Formula 1’s Bahrain Grand Prix Power Rankings has sparked debate among fans after a complicated Sepang race in which the Ferrari driver had to recover from a failed slick-tyre gamble, contact, front-wing damage and four pit stops.
Lewis Hamilton, meanwhile, was included among the highest-rated performers of the weekend. The Ferrari driver received a score of 9.0, placing him level with Liam Lawson and behind only Max Verstappen and Fernando Alonso in the post-race ranking. The contrast between the two Ferrari drivers has drawn particular attention because the Power Rankings are intended to assess standout individual performances rather than simply reproduce the finishing order.
Charles Leclerc misses Bahrain GP Power Rankings top 10
Max Verstappen headed the Bahrain GP Power Rankings with a perfect score of 10 following his pole-to-win performance at Sepang. Fernando Alonso was second with 9.4, while Lewis Hamilton and Liam Lawson shared the next-highest score on 9.0.
Kimi Antonelli received an 8.4 after finishing second, while Isack Hadjar and Arvid Lindblad were both awarded 7.8. Nico Hulkenberg followed on 7.4, with Esteban Ocon and Carlos Sainz both completing the published top 10 on 7.2.
Charles Leclerc was therefore absent entirely, despite a race that required him to deal with several setbacks. His day included an unsuccessful gamble onto slick tyres, contact, front-wing damage and a total of four pit stops. Those circumstances have fuelled the argument among some fans that his recovery deserved greater recognition.
Why Lewis Hamilton’s 9.0 adds to the debate
The presence of Lewis Hamilton near the top of the Bahrain GP Power Rankings makes Charles Leclerc’s omission particularly noticeable from a Ferrari perspective. The seven-time world champion received the joint-third highest score of the weekend, while his team-mate did not feature among the ten listed drivers.
That does not necessarily mean the ranking assessed the two Ferrari performances directly against each other. Power Rankings are designed to reward the strength of a driver’s weekend rather than simply rank competitors according to their final classification, which can create notable differences between race results and the eventual scores.
Kimi Antonelli provides one example. Despite finishing second, the Mercedes driver was ranked fifth with 8.4, behind Fernando Alonso and the 9.0 scores awarded to Lewis Hamilton and Liam Lawson. Conversely, drivers can miss the ranking despite finishing well, with sixth-placed Oscar Piastri also absent.
Fans argue Charles Leclerc’s recovery deserved more credit
The discussion around Charles Leclerc therefore centres less on where he finished and more on how much weight should be given to the difficulties he had to overcome. Supporters of the Ferrari driver have highlighted the sequence of setbacks during the race and argued that his recovery was underrated by the final ranking.
There is also an unavoidable subjective element in any performance ranking of this kind. A difficult race can produce a strong recovery while still containing moments that reduce an overall assessment, just as a cleaner weekend can receive greater recognition without necessarily producing a better finishing position.
For Ferrari fans, however, the comparison is an interesting one. Lewis Hamilton earned one of the highest ratings of the Bahrain GP weekend, while Charles Leclerc’s eventful afternoon was not enough to secure a place in the top 10. That difference has turned what might otherwise have been a routine post-race ranking into another talking point from Sepang.
Ferrari Bahrain GP race pace: Lewis Hamilton closes to 0.10s of Kimi Antonelli at Sepang
Ferrari’s Bahrain Grand Prix race pace was considerably stronger than its troubled start at Sepang suggested, with Lewis Hamilton recording the third-fastest average of the field and finishing only around a tenth of a second per lap behind Kimi Antonelli. Charles Leclerc was also among the four quickest drivers on average, giving Ferrari a much more encouraging performance picture than the opening phase of the race alone would imply.
Max Verstappen remained clearly ahead of everybody with an average race pace of 1:41.010, holding a 0.36-second advantage over Antonelli. Hamilton followed with a 1:41.470 average, just 0.10 seconds per lap behind the Mercedes driver and 0.45 seconds away from Verstappen, while Leclerc’s 1:41.830 placed him fourth overall. For Ferrari, those numbers matter because both drivers had to recover after a Sunday that began with formation-lap complications and an unfavourable tyre choice.
Ferrari Bahrain GP race pace puts Hamilton among the fastest
Hamilton’s average is arguably the most significant Ferrari figure from the race. At 1:41.470, the Briton was separated from Antonelli’s 1:41.370 by only one tenth of a second per lap across the representative race-pace sample. The gap to Verstappen was larger at 0.45 seconds, but Hamilton was still comfortably ahead of the next group.
That offers a different perspective on Ferrari’s afternoon. The team did not have the outright pace required to match Verstappen, who enjoyed a sizeable advantage, but Hamilton’s underlying speed was close to the next-best benchmark. Considering the compromised beginning to Ferrari’s race, his pace helped explain how the team was able to recover ground rather than simply limit further losses.
There is also a clear distinction between outright pace and the final outcome. Average lap-time analysis cannot account for every element of traffic, tyre condition or race situation, so it should not be treated as a direct prediction of where each driver should have finished. It does, however, provide a useful measure of the speed Ferrari was able to produce once the race developed.
Charles Leclerc strengthens Ferrari’s encouraging picture
Leclerc’s 1:41.830 average was 0.82 seconds slower than Verstappen’s 1:41.010 but still fourth quickest overall. He trailed Hamilton by 0.36 seconds per lap, leaving Ferrari with both cars inside the top four on average pace despite the difficulties that shaped the early stages.
That is important when assessing Ferrari’s performance at Sepang. The result was not simply built on surviving a difficult race or benefiting from events elsewhere. Both Ferrari drivers demonstrated enough sustained speed to rank near the front of the field, although Verstappen’s advantage showed that Red Bull still held a substantial performance margin on this particular Sunday.
The contrast between Hamilton and Leclerc is also notable without requiring a broader technical conclusion. Hamilton extracted the stronger average pace of the two, but Leclerc remained ahead of every driver other than Verstappen, Antonelli and his Ferrari team-mate. His 1:41.830 average was also 0.12 seconds per lap quicker than Isack Hadjar’s 1:41.950.
2026 Bahrain GP race pace: full ranking at Sepang
Ferrari placed both cars inside the top four for average race pace. Lewis Hamilton ranked third with a 1:41.470 average, only 0.10 seconds per lap behind Kimi Antonelli, while Charles Leclerc was fourth at 1:41.830.
| Rank | Driver | Average lap time | Gap to fastest |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Max Verstappen | 1:41.010 | Reference |
| 2 | Kimi Antonelli | 1:41.370 | +0.36s |
| 3 | Lewis Hamilton | 1:41.470 | +0.45s |
| 4 | Charles Leclerc | 1:41.830 | +0.82s |
| 5 | Isack Hadjar | 1:41.950 | +0.94s |
| 6 | George Russell | 1:42.010 | +0.99s |
| 7 | Oscar Piastri | 1:42.400 | +1.39s |
| 8 | Lando Norris | 1:42.500 | +1.49s |
| 9 | Franco Colapinto | 1:42.680 | +1.67s |
| 10 | Fernando Alonso | 1:42.730 | +1.71s |
| 11 | Oliver Bearman | 1:42.760 | +1.74s |
| 12 | Liam Lawson | 1:42.930 | +1.92s |
| 13 | Pierre Gasly | 1:43.040 | +2.03s |
| 14 | Lance Stroll | 1:43.160 | +2.15s |
| 15 | Nico Hülkenberg | 1:43.360 | +2.34s |
| 16 | Arvid Lindblad | 1:43.440 | +2.42s |
| 17 | Gabriel Bortoleto | 1:43.600 | +2.58s |
| 18 | Carlos Sainz | 1:43.600 | +2.59s |
| 19 | Esteban Ocon | 1:43.610 | +2.60s |
| 20 | Sergio Perez | 1:45.100 | +4.08s |
Average race-pace figures are rounded to the precision available in the dataset. Gaps are measured against Max Verstappen’s benchmark and may differ slightly from a subtraction of the displayed rounded lap times.
