David Coulthard believes Lewis Hamilton may have rejected Ferrari’s opportunity to pit under the Virtual Safety Car at the Singapore Grand Prix because he was concerned about the time he could lose while double-stacking behind Charles Leclerc. The decision ultimately contributed to Hamilton falling away from a potential podium and finishing sixth at Marina Bay.
Ferrari wanted both cars to change tyres when Lance Stroll’s retirement triggered the neutralisation, with the reduced speeds under the VSC cutting the normal pit-stop time loss by around 10 to 12 seconds. Charles Leclerc came in, but Hamilton stayed on track, initially gaining track position over his team-mate before his ageing tyres became increasingly difficult to manage.
David Coulthard offers theory behind Lewis Hamilton’s Singapore decision
Hamilton did not complete his usual post-race media duties because he was feeling unwell, but his apologetic radio message and Fred Vasseur’s subsequent explanations established that the decision to remain on track had been his own. The circumstances surrounding the call and its consequences have also been detailed in the explanation of why Lewis Hamilton stayed out during Ferrari’s Singapore VSC opportunity.
The seven-time world champion had been the first driver in the field to make a pit stop earlier in the race and was therefore trying to complete a long stint on his Soft tyres. Grip eventually disappeared, allowing Charles Leclerc, Kimi Antonelli and both McLaren drivers to move ahead. A race that had offered Hamilton a realistic podium opportunity ended with him classified sixth.
Speaking about the possibility of a lack of trust between driver and team, David Coulthard pointed to Ferrari’s previous strategic decisions and also questioned how the Scuderia managed the two cars earlier in the Singapore Grand Prix. The former Formula 1 driver noted that Hamilton had been on the Soft tyre while Charles Leclerc was using the Medium, with the Briton showing stronger pace without being released into a separate race.
Coulthard’s view was that Ferrari could have allowed the drivers to pursue their respective strategies before sorting out the order later, once it became clearer which car had the stronger opportunity to secure the most valuable result. Ferrari’s wider strategic difficulties at Marina Bay can be explored in the technical and strategy analysis of the SF-26 in Singapore.
Lewis Hamilton had already caught Charles Leclerc before the VSC
The internal Ferrari situation had developed well before the decisive neutralisation. Hamilton closed onto Charles Leclerc during the earlier part of his Soft-tyre stint, shortly after the Monegasque driver had stopped for Medium tyres.
Hamilton communicated that Ferrari was losing time by keeping the cars in their existing order rather than swapping them. However, his initial pace advantage eventually faded and the gap began to grow again. By the time the Virtual Safety Car was deployed, he was approximately three seconds behind Charles Leclerc, while Ferrari had also begun questioning whether the Briton’s tyres would last until the finish.
The different phases of Ferrari’s race also underline why stop timing and neutralised periods can become so important. ScuderiaFans’ Ferrari Pit Stop & Strategy Statistics provide further context on the team’s pit timing, tyre stints and Safety Car or VSC stops across the season.
Coulthard believes Ferrari double stack may have concerned Hamilton
David Coulthard acknowledged that viewers did not initially know why Ferrari had not brought both cars into the pits. Once it became apparent that Hamilton had been offered the opportunity to stop, the question shifted towards why the seven-time world champion had chosen not to take it.
Coulthard suspects the explanation may lie in the prospect of being stacked behind Charles Leclerc. In his assessment, Hamilton could have been focused on the possibility of losing three or four seconds while waiting behind the other Ferrari rather than concentrating on the time advantage available from stopping under the VSC.
That judgement would have been made using only the information Hamilton had available from inside the cockpit, including the gaps to the cars behind him. Coulthard’s theory is therefore that the Ferrari driver was thinking primarily about what a double stack might cost him in track position rather than how much he could gain by fitting fresher tyres.
The strategic choice ultimately proved expensive. Hamilton later accepted responsibility for the failed gamble, with the seven-time world champion’s reaction covered in more detail after he took ownership of his Singapore strategy mistake.
Charles Leclerc onboard shows Ferrari was prepared for both cars
Some of Hamilton’s radio communication during the VSC was not included on the public broadcast, adding to the initial uncertainty over exactly what Ferrari had planned. However, onboard footage from Charles Leclerc’s stop provided an important piece of evidence about the pit crew’s intentions.
The footage showed two sets of tyres prepared in the Ferrari garage, indicating that the mechanics were ready to service both cars. Hamilton nevertheless continued past the pit entry rather than joining his team-mate in the pits.
At that stage, the Briton held an advantage of only a little more than five seconds over Kimi Antonelli. Because the second car in a double stack can lose additional time while waiting for the first service to be completed, Hamilton potentially risked becoming vulnerable to the Mercedes driver if the stop was delayed.
That circumstance fits Coulthard’s interpretation of what may have been influencing the decision. The risk of sacrificing several seconds while sitting behind Charles Leclerc could have appeared particularly significant from the cockpit when Hamilton was trying to protect track position against the cars immediately behind.
Ferrari communication remains part of the Singapore debate
Hamilton has taken responsibility for remaining on track, but Ferrari’s communication during the sequence has still faced scrutiny. The pit wall had access to the complete strategic picture, including the gaps throughout the field, the condition of both cars’ tyres and the consequences of making or rejecting the stop.
From inside the SF-26, Hamilton may not have had the same understanding of every consequence attached to the decision. That distinction is central to the questions raised by Coulthard: even when the final call belongs to the driver, the quality and clarity of the information supplied by the team can influence how that choice is made.
Fred Vasseur has since made Ferrari’s position on the episode clear, insisting that the team had called both cars into the pits during the neutralisation. His subsequent defence of the Scuderia and explanation of the communication with Hamilton can be found in the account of Fred Vasseur’s response to questions over Ferrari’s Singapore strategy.
The outcome remains straightforward: the Briton chose to stay out, his tyres eventually lost the performance required to defend his position and a possible podium became sixth place. Coulthard’s analysis, however, offers a possible explanation for the thinking behind that choice, with the threat of losing several seconds in a Ferrari double stack potentially shaping one of the most consequential strategic decisions of Hamilton’s Singapore Grand Prix.
Leave a Reply