Could Leclerc have held off McLaren at the F1 Hungarian GP without his mysterious car issues?

The 2025 Hungarian Grand Prix will surely be remembered for the mystery surrounding Charles Leclerc’s Ferrari, which led for much of the race but suffered a severe slowdown in the final 30 laps. Various official statements, rival theories, and speculations have emerged about the cause. We will soon explore what we believe is the most plausible explanation, but at the same time, there are other important truths from the Hungarian race that have been overlooked amid all the commotion but still deserve attention.

McLaren stronger than its mistakes while rivals self-destruct
It almost goes without saying that McLaren achieved its fourth consecutive one-two finish, building on the momentum gained after the Canadian Grand Prix and, helped by some fortunate conditions, outclassing every rival on the track. However, much of the competition effectively eliminated itself. At Budapest, Red Bull showed its worst weekend of the season, unable to solve balance problems that severely handicap the RB21 in medium and slow corners. Mercedes reverted to its old suspension after a series of performances that seemed to call for “Who’s Missing?” and Ferrari, which had a rare (albeit small) chance to prevail in Budapest, effectively sabotaged itself due to Charles Leclerc’s technical problem and Lewis Hamilton’s qualifying difficulties.

Credit goes to Andrea Stella’s team for achieving such a technical superiority that they no longer fear even on-track adversities, with mistakes still present but no longer decisive for the team’s overall results. We have already extensively pointed out McLaren’s technical advantage, but the Hungarian GP revealed even more important aspects: the team was fastest at bringing tires up to temperature while also being the only one not to overheat them, thanks to an aero-mechanical package capable of generating maximum downforce even during the car’s transitional phases. The suspension could be softened to manage curbs and traction without any loss of performance. Among the drivers, Lando Norris surprisingly stood out with a race that perfectly showcased his strengths.

Although somewhat awkward in racecraft—particularly when sudden decisions are required, such as at the start where choosing the inside line left a wide road on the outside for George Russell and Fernando Alonso—Norris excelled in race pace and tire management, especially with these very sensitive cars. Pace is his real strength, as he himself confirmed after the race, and we completely agree. Oscar Piastri, who had a generally better weekend, had to swallow a bitter pill, as the difference between gaining and losing seven points amounts to a 14-point swing, which is no small matter.

Leclerc had a chance to win but was fading under McLaren’s grip; Hamilton’s role in helping the team
Charles Leclerc built a realistic chance of winning during the first half of the race. His perfect start, a flawlessly managed opening stint, and the Maranello team’s swift response to Piastri’s pit stop made everything seem ideal. However, Norris’s forced strategy became a particularly difficult factor. Even though McLaren’s drivers were focused solely on their internal fight, their differing strategies made Charels Leclerc’s and Ferrari’s task extremely difficult, forcing an early second pit stop to cover the Australian’s undercut and thereby reducing the tire advantage over Lando Norris. At this stage, even without the problems encountered in the final part of the race, it would have been very difficult for the Monegasque driver to secure the race win because he needed to overtake the McLaren MCL39 of Lando Norris on track, a feat that was not realistic even for the British driver’s teammate. Still, a podium was on the table for the Ferrari driver, who could have even fought for second place against the Australian.

A disastrous final stint caused by technical issues then wiped out all hope, but the impression remains that Charles Leclerc’s isolation in the McLaren trap would have earned him a podium, though not necessarily the top step. Here lies another “hidden truth” of the weekend, lost amid chassis and tire pressure debates: the absence of even a remotely competitive Lewis Hamilton is felt strongly when you need to fight at the front against a faster car driven by two drivers who, even if they do not always excel, manage to keep it in leading positions.

Mercedes returns to exploiting cold conditions with old suspension
George Russell’s podium was undoubtedly aided by Charles Leclerc’s problem, but the Brackley team’s British driver set the fastest lap of the race and was at times the quickest on track during the third stint, despite Piastri’s fierce chase after Norris. The difficulties of Kimi Antonelli, stuck in traffic, remain, but George Russell’s race showed a Mercedes with a more predictable balance and significantly better tire management thanks to the return to the old suspension. While the cooler temperatures certainly helped, at least the W16 is now able to exploit its historical strengths again—a capability lost with the new suspension, which was excellent in “stop and go” scenarios like Canada but made the car very difficult to drive under increasing lateral loads. Although Mercedes is not considered a technical benchmark in this regulatory era, the dramatic setbacks suffered by Toto Wolff’s team are understandable given a rule set that has created incredibly complex cars.

Regarding the alleged mystery of what happened to Charles Leclerc’s SF25, we can only listen to the key figures and examine the data. Ferrari’s official version points to chassis damage. Although it is hard to understand precisely what that entails, any damage reducing the car’s structural rigidity would clearly cause the performance collapse we witnessed. However, reviewing radio communications and data leaves some doubts. George Russell’s explanation finds support in the numbers: the power cuts reported by Charles Leclerc during the first stint occurred only at the end of the main straight, where the Monegasque driver no longer reached top speed but redistributed electric energy differently around the track.

This tactic resembles a lift-and-coast approach, and on a track like Budapest, where the main straight is the only real high-speed section, the idea that this was done to preserve the floor from excessive wear is quite plausible. Similarly, Charles Leclerc’s complaints about a car that became undrivable due to alleged actions taken by the team without his knowledge, and the gradual decline in performance, seem to follow the perfect pattern of slightly higher tire pressures in the second stint and much higher in the third. Tire pressures greatly affect tire behavior and temperature, and Charles Leclerc’s progressive drop-off is consistent with pressures that were too high. There are precedents, such as the two very different consecutive races at Silverstone in 2020 caused by differing Pirelli tire pressures.

Adding to this, the performance collapse coincided with the second tire change, not at a random time, which raises suspicion that the Maranello team pushed tire pressures higher in the final stint to preserve the floor, possibly because they were already pushing it too close to the limit. This remains uncertain, and it is not guaranteed that the team led by recently renewed team principal Fred Vasseur was not already managing the floor cautiously when the chassis problem ultimately destroyed Charles Leclerc’s race. The truth will likely remain unknown. If the issue was indeed plank wear, many questions would arise, especially why such a risky gamble was taken. If it was truly chassis damage, doubts remain about how it happened and why the Monegasque was not informed during the race instead of being left to simmer in frustration while seeing his efforts crumble once again. We will see if more clarity emerges after the summer break, though one wonders how much difference it would make: the victory points simply did not come.