The ranking underlines how competitive Ferrari became once its difficult opening phase was behind it. Hamilton was not simply third in the order: his 1:41.470 average left him just 0.10 seconds per lap away from Antonelli’s 1:41.370, while Leclerc’s 1:41.830 was only 0.36 seconds behind his team-mate and 0.12 seconds quicker than fifth-placed Hadjar. Verstappen, however, occupied a different level, with his 1:41.010 benchmark giving him a 0.36-second advantage over the next-fastest driver and a 0.45-second margin over Hamilton.
Verstappen sets the benchmark as Alonso maximises his race
Behind the leading four, Isack Hadjar averaged 1:41.950 and George Russell 1:42.010, followed by Oscar Piastri at 1:42.400 and Lando Norris at 1:42.500. Verstappen’s 0.36-second advantage over Antonelli made him the clear reference and underlined that his victory was supported by the strongest sustained pace of the race.
Fernando Alonso provided another noteworthy performance further back. His 1:42.730 average ranked tenth, broadly matching a points-scoring level of race pace, while he also recorded the lowest top speed among the drivers who used overtake mode. That combination makes the points he secured particularly notable, as his result came without a strong straight-line speed advantage.
For Ferrari, however, the central takeaway is more encouraging than the messy beginning suggested. Sepang exposed costly execution problems, but once Hamilton and Leclerc were able to settle into the race, their pace placed both Ferraris firmly among the fastest cars on track. Verstappen’s 1:41.010 average remained out of reach, but Hamilton’s 1:41.470 and his proximity to Antonelli provide Ferrari with a much more encouraging benchmark to take from the weekend.
Did FIA break its own rule by restoring Bahrain GP starting grid?
The FIA’s decision to restore the original starting grid after the chaotic formation lap at the Bahrain Grand Prix in Malaysia remains under scrutiny, with the sporting regulations appearing to require cars to restart in the order in which they entered the pit lane.
Three days after the race at Sepang, controversy has yet to subside over the pre-race confusion caused by software problems that affected almost every car on the grid. While the sequence of events that caused cars to suddenly slow during the formation lap has now been at least partially clarified, attention has shifted to Race Control’s decision to restart the race using the original grid order.
FIA Bahrain GP grid decision remains controversial
That decision effectively erased all the position changes that had taken place during the formation lap. It was also the call that angered Fernando Alonso, who accused the federation of wanting to help Lewis Hamilton.
Lewis Hamilton had been among those most heavily affected by the software problems. Having originally been due to start second, the Ferrari driver had fallen to the back of the field before Race Control restored the initial starting order. The episode formed another major talking point from the Sepang weekend, which also later featured Lewis Hamilton discussing Ferrari after the Bahrain GP in Malaysia.
What the FIA sporting regulations say
The key issue is that, by restoring the original starting order and disregarding the sequence in which the cars entered the pit lane, the FIA appears to have gone against its own sporting regulations.
Paragraph B5.15.1 explicitly sets out what should happen when the starting procedure is suspended and the cars are directed into the pit lane.
“All F1 cars which entered the pit lane behind the Safety Car at the time the starting procedure was suspended will be arranged in the order in which they entered the pit lane, with cars that have been penalised and are required to start from the pit lane at the back of the line,” the regulation states.
On that basis, Race Control’s decision appears to have been an exceptional interpretation outside the normal procedure. At the same time, the reasoning is understandable because the problem that slowed almost the entire field was unrelated to any mistake by the individual drivers or teams.
A common-sense solution, but one that appears inconsistent with the rule
Another complication was the extraordinary level of confusion. So many cars were affected and spread around the circuit that Race Control faced a difficult task in determining what the new grid should actually have looked like.
However, a strict application of the regulation would have required the order to be frozen according to when each car entered the pit lane. The only obvious adjustment would have been to move to the back those cars that had remained stranded on track for so long that the Safety Car caught them, leaving them paradoxically ahead of the Safety Car when they eventually entered the pits.
The sequence of position changes around such incidents can also be examined through the ScuderiaFans F1 Race Position & Progression Tracker.
Bernie Collins says a written FIA rule was broken
Speaking on Sky Sports F1, former Aston Martin strategist Bernie Collins argued that a rule written into the sporting regulations had clearly been breached, even though she could understand why Race Control chose to restore the original grid.
“I partly agree with restoring the grid order, given the extremely chaotic situation,” Bernie Collins said. “However, there is a specific rule for the suspension of the starting procedure which clearly states that the cars entering the pit lane will start in the order in which they entered it.”
“Of course, the situation was far more chaotic than that rule anticipated, but the rule exists. As a result, anyone who gained an advantage through better management of the formation lap — whether that came from understanding the engine, pure luck or any other factor — may have felt penalised by the restoration of the original grid order.”
The controversy therefore centres on the tension between what Race Control considered the fairest practical solution to an unprecedentedly confused situation and the procedure explicitly described in the regulations. The decision restored the status quo for drivers such as Lewis Hamilton, but it also removed gains made by those who had negotiated the disrupted formation lap more successfully.
Ivan Capelli explains Ferrari’s strategy problem with Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc
Ivan Capelli has questioned Ferrari’s strategic approach in 2026, arguing that it is unusual to see Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc accept identical team decisions without pushing for alternative strategies. The former Formula 1 driver also delivered a broader assessment of Ferrari’s season, saying the SF-26 has never arrived at a Grand Prix as the clear car to beat, even on weekends when the Scuderia eventually won.
Capelli, who experienced Formula 1 first as a driver and later as a commentator, returned to official commentary duties during the Bahrain Grand Prix held in Malaysia after a nine-year absence. Speaking to Fanpage.it afterwards, he discussed Ferrari’s tyre strategy, the challenges of racing in heavy rain, Red Bull’s resurgence and Andrea Kimi Antonelli’s increasingly strong position in the Drivers’ Championship.
Ivan Capelli reflects on his Formula 1 commentary return
Asked whether he had noticed the warm reaction from fans following his return to the commentary booth, Ivan Capelli admitted that the response had meant a great deal to him.
“Obviously it pleased me, because it means that what was done in the past left a mark. More than 20 years of commentary have not been forgotten, and that is nice. Returning officially with Carlo [Vanzini] made me very happy. It was certainly a demanding comeback with a race that lasted an incredibly long time. I had to get back into the rhythm of commentary, it was a long marathon, but I enjoyed myself.”
The Malaysian race was particularly intense and Ferrari immediately found itself in difficulty because of its tyre choice. The weekend later became another important talking point around the team’s strategy, with Lewis Hamilton subsequently confirming that discussions would take place within Ferrari after the failed Sepang tyre call.
Ivan Capelli admitted that he had initially been influenced by the same television images of the circuit surface.
“I was taken in by those images as well, looking at the asphalt, and I thought it was the right choice. Evidently the water was penetrating this rough surface. McLaren fell into the same trap as well.”
Why Ferrari and McLaren did not split their strategies
One of the most striking elements was that neither Ferrari nor McLaren chose to differentiate the strategies between their two drivers. Asked why teams increasingly appear reluctant to split their approaches, Ivan Capelli suggested that the desire to avoid disadvantaging one driver is playing an important role.
“What is surprising is that both McLaren and Ferrari – although generally this also applies to Mercedes and Red Bull – did not differentiate their strategies. There is little desire to penalise one of the two drivers when you have a 50 per cent chance of choosing the right or wrong option. The choice is always uniform. At that point, either you get it right or you get it wrong. It seems clear to me that there is no longer the desire to differentiate the strategy.”
That approach has obvious implications at Ferrari, where any decision that gives either Lewis Hamilton or Charles Leclerc a clear strategic advantage could easily create internal controversy. The season-long comparison between the two can be followed through the Charles Leclerc vs Lewis Hamilton F1 head-to-head statistics.
Ivan Capelli surprised Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc do not push back
Ivan Capelli believes modern teams are increasingly reluctant to create internal conflict, but he was particularly struck by the willingness of the drivers themselves to accept that situation.
“They do not want to create disagreements within the team. The decision is made that way and that is how it is. What is unusual, though, is that the drivers accept this situation. Nobody rebels and says: ‘I want to do something different, let me do it.’ When I was racing, we had the opportunity to decide. Today everyone has an enormous amount of data, but there is also a huge amount of discussion with the engineers and perhaps the driver no longer has the opportunity to impose his own will.”
The issue adds another dimension to Ferrari’s ongoing effort to improve its strategic execution after Sepang, with both drivers forced to operate within a highly data-driven decision-making structure.
Andrea Kimi Antonelli has a major advantage in the F1 title fight
Attention then turned to Andrea Kimi Antonelli, who left Malaysia with an 84-point advantage over George Russell and an increasingly comfortable position in the championship.
“Everything seems to be going Kimi’s way. He has achieved wonderful victories at iconic circuits such as Monte Carlo and Monza. Even when he has to drive defensively, as in Malaysia, he understood that it was difficult to stay ahead of Max Verstappen and still managed to score important points.”
Ivan Capelli noted that once Max Verstappen was ahead, Andrea Kimi Antonelli’s immediate objective became finishing in front of George Russell. The Mercedes team-mate then retired, further strengthening the Italian’s championship position.
“Now it is obvious that he has a big advantage, 84 points over George Russell, and that means he can approach these final races with great comfort. To paraphrase what Carlo [Vanzini] always says about Charles Leclerc, this year Andrea Kimi Antonelli is a bit of the ‘predestined one’. Kimi looks like the real predestined one.”
The Italian’s remarkable progression has become one of the defining stories of 2026, with his growing championship position also reflected in his rapidly expanding Formula 1 record haul.
Why younger F1 drivers may adapt more easily to new regulations
Ivan Capelli also believes the younger generation has benefited from having less memory of previous Formula 1 machinery, making it easier for drivers such as Andrea Kimi Antonelli, Isack Hadjar, Arvid Lindblad and Oliver Bearman to adapt their driving styles.
“The young drivers are growing. In addition to Kimi, Isack Hadjar, Arvid Lindblad and Oliver Bearman are also doing well. They have less memory of what existed in the past, so they are less conditioned when it comes to changing their driving style slightly or doing something that might seem unnatural.”
“Working with all these tools also helps. There is driver coaching, where you analyse every single corner, then there is the simulator and there is an enormous amount of data. They also have a more open mentality compared with drivers from the past, who basically thought only about pushing the accelerator as much as possible.”
Why Formula 1 races are delayed in heavy rain
The conversation also addressed one of the major talking points from Malaysia: why modern Formula 1 racing is so frequently delayed when heavy rain arrives.
According to Ivan Capelli, the explanation is fundamentally linked to how dramatically safety standards have evolved.
“That is a good question. Everything is connected to the increased focus on safety. In our time, we were simply sent out onto the circuit without the slightest attention. When I raced, and that was not a century ago, we had what you could call a little rain light, a small light with only a few volts that appeared through the cloud of spray.”
“You were driving almost blind and taking incredible risks. Today safety is considered from every possible angle.”
Asked whether safety was therefore the fundamental reason for the delays, he confirmed that the entire approach to wet-weather racing has changed.
“Yes. Safety is the basis of everything, and that applies to the drivers, the cars, the circuit and also the marshals who come to help you. Today everything is evaluated differently. Of course, it takes away a little of the poetry. You lose some of the thrill and suspense that came with racing in the rain. In the past we were simply thrown into the battle; today the considerations are much broader.”
Ivan Capelli impressed by Andrea Kimi Antonelli in the wet
At the same time, Ivan Capelli believes wet races still reveal the drivers capable of adapting most quickly when conditions become unpredictable.
“The Malaysian race showed that once you have variables that cannot be controlled, from the intensity of the rain to the condition of the track, the talented drivers – those who can interpret the situation immediately – make the difference.”
He pointed specifically to the opening laps involving Andrea Kimi Antonelli, Max Verstappen and George Russell.
“Those laps, when he immediately found the limit of the car, show how much this young driver has grown. Kimi was exceptional. He was not intimidated and he made no mistakes. It was a deadly trap, the worst possible start for him, yet he managed to maximise everything. I was impressed watching this young driver confirm that he is a phenomenon.”
How Formula 1’s wet-weather mentality has changed
Ivan Capelli acknowledged that comparisons between modern Formula 1 and the eras of Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher inevitably influence how older generations perceive today’s championship.
“Those who remember the 1980s and 1990s, those wonderful periods when there were drivers such as Ayrton Senna or Michael Schumacher, and who have grey hair – or no hair, like me – have a major flaw. Unfortunately, we compare everything with that era because that is the experience we come from.”
“We think about the manual gearbox, double-declutching and the V12 engine. Drivers born in this millennium know that the gearbox is controlled from the steering wheel. They do not know what a clutch in these cars or a manual gearbox was like. So they understand Formula 1 in its current form and accept it for what it is. That is how they know it and how they discovered it. We make the comparison, and that comparison always leaves us with a slightly bitter feeling.”
Red Bull’s recent progress is more than just Max Verstappen’s win
Ivan Capelli also believes Red Bull’s improvement over recent races goes beyond Max Verstappen’s victory in Malaysia.
“What should be underlined is that despite losing important figures, including Adrian Newey and soon Jonathan Wheatley, who will go to Audi, we are talking about decisive figures, Red Bull has managed to rebuild a group, rediscover itself, make important developments and take major steps forward.”
“They have done that by continuing with the core group of engineers and placing Max Verstappen at the centre of this process. He is the key figure.”
Ivan Capelli expects the four-time world champion to remain highly influential throughout the closing races, potentially affecting the title contest even if Red Bull itself is no longer the main championship contender.
“From now until the end of the season, I really think Max Verstappen will become Andrea Kimi Antonelli’s great ally because he will always be there in the middle, taking points away from George Russell. That could be the big development of the end of the season, with Red Bull consistently challenging Mercedes.”
Could Andrea Kimi Antonelli and Max Verstappen become F1’s next major rivalry?
The prospect of a future direct battle between Andrea Kimi Antonelli and Max Verstappen is already generating considerable interest.
“We are all already saying it. For Formula 1, it would be a great contest between two outstanding drivers, two friends at the moment, because Max Verstappen and Kimi respect each other a lot.”
“That is while waiting to have other drivers such as Charles Leclerc or Lando Norris fighting with them as well, so that we can have an increasingly exciting battle. In general, after Kimi’s five consecutive victories effectively ‘killed the championship’, there has been more balance, and that balance would be the objective for next season.”
Ferrari has never arrived with the clear car to beat in 2026
Ferrari remains second in the Constructors’ Championship and has won two races, but Ivan Capelli believes the deeper problem is that the team has never produced a weekend in which the SF-26 immediately established itself as clearly superior to its rivals.
“What can be highlighted is that there has never been a Grand Prix, not even the ones Ferrari won, where the team arrived at the circuit and demonstrated that it was one step ahead of everyone else.”
“Even in those races, where they themselves said they had a performance deficit, they were always chasing the others. That has been Ferrari’s weak point. Even at circuits where we expected something important, such as Monte Carlo or Hungary, Ferrari did not arrive with the car everyone had to beat.”
That assessment reflects the broader performance picture of the season, which can be examined through Ferrari’s comparison with its Formula 1 rivals.
Ivan Capelli identifies an intrinsic weakness in Ferrari’s 2026 project
Asked why Ferrari’s season has developed in this way, Ivan Capelli argued that there is no single problem that can easily explain everything.
“This year’s project has an intrinsic weakness that has meant the engine, power unit and chassis have never combined to produce a circuit where Ferrari could really make the difference.”
He contrasted that with Red Bull’s performance in Malaysia, where it was already apparent on Friday that Max Verstappen’s car had something extra.
“Ferrari has never had a race like that. Instead, the team is always chasing, searching for a gamble, looking for an idea, taking a risk and rolling the dice, as it did on Sunday. Sometimes you get it right, but many other times you end up paying the price.”
The underlying balance between chassis performance and power unit limitations has become one of Ferrari’s most important technical questions, particularly after Lewis Hamilton acknowledged that Ferrari’s rivals had followed some of its innovations while a power deficit remained.
Ivan Capelli rates Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc among F1’s strongest pairings
Despite the difficulties of the SF-26, Ivan Capelli remains highly positive about Ferrari’s driver line-up of Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc.
“They are two top-level drivers. They both have very strong characters, they have great determination and they never want to give up. Perhaps Ferrari is the strongest team overall when you look at the complete pairing.”
“What both of them have lacked is the opportunity to have a weekend with the best car. Instead, they have always been chasing and trying to find a compromise.”
Lewis Hamilton confirms Ferrari talks after failed Sepang tyre strategy
Lewis Hamilton has confirmed that Ferrari will review its costly opening tyre decision from the Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang after the Scuderia’s gamble on Soft tyres left both cars almost two minutes behind the leaders before an impressive recovery to third and fourth.
The decision was made before the start in Malaysia, when the circuit remained partially damp. Ferrari opted to send Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc out on the red-walled Soft compound, but neither driver could generate sufficient grip while the track was still too wet for the tyre choice to work effectively.
Lewis Hamilton had doubts over Ferrari’s Sepang tyre gamble
Hamilton admitted after the race that he had not been completely convinced by the recommendation from the pit wall because he still considered the circuit wet. Ferrari’s gamble ultimately failed as the surface took longer than expected to dry, costing both cars significant time during the opening phase.
The scale of the setback was severe, with Hamilton and Charles Leclerc eventually falling almost two minutes behind the leaders. Yet the race changed dramatically from there. Safety Car periods gave Ferrari an opportunity to recover, while the SF-26 showed strong pace on the Soft tyres once conditions became more suitable.
The unusual conditions formed part of a complicated Bahrain Grand Prix weekend at Sepang, where weather and tyre behaviour repeatedly influenced the competitive picture.
Ferrari recovers to P3 and P4 after difficult start
Despite the disastrous opening phase, Hamilton eventually climbed back to third place, with Charles Leclerc finishing fourth. Ferrari took advantage of the Safety Car periods, but the recovery was also supported by the underlying performance of the SF-26.
Hamilton praised the team’s management of the race after the initial mistake, particularly the strategy and pit-stop execution following the first Safety Car. From that point onwards, he felt Ferrari operated cleanly and gave him the opportunity to work his way back towards the front.
The tyre choice nevertheless remained a clear subject for discussion. Asked about the decision after the podium, the seven-time world champion joked that he would not be joining the people responsible for the call at a casino, reflecting the scale of the gamble Ferrari had taken.
The team’s choice was particularly significant because the Sepang tyre compounds and their suitability for the SF-26 had already been an important consideration heading into the Malaysian weekend.
Lewis Hamilton expects open Ferrari talks before next race
Hamilton confirmed that Ferrari would hold an open discussion about what happened. His emphasis, however, was not on assigning blame. Instead, he expressed pride in the mechanics, engineers and wider team personnel working across the race weekend and stressed that everyone remained fully committed.
The British driver acknowledged that there are areas Ferrari still needs to improve and made clear that the team is not denying those weaknesses. The intention is to analyse the Sepang incident constructively, retain the positive lessons and arrive at the next event better prepared.
One of those positives was the competitiveness of the car itself. Hamilton felt the SF-26 was extremely strong during parts of the race and, at certain stages, appeared capable of being the fastest car on track.
That left the seven-time world champion believing a stronger result may have been possible without the opening gamble. He felt Ferrari could potentially have fought Max Verstappen for victory in Malaysia and suggested another opportunity could arrive at the following race.
For Ferrari, the Sepang weekend therefore produced two contrasting lessons. The initial tyre decision caused an enormous loss, but the subsequent recovery demonstrated both strong operational execution and encouraging race pace. More developments involving the British driver can be followed in the Lewis Hamilton Ferrari news section.
The immediate priority will now be understanding why the team committed to the Soft tyre strategy while the circuit remained too wet and ensuring the same type of judgement can be improved in future changing conditions. At the same time, Ferrari leaves Malaysia knowing that the SF-26 had enough pace to recover both cars into the top four despite the scale of the early setback.
FIA software update at Sepang raises parc fermé questions before Singapore
The software problem that affected several Formula 1 cars during the Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang, including Lewis Hamilton’s Ferrari SF26, has created an unusual regulatory precedent ahead of Singapore, where wet conditions could bring the same system back into focus.
The issue emerged during the formation lap in Malaysia when a specific combination of conditions triggered a loss of power on several cars. The FIA eventually responded during the race suspension by distributing a revised software version to every team, removing the energy limit in the affected sectors before the Grand Prix could resume.
FIA software was changed while cars were under parc fermé
The intervention was particularly notable because the cars were already subject to parc fermé restrictions. Under normal circumstances, teams cannot make substantial changes between qualifying and the race, although certain operations can be authorised by the Race Director, particularly when weather conditions require them.
Sepang presented an unusual situation. During the stoppage caused by heavy rain, every team was required to install the updated FIA-provided software on its Power Units before racing could restart. The FIA later explained that the revised version removed the energy limit in the sectors affected by the problem.
The episode added another layer to an already extraordinary Bahrain Grand Prix weekend at Sepang, where heavy rain and difficult conditions played a major role throughout the event.
Nikolas Tombazis explains why the problem affected multiple teams
Nikolas Tombazis clarified that the system involved was FIA software rather than something belonging exclusively to a particular constructor or power-unit manufacturer. Its development involved the FIA, the standard ECU supplier, the teams and the engine manufacturers.
That distinction is important because the problem was therefore not confined to Ferrari or to Lewis Hamilton’s car. It was a common system issue capable of affecting different competitors under the same conditions.
Nikolas Tombazis also explained that teams had to complete the update during the interruption and that questions remained while the procedure was being carried out. The FIA therefore had to ensure every competitor had correctly installed the revised version before the race could continue.
For Ferrari, the incident became another unusual element of Lewis Hamilton’s Malaysian weekend, with further developments surrounding the seven-time world champion available in the Lewis Hamilton Ferrari section.
Sepang creates a precedent for FIA intervention during an event
The response effectively established an important precedent. When a fault involving common FIA software appeared during an event, the governing body distributed a new version across the entire grid and required teams to install it before the restart.
The intervention solved the immediate problem, but it also raises a wider regulatory question: what happens if similar abnormal behaviour appears again after cars have entered parc fermé?
That question becomes particularly relevant as Formula 1 moves directly to Singapore. With another potentially wet event ahead, attention will naturally return to how the common energy-management software behaves if conditions again trigger the same problem.
Sepang restart order also triggered controversy
Software was not the only issue to emerge from the race suspension. The grid order for the restart also generated debate after Race Direction took around 18 minutes to confirm the final lineup.
Lewis Hamilton ultimately regained the second position he had originally occupied before the disruption. Fernando Alonso was unhappy with the decision, arguing that while stopping the race was understandable if several stranded cars created a safety issue, he believed cars that had stopped should effectively have been considered out of the race.
The Malaysian incident therefore created two separate sporting questions at the same time: how Formula 1 should handle mandatory software intervention under parc fermé conditions, and how cars affected by that common technical problem should be treated when the race is restarted.
Could the same software problem return in Singapore?
Singapore now provides the next test. If wet-weather settings once again produce abnormal behaviour at Marina Bay, Sepang has already demonstrated one possible FIA response: modify the common software during the event and permit every team to install the update.
A report indicated that the FIA had not yet confirmed whether its full review of the Sepang incident would be completed before the Singapore Grand Prix. That leaves the Malaysian procedure as the most relevant precedent if similar circumstances develop again.
The wider context of the next race can be followed through the 2026 Formula 1 calendar, while the technical implications for Ferrari and the rest of the grid remain especially significant if rain returns.
Sepang showed that an unusual common-software failure can force Formula 1 to make changes even after parc fermé has begun. If Singapore produces another wet weekend, the key question will be whether the same solution is required again — and whether the FIA would follow the procedure established in Malaysia.
Lewis Hamilton vs Charles Leclerc: Sepang reveals key Ferrari difference
Is Lewis Hamilton currently performing at a higher level than Charles Leclerc in 2026? After the latest Ferrari weekend at Sepang, the answer may be yes — but the distinction goes far beyond lap times, race results or a simple judgement over which driver has more outright talent.
The more revealing comparison concerns how Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc are interpreting the Ferrari, how they work with the car and, crucially, how effectively they can turn what they feel behind the wheel into useful information for the engineers. At a time when the Scuderia is still trying to develop a car that is not yet consistently competitive, that contribution can become just as important as raw speed.
Lewis Hamilton may currently have something extra
Lewis Hamilton appears to be in stronger overall form than Charles Leclerc at this stage of the season. That assessment is not based solely on results or individual lap times, but on an area that becomes especially valuable when a team is still trying to unlock performance from its car: setup work and technical feedback.
The seven-time world champion may currently be better at understanding how the car should be configured, identifying the most effective compromise and communicating clearly to Ferrari’s engineers what is required to improve the package.
Those qualities do not always appear on a timing screen. Yet when the car is not dominant, a driver’s ability to help guide development and find a workable setup can make an important difference. The evolving comparison between the two Ferrari drivers can also be followed through the Charles Leclerc vs Lewis Hamilton F1 head-to-head statistics.
Charles Leclerc’s speed is not the issue
None of this calls Charles Leclerc’s outright speed into question. The Monegasque has repeatedly demonstrated exceptional ability both over a single qualifying lap and during races.
The issue is broader. A Ferrari driver cannot simply be fast; he must also convert what he experiences inside the cockpit into information that helps the engineers understand what the car needs.
It is in this area that Lewis Hamilton may currently have a small advantage. That does not mean Charles Leclerc lacks technical sensitivity or the ability to develop a car. Rather, the seven-time world champion may simply be offering a more complete contribution during this particular phase of their first season together.
Both drivers remain central to the Scuderia’s development work, with their differing approaches providing Ferrari with two valuable reference points. Further technical coverage of those differences can be found in the Ferrari technical analysis section.
Charles Leclerc cannot allow Lewis Hamilton to become a psychological problem
Perhaps the most important part of the comparison concerns pressure. Charles Leclerc is no longer an inexperienced young driver learning how Formula 1 works. He is an established and mature competitor with years of experience at the highest level.
For that reason, Lewis Hamilton’s presence on the other side of the Ferrari garage cannot become something that affects his own approach. When Ferrari signed a seven-time world champion, Charles Leclerc knew exactly what level of team-mate he was about to face.
He also had every reason to expect that the Briton was not moving to Maranello simply to wind down his career.
Lewis Hamilton did not join Ferrari to retire
There may initially have been a perception that Lewis Hamilton’s switch to Ferrari could become the final prestigious chapter of an extraordinary career, accompanied by a major contract and the opportunity to fulfil the long-standing ambition of racing in red.
What has emerged instead is a highly motivated driver who genuinely wanted to race for Ferrari and who still appears determined to prove he can compete at the highest level.
That changes the challenge facing Charles Leclerc. He is not competing against a champion who has achieved everything and is prepared to accept a secondary role. He is sharing the garage with a driver who still wants to demonstrate that he can perform at the front of Formula 1.
The latest developments around the British driver can be followed in the Lewis Hamilton Ferrari news section.
Charles Leclerc must avoid turning the rivalry into an emotional battle
The danger for Charles Leclerc is allowing the comparison to become a permanent psychological contest. Trying constantly to prove something against Lewis Hamilton could become counterproductive if it distracts him from the more important task of maximising his own performance and helping Ferrari improve.
The better approach would be to remain confident in his own qualities, compete as hard as possible and focus heavily on the technical contribution he can make to the team.
Instead of concentrating only on beating Lewis Hamilton, Charles Leclerc can also study why his team-mate sometimes finds something extra. If the British driver identifies a setup direction earlier, understands a weakness in the car or communicates an effective technical solution, understanding how he reached that conclusion could be extremely valuable.
Lewis Hamilton could become an opportunity rather than a threat
That may be the most productive way for Charles Leclerc to view the situation. Lewis Hamilton is not only the driver on the other side of the garage who needs to be beaten; he also represents an enormous reservoir of Formula 1 experience.
If one driver recognises a problem earlier or helps engineers find a better technical direction, the other has every reason to understand that process. An intense internal rivalry could therefore become an advantage for Ferrari rather than a source of division.
That depends on Charles Leclerc not interpreting Lewis Hamilton’s presence as a threat to his status within the team. The focus should remain on making the entire package faster. More coverage of the Monegasque and his season is available in the Charles Leclerc Ferrari news section.
Recent mistakes increase the pressure on Charles Leclerc
Some of Charles Leclerc’s recent errors, including the mistake at Monza, can also be viewed in the context of the additional pressure created by having Lewis Hamilton alongside him.
That is not a condemnation of the Monegasque. In fact, the argument works in the opposite direction: precisely because Charles Leclerc is now an experienced Formula 1 driver, he should be capable of avoiding the psychological trap of treating every weekend as a direct referendum on his status against his team-mate.
Lewis Hamilton is already in the Ferrari garage. The challenge is to beat him on the track without allowing the rivalry to dominate what happens mentally away from it.
Modern F1 drivers need more than outright speed
There is also a deeper technical dimension to this debate. Some of Formula 1’s great drivers have historically stood out not simply because they were fast, but because they could feel exactly what the car was doing and explain that behaviour to engineers in a way that helped solve problems.
Niki Lauda was particularly renowned for this ability. He could interpret the car’s behaviour and communicate clearly what was wrong and which direction the technical team should explore.
That quality remains important even though modern Formula 1 cars generate enormous quantities of data. A driver cannot be only the person who pushes the accelerator hardest or produces the quickest lap. In many ways, the driver must also function as a human sensor inside the car.
In that area, Lewis Hamilton may currently have something extra compared with Charles Leclerc.
Lewis Hamilton or Charles Leclerc: who currently has the edge?
So who appears stronger between the two Ferrari drivers at the moment? On the evidence of their current contributions, Lewis Hamilton seems to have the advantage.
That does not mean Charles Leclerc has suddenly lost his talent. It does not mean Lewis Hamilton is certain to finish the season ahead of his team-mate, and it certainly does not establish a permanent hierarchy based on a handful of results.
The distinction is instead that Lewis Hamilton currently appears more complete and effective in his interaction with both the car and Ferrari’s technical staff.
Ferrari could ultimately benefit from the rivalry
The paradox is that such a demanding internal battle may be exactly what Ferrari needs. Lewis Hamilton can push Charles Leclerc to improve certain areas of his work, while the Monegasque can force the seven-time world champion to maintain an extremely high performance level.
Ferrari’s engineers, meanwhile, have the opportunity to collect information from two elite drivers with different characteristics, approaches and experiences.
The real contest therefore should not become Lewis Hamilton against Charles Leclerc. From Ferrari’s perspective, the more valuable battle is Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc together against the weaknesses of the car.
If Charles Leclerc can transform the pressure created by his team-mate’s arrival into an opportunity to evolve, their rivalry could become one of the Scuderia’s greatest strengths rather than a problem.
For now, however, the indication from the first part of their 2026 partnership is that Lewis Hamilton appears to be in stronger overall form. The next step belongs to Charles Leclerc: responding on track while continuing to develop the broader technical contribution Ferrari needs from both sides of the garage.
Inside the Bahrain GP at Sepang: how 500 staff recreated the race in Malaysia
It was called the Bahrain Grand Prix, but it took place at Sepang: one of the most unusual logistical operations in Formula 1 saw more than 500 event staff travel from Bahrain to Malaysia to recreate the race thousands of kilometres away from Manama.
The paradox was obvious. Formula 1 travelled roughly 6,000 kilometres to stage a race carrying the name of the small Gulf kingdom. For comparison, Imola is around 3,890 kilometres from Bahrain, meaning an event in Italy would actually have been closer than the Malaysian solution. Yet the experiment ultimately worked, creating one of the most unusual weekends on the 2026 Formula 1 calendar.
Stefano Domenicali remarked that the paddock felt as though Formula 1 were actually in Bahrain. Prince Salman Al Khalifa, however, jokingly pointed out one obvious difference, saying: “It doesn’t rain this much where we are, so you can see the difference.”
More than 500 Bahrain GP staff moved to Sepang
Bahrain effectively transported its entire race organisation to Malaysia. All of the circuit marshals travelled to Sepang together with other members of the organisational staff, bringing the total number of people moved for the event to more than 500.
The combined cost of travel and accommodation was kept confidential. The amount paid to rent the circuit under an agreement with the local government was also not disclosed. Malaysia’s prime minister made a high-profile appearance during the weekend and went onto the podium after the race.
Even the band responsible for performing the two national anthems was flown in on Prince Salman Al Khalifa’s private jet. Bahrain’s anthem was played first, followed by Malaysia’s, and despite the torrential rain the musicians completed both performances without missing a beat.
The unusual operation formed the backdrop to a weekend that brought Formula 1 back to Sepang, with the full event details available in the 2026 Bahrain GP at Sepang circuit and schedule guide.
Bahraini traditions recreated inside the Sepang paddock
The organisers also tried to reproduce elements of Bahrain away from the circuit itself. A pearl hunt was organised in the paddock, with oysters transported all the way from Bahrain. Two members of staff opened them while guests were allowed to choose three oysters each.
If a pearl was discovered, a member of staff would turn it into a specially made piece of jewellery. The activity was supposed to continue throughout the entire weekend, but by Saturday afternoon everything had been used up. Given the Malaysian heat, the leftover oyster waste also created a few uncomfortable moments.
Traffic becomes one of the biggest problems at Sepang
Although the circuit operation itself had effectively been transferred from Bahrain, road traffic and access remained under the control of the local police. That created significant congestion around the venue.
Some members of the Formula 1 community were staying in central Kuala Lumpur, around 50 kilometres from the circuit, and journeys sometimes took more than two and a half hours. Drivers and mechanics were instead based at the Sama-Sama Hotel near the airport, approximately five kilometres from Sepang.
The problems became serious enough for circuit management to issue an apology to the paying fans who had arrived in large numbers for Formula 1’s return to Sepang.
Sepang’s old rain problems return during the race
The circuit itself remained fundamentally unchanged, as did its facilities, access points and catering. One minor improvement was made in the press room toilets, which had received new tiles and sanitary fittings.
More important were the familiar problems that returned once the rain arrived. Standing water and streams across the track failed to drain properly, creating unusual racing lines. Drivers who understood those conditions first were able to gain an advantage, as demonstrated by the battle involving Fernando Alonso and Lando Norris.
The wet conditions became one of the defining aspects of a weekend in which tyre behaviour and track evolution were particularly important. Ferrari’s preparation for those conditions had already been a major talking point ahead of the race, including the choice of Pirelli compounds selected for Sepang and how they suited the SF-26.
Awkward delay during the Sepang podium ceremony
There was another uncomfortable moment during the podium ceremony. Max Verstappen was left waiting for some time while organisers tried to locate the national anthems.
As the delay continued, supporters in the grandstand began singing the familiar Max Verstappen chant. The crowd treated the situation with humour, although the dignitaries waiting on the podium appeared considerably less amused. The resulting scene created general embarrassment, with the clear impression that questions would follow over how the mistake had happened.
Ferrari uses Airbus charter as teams face travel chaos
Transport away from Malaysia produced another complicated logistical operation. Many people, particularly the drivers, organised private flights. Ferrari instead chartered an ITA Airways Airbus A330 to transport the entire team to Sepang.
Other Formula 1 teams travelled through Bangkok, but the severe rainfall there caused major disruption. With large parts of the Thai capital flooded and transport operations badly affected, numerous items of luggage were lost during the connections.
The hope was that those bags would eventually arrive in time for the Singapore Grand Prix. Drivers and teams had already begun arriving there from Monday to prepare for the following Sunday’s race.
Kuala Lumpur transport brings another logistical challenge
Kuala Lumpur itself remains a city familiar with heavy rainfall and flooding. Its name literally refers to a muddy confluence, with kuala meaning estuary or river mouth and lumpur meaning mud.
Traffic has increased considerably compared with Formula 1’s previous visit in 2017, although the city now has more metro services and transport connections. Grab, the ride-hailing service operating in a similar way to Uber, proved particularly popular because it was generally cheaper and reliable.
Prices varied dramatically depending on how transport was arranged. Taking the first available taxi at the airport could cost around 280 Malaysian ringgit, more than €62. Booking through an official desk could reduce the price to approximately 80 ringgit, around €18, while a Grab journey could cost no more than about 60 ringgit, roughly €15.
Organisation became particularly important on Saturday evening and again after Sunday’s race, when the area was heavily congested. Only three shuttle vehicles were operating between the circuit and the accreditation centre, and they were small cars capable of carrying no more than three passengers despite dozens of journalists waiting.
Those forced to arrange private transport sometimes paid 220 ringgit instead of the normal 84-ringgit fare. Payment was required in cash, with no traceable electronic transaction.
The Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang ultimately succeeded as a Formula 1 event, but behind the race itself was an extraordinary logistical exercise: hundreds of staff moved across continents, Bahrain traditions recreated in Malaysia, teams negotiating floods and lost baggage, and a familiar Sepang weather challenge that ensured this unusual Grand Prix felt anything but routine.
Charles Leclerc radio frustration highlights Ferrari contrast with Lewis Hamilton in F1 Bahrain GP
Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc recovered to finish fourth in the Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang last Sunday, but his post-race radio message revealed just how unhappy he was with the Maranello team’s performance despite climbing back to his starting position.
The Monegasque had been forced into a difficult recovery after Ferrari’s decision to begin the race on slick tyres dropped both Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton towards the back of the field. Leclerc’s afternoon became even more complicated when he made an early stop for a front-wing change, yet he still worked his way through the order to finish P4.
Charles Leclerc delivers bleak assessment of Ferrari’s race pace
After the chequered flag, previously unheard radio between Charles Leclerc and race engineer Bryan Bozzi showed that the result had done little to improve his view of the SF-26’s performance. Leclerc described the race as very poor and indicated that Ferrari’s overall pace had been extremely disappointing.
He also told Bryan Bozzi that the car had felt badly out of position from his perspective. In particular, Leclerc was unhappy with the balance of the SF-26, describing it as excessively open and suggesting Ferrari had been nowhere in terms of the feeling he experienced behind the wheel.
That assessment contrasted sharply with Lewis Hamilton’s post-race impression. The seven-time world champion was encouraged by Ferrari’s race pace and by how the SF-26 felt at Sepang, while his team-mate left Malaysia frustrated by the level of performance. More developments concerning the Monegasque can be followed in the Charles Leclerc Ferrari news section.
Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc see Ferrari’s direction differently
The different reactions add another layer to the internal Ferrari battle during the 2026 season. There have been widespread reports of tension between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc, with the direction of the car becoming an increasingly significant theme as the championship has progressed.
Leclerc had expected to establish himself as Ferrari’s leading driver, but the direction taken by the team appears to have worked more favourably for Hamilton and his driving style. Behind the scenes, the British driver has also been pushing for major changes within Ferrari, and the current trajectory appears to be moving in a direction that suits him.
The contrast at Sepang is therefore particularly notable. One Ferrari driver left encouraged by the SF-26’s race pace and behaviour, while the other felt the car was badly balanced and far from where it needed to be. Further coverage of Hamilton’s season and his development with the Scuderia is available in the Lewis Hamilton Ferrari news section.
Lewis Hamilton leads Ferrari team-mate battle with seven races remaining
The championship standings currently reflect that difference in momentum. Lewis Hamilton has 191 points, compared with Charles Leclerc’s 167, giving the Briton a 24-point advantage over his Ferrari team-mate.
Seven Grands Prix remain in the season, leaving plenty of time for that gap to change. The remaining rounds can be followed through the 2026 Formula 1 calendar, but the contrasting Sepang verdicts have added another point of interest to a Ferrari team-mate battle that is set to remain closely watched through the final part of the year.
Lewis Hamilton’s complete team radio after P3 at Sepang: “There was more on the table for us”
Lewis Hamilton completed a demanding Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang with a podium finish for Ferrari after a race shaped by changing conditions, tyre strategy and several crucial decisions from the cockpit and pit wall. The seven-time Formula 1 world champion’s radio communications provide a direct insight into how the race developed from inside the SF-26. Below, you can listen to Lewis Hamilton’s full uncut team radio from the 2026 Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang, including his post-race exchanges with the Ferrari pit wall after finishing third.
Listen: Charles Leclerc full uncut team radio after P4 in 2026 Bahrain GP at Sepang
Charles Leclerc’s race at Sepang was shaped by changing conditions, strategic decisions and a difficult recovery, but the Ferrari driver’s own words offer the clearest insight into how the Grand Prix unfolded from inside the cockpit. Below, you can listen to Charles Leclerc’s full uncut team radio from the 2026 Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang, including his post-race exchanges with the Ferrari pit wall after finishing fourth.
Ferrari’s drivers rescued Sepang but the Maranello pit wall cannot always rely on miracles
One part of the story of the Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang deserves to be told without allowing the final result to disguise what happened earlier in the race. Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc finished third and fourth respectively, bringing both Ferraris into positions that, after the opening laps, had seemed almost impossible to reach.
Fred Vasseur rightly highlighted the quality of their recovery, their tyre management, their pace and their ability to adapt to an extremely complicated race. But that very result should force the Ferrari pit wall to ask a different question: just how good could this race have been if the work from the strategy team had matched what the drivers produced on track?
Ferrari’s slick-tyre gamble immediately put the race at risk
The decision to start on slick tyres when the circuit was not yet offering genuinely favourable conditions was not a mistake made by Ferrari alone. Fred Vasseur pointed this out in his explanation afterwards, noting that roughly half of the grid had chosen dry tyres while the other half had opted for intermediates.
The real issue, however, is not identifying how many other teams made the same mistake. The question is why a team with ambitions of fighting at the front continues to find itself too often having to recover during the race what should have been managed before the start.
Ferrari’s choice was based on the expectation that Sepang would dry quickly, partly because of previous experience at the Malaysian circuit. Instead, the track evolved differently. With the conditions failing to move in the expected direction, the initial call became costly. The uncertainty surrounding the compound choice had already been one of the central issues around Pirelli’s Sepang tyre compounds and the SF-26.
Fred Vasseur nevertheless deserves credit for his willingness to acknowledge the mistake. The former Sauber team principal admitted without hesitation that the intermediate tyre would have been the better choice. By the time Ferrari reacted, however, the damage had already been done.
The pit stop cost approximately 26 seconds and forced the Maranello team to chase a race that could have developed very differently with another decision at the start. In Formula 1, 26 seconds is an enormous amount of time to recover, particularly when the field is competitive and the conditions are constantly changing.
Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc rescued what Ferrari could save
The case of Lewis Hamilton is particularly revealing. Ferrari gave the seven-time world champion the freedom to decide whether to stop or continue on the slick tyres, and Lewis Hamilton chose to stay out.
That decision paid off. Lewis Hamilton managed to build an extremely long stint on the Soft compound, controlling degradation exceptionally well while maintaining competitive pace even towards the latter stages of the stint. What initially looked like another potentially damaging strategic situation was transformed into an opportunity through the driver’s ability to read the conditions and manage the tyres.
The extent of the stint and the way Ferrari’s tyre choices developed throughout the race can also be assessed through the Formula 1 tyre and stint data, an area that became particularly important in the constantly evolving conditions at Sepang.
Charles Leclerc, meanwhile, was immediately forced to deal with an even more complicated situation after contact with Nico Hulkenberg at the start. The switch to intermediate tyres and the replacement of the front wing added further difficulty to a race that had already been compromised by Ferrari’s initial tyre decision.
Yet once again, Charles Leclerc transformed a potentially disastrous situation into a strong result, recovering to fourth place. Given the circumstances, both Ferrari drivers extracted considerably more from the race than the opening phase had appeared likely to offer.
Ferrari cannot treat its drivers as insurance against strategy mistakes
This is precisely where the story of Ferrari having “saved” its race risks becoming too convenient. Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc performed exceptionally well, but their ability to recover cannot become a permanent insurance policy against errors from the pit wall.
A driver can manage tyre degradation, create overtaking opportunities, extend a stint beyond expectations and exploit every available strategic window. What a driver cannot do is completely erase the seconds lost because of a poor strategic decision.
The distinction is important. A driver can correct a line through a corner, adjust an aggressive approach or improve imperfect tyre management. Recovering an entire race after the overall strategic sequence has been set up incorrectly is far more difficult.
When this happens with sufficient frequency, the talent of the driver can paradoxically become a blanket beneath which structural weaknesses are hidden. A strong recovery then changes the conversation from why the mistake happened to how impressively the driver recovered from it.
Ferrari’s ‘perfect execution’ cannot remain a pre-race slogan
Ferrari therefore needs to take another step forward. For weeks, Fred Vasseur has repeatedly returned to the theme of execution before Grand Prix weekends: maximising the potential of the car, doing everything correctly and giving nothing away to the opposition.
Those principles are entirely reasonable and, in Formula 1 terms, almost self-evident. To win races, a team has to execute properly. The problem begins when there continues to be a gap between that message and what happens once the race starts.
Sepang presented exactly that contradiction. Ferrari had much more convincing race pace than in several previous events, demonstrated that the SF-26 could be competitive even in extremely variable conditions and ultimately brought both cars into the top four.
But to reach those positions, Ferrari first made its own task considerably harder through an opening tyre choice that Fred Vasseur himself later acknowledged had not been the correct one.
This is not about demanding infallibility from the Ferrari pit wall. No Formula 1 team can guarantee that. The championship is built around uncertainty, incomplete information, changing weather and decisions that sometimes have to be taken within seconds.
An occasional mistake is part of racing. The concern is different: when strategic errors become frequent enough to affect results on a recurring basis, they can no longer simply be dismissed as isolated incidents.
Ferrari must improve its procedures as well as the SF-26
Ferrari must therefore work on its operational procedures with the same attention it gives to the SF-26 and the power unit. A faster car is not enough if part of its potential is then lost through delayed strategy calls, incorrect interpretations of track conditions or communication that leaves too much decision-making responsibility with the driver.
The efficiency of those calls can be followed through Ferrari’s pit-stop and strategy data, but the underlying problem extends beyond the raw timing of a stop. The entire decision-making chain has to function effectively.
The most encouraging element to emerge from Sepang was that Ferrari clearly had pace. Fred Vasseur confirmed as much, pointing to the competitiveness already shown in qualifying and stressing how much better the team had managed tyre degradation compared with previous races.
The conditions were also particularly difficult to interpret because the practice sessions had taken place with track temperatures completely different from those encountered during the Grand Prix. That context matters. But it is precisely when circumstances become difficult that organisational quality becomes even more important.
When conditions are predictable, a strong car can sometimes compensate for an imprecise decision. When the picture changes quickly, the team as a complete system makes the difference: data collection, weather interpretation, simulations, communication with the driver, tyre selection, predicting circuit evolution and changing the plan without wasting time.
It is not enough to have a driver capable of reading the situation better than the opposition. The entire operation has to do it.
Lewis Hamilton cannot always be expected to correct the plan
At Sepang, Lewis Hamilton was given the freedom to persist with the slick tyres and transformed that decision into a positive result. But Ferrari cannot build its strategic approach around the assumption that its driver will repeatedly find the answer when the original plan goes wrong.
The driver should be the final link in an effective decision-making process, not the component continually asked to correct errors made elsewhere in the system.
The same principle applies to Charles Leclerc. The Monegasque had to react to contact, an early stop and a front-wing change, yet still turned a very difficult situation into an important fourth place.
But the question should not simply be, “How good was Charles at recovering?” It should also be, “How much of the potential result had already been lost before the driver had the opportunity to make the difference?”
Ferrari must stop asking Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc for miracles
The 2026 season has already shown repeatedly that Ferrari needs to address this part of its operation. Improving aerodynamic efficiency is not enough. Closing the power deficit to Mercedes is not enough. Improving energy management is not enough either.
All of those elements are essential, but a team that wants to fight for victories also has to be competitive in the way it manages a Grand Prix.
The pit wall has to become a source of certainty, especially when circumstances become complicated. Strategy cannot simply be a sequence of corrections made after a problem has already appeared. Above all, it cannot become normal for the driver to assume an ever greater share of responsibility for deciding how to escape a situation created by the team itself.
At Sepang, Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc did exactly what Ferrari expects from its champions. They extracted more from the SF-26 than the opening situation appeared to allow.
But that will not always be possible. There will not always be a favourable Safety Car. A rival will not always encounter a problem. A battery will not always limit the defensive capabilities of a car ahead. And tyre degradation will not always provide the opportunity to transform an incorrect call into a successful strategy.
Ferrari therefore has to stop treating the ability of Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc to repair difficult races as an unlimited resource. A team that wants to return to winning consistently must create the conditions that allow its drivers to fight for victory, rather than simply asking them to rescue whatever remains after mistakes have already been made.
That is why the meaning of Ferrari’s repeated message about “perfect execution” now has to change. It cannot simply remain a theme for Thursday’s pre-race press conferences. It has to become the outcome on Sunday.
Building a competitive car and a power unit capable of challenging the best is only one part of the job. The other challenge, which Ferrari can no longer postpone, is making sure that everything developed and prepared during the week is not thrown away by decisions taken from the pit wall during the race.
Fernando Alonso’s FIA complaint over Lewis Hamilton comes with an awkward Honda backdrop
The 2026 Bahrain Grand Prix at Sepang in Malaysia ended with an eighth-place finish that represented one of Aston Martin and Honda’s more positive results of the season. Fernando Alonso recovered positions to score valuable points, but after the race he turned his attention towards the FIA and criticised the governing body over its handling of the disrupted start procedure.
Fernando Alonso’s comments, reported by several media outlets, were unequivocal: “They will have to give us an explanation. This year I have retired in half of the races and none of them has ever been stopped because of our retirement. Hamilton was stopped at the side of the track and they had to stop the race to allow him to regain his position. It’s a little strange.” He then went even further, adding: “It’s 100% unfair.”
Fernando Alonso accuses FIA over Lewis Hamilton restart
Fernando Alonso accused the FIA of interrupting the starting procedure and restoring the original grid in order to benefit Lewis Hamilton and Ferrari following the software problem affecting the power units. The software involved was supplied and managed by the Federation itself.
The paradox of the beneficiary attacking the FIA
While Fernando Alonso’s criticism has attracted attention, the wider picture appears rather different. For months, the FIA has been working discreetly but concretely to create opportunities for Aston Martin and Honda to recover ground. The argument is not that this is being done for personal reasons, but rather in the broader interests of the championship, with the aim of having more genuine contenders capable of fighting near the front.
Technical sources close to the Federation have said: “Honda’s development is being monitored very closely. A historic manufacturer continuing to struggle in this way is good neither for the show nor for the balance of the championship.”
Other voices within the technical environment have added: “The regulatory changes and the room for interpretation granted on certain aspects of the power unit and aerodynamics are not accidental. There is a desire to help those who are behind recover ground, Aston Martin included.”
While the handling of a software bug under FIA responsibility is being criticised — an issue that affected several cars through no fault of the teams — the same governing body is also creating a path intended to allow Fernando Alonso, Aston Martin and Honda to return to the fight towards the front of the field.
Why Fernando Alonso’s comments risk appearing premature
Criticism remains entirely legitimate. In Formula 1, it is almost a duty when a driver believes he has suffered an injustice. There is, however, also a limit. At the same time as Fernando Alonso is questioning the FIA’s actions, the Federation continues working on mechanisms that can allow Aston Martin and Honda to reduce their deficit at a moment when the British team and Japanese manufacturer need every available opportunity for technical and regulatory recovery.
Statements such as “they stopped the race for Hamilton” are therefore questionable when viewed against what actually happened. Several cars were affected and the software at the centre of the problem originated from the FIA. Above all, the comments appear difficult to reconcile with the broader situation because they come from a driver whose team and power-unit manufacturer are among the potential beneficiaries of measures designed to help struggling competitors close the gap.
A difficult balance for the FIA to maintain
Fernando Alonso remains a driver of enormous stature and has every right to express his concerns. Controversy has often been part of his Formula 1 journey. In this case, however, his accusations against the Federation clash with the wider context surrounding Aston Martin and Honda.
The FIA is not immune from mistakes. At this stage of the 2026 Formula 1 season, however, it is also attempting to support manufacturers that risk falling too far behind. Aston Martin and Honda, given the reliability difficulties they have faced, fall squarely into that category. The wider picture can also be explored through the Formula 1 reliability statistics.
Criticism remains legitimate. But accusing the Federation of favouring another driver while the same governing body is working on mechanisms that could help the accuser’s own technical package recover risks reducing the force of the argument. In this context, the accusations can end up sounding more like noise than a convincing case against the FIA.
Buy official Ferrari F1 products!
Gear up with Ferrari merchandise!
2026 Formula 1 calendar
Latest Ferrari technical analysis
Partners
GP-News - latest F1 news updates
The most accurate sports predictions and latest news available on TipsGG
SilverArrows.Net - Mercedes F1 news
You can find reel-based games without download or registration via free slots on Slotozilla
Uusia NettikasinoitaThailand Walking Street