The Azerbaijan Grand Prix was not merely a disappointing weekend for the Ferrari team, but it also served as a symbolic reflection of a season that has been deeply affected by a series of strategic errors, recurring technical issues, and communications that have been at times unclear or inconsistent.
As Formula 1 approaches a scheduled weekend break, allowing teams and drivers to pause, regroup, and prepare for the next round of the championship, it is clear that while Max Verstappen leaves Baku with a renewed determination to try and reopen the fight for the 2025 drivers’ championship, two points stand out unmistakably for Ferrari. First, the team does not tolerate what they consider “jokes” or frivolous approaches within the race strategy or organizational structure, and second, they clearly have little patience for slipstreaming situations or the tactical swapping of positions between drivers during races.
Putting aside any sense of irony or humor, the overarching reality that emerges from the Azerbaijan Grand Prix is that the Maranello team continues to grapple with the same core problems that have been affecting the team from the very beginning of the 2025 Formula 1 season. These ongoing issues encompass several key areas, including overall car performance, the clarity and effectiveness of internal communications between the drivers and the pit wall, repeated strategic mistakes during race weekends, and at times, a failure to correctly interpret the evolving circumstances of a Grand Prix.
Ferrari: Baku problems as a mirror of the 2025 season
What will likely remain in the memory of Formula 1 fans about Ferrari’s 2025 campaign is a recurring theme of uncertainty and indecision, often expressed as a pervasive “we need to understand” mentality. This phrase often masks an underlying inability to consolidate all the components of a race weekend effectively, or a recognition that everything must be set up optimally from the very first practice session on Friday. Unfortunately for Ferrari, after the conclusion of free practice sessions, the team has often seemed to lose direction, struggling to convert theoretical plans into practical execution during qualifying and the race itself.
When looking specifically at the events of the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, it is notable that team principal Fred Vasseur appeared remarkably candid on Saturday, openly acknowledging the mistakes that had been made up to that point. The French manager would later state on Sunday that the entirety of Ferrari’s weekend had been effectively lost during qualifying, and he emphasized that starting from the front of the grid would have been a significant advantage in terms of controlling the race and maximizing the points haul.
Considering a hypothetical scenario where the cars had started on the hard-compound tires, the validity of this statement becomes more apparent. Drivers like Max Verstappen and Carlos Sainz demonstrated the tangible benefits of clear air and advantageous track position, illustrating that Ferrari’s inability to capitalize on qualifying performance directly impacted their race result. Furthermore, the clean air at the front of the grid often provides a measurable advantage, allowing for optimal tire management and strategic flexibility. Despite this, the overall impression remains that the Ferrari SF-25 race pace was slower not only in comparison to Mercedes, but also relative to Yuki Tsunoda’s Red Bull and Liam Lawson’s Racing Bulls, indicating that performance deficits remain a central issue.
The SF-25 would likely have been overtaken regardless, particularly when considering the additional challenge presented by a temporary power unit problem that affected Charles Leclerc for approximately twenty laps. Fred Vasseur described the issue as “marginal” but emphasized that it will need to be investigated in greater detail to fully understand its impact on performance. Turning attention to Lewis Hamilton, despite some incremental improvements following the summer break, it is evident that the English driver’s connection and overall feeling with the Ferrari SF-25 remains incomplete, limiting his ability to extract the maximum potential from the car during the race.
While overall performance has been a significant limiting factor for Ferrari, errors from the pit wall and strategic team decisions have also played a critical role in undermining potential results. A key example is the team’s failure to recognize that the soft tire compound would have been the ideal choice heading into Q3. This oversight represents a substantial strategic error. While Lewis Hamilton was denied the opportunity to exploit this tire advantage due to the time required for optimal tire warm-up, Charles Leclerc was not subjected to the same restriction. Without the incident that saw Charles make contact with the barriers, it is plausible that a higher finishing position could have been achieved, especially when considering the lap times the SF-25 was capable of producing.
Ferrari: from missed slipstreams to confused swaps
Communication issues have continued to plague Ferrari’s race weekends. Following the missed slipstream at Monza, which had both raised expectations and influenced intra-team strategic play, Baku saw the team experience a similarly problematic situation involving a failed driver swap. According to reports from the official Formula 1 website, Fred Vasseur provided detailed explanations regarding the incident.
He explained that Lewis Hamilton had a tire advantage, and they asked Charles Leclerc to let him go to attempt an overtake on Lando Norris. Fred Vasseur added further context, stating that Charles had a problem with energy recovery, and they were not using the engine at maximum efficiency. Considering these circumstances, he believes executing this move was the best strategic decision for the team.
Unfortunately, Lewis Hamilton was unable to capitalize on the opportunity as intended. When the communication to reverse the positions again came through, Fred Vasseur explained that they requested another swap, but it seems Lewis made a misjudgment regarding the positioning relative to the start/finish line.
Subsequently, Lewis Hamilton publicly offered his apologies to Charles Leclerc for the confusion, though it is difficult to place blame solely on the English driver, as he pointed out that while the move would have been strategically correct, it ultimately only involved the battle for eighth and ninth positions. This highlights a broader issue: Ferrari’s intra-team communication and decision-making processes remain vulnerable to misunderstandings that can directly influence race outcomes.
Ferrari trapped in its own mistakes
The Azerbaijan Grand Prix made clear issues that had already been visible throughout the 2025 season. Added to these problems is the observation that whenever difficult or sensitive topics are raised with Fred Vasseur, he tends to adopt a defensive posture, which can hinder the team’s ability to openly analyze mistakes and implement corrective measures. Following the race, Sky Sport F1 emphasized that numerous engineers and technical personnel are leaving Ferrari to join other teams, indicating an ongoing period of internal transition.
Even Juan Pablo Montoya commented on the situation, noting that some key personnel are reconnecting with Mattia Binotto, who has now moved to Audi to develop a new racing project. Fred Vasseur, however, dismissed the speculation as a “joke,” concluding the matter by stating that Ferrari have hired 60 people from other teams, suggesting that the Maranello team is attempting to rebuild its technical base with experienced staff from across the paddock.
While such recruitment may be positive for the medium and long-term future, the immediate effect of losing and acquiring personnel is to disrupt the continuity of the team’s operations. Every transition, no matter how well-intentioned, inevitably slows the pursuit of performance targets and undermines the stability necessary for consistent development. It is evident that Ferrari suffers from delays in multiple areas: race pace, organizational efficiency, and the acquisition of a shared understanding of working methods.
The reasons behind the considerable personnel movement can only be speculated upon. However, the central point remains that Ferrari has, over the years, lost sight of a long-term strategic horizon. The team appears to lack a fully integrated vision for success, giving the impression that their presence in Formula 1 is driven more by the historical prestige of the brand than by a focused and coordinated approach to winning races and championships.
The underlying problem is not a shortage of talent or key personnel. Since 2007, Ferrari has cycled through several team principals, yet the fundamental issues persist. Some seasons may appear more positive than others, but none have culminated in an overall triumph. From the perspective of an external observer, it seems that Ferrari lacks a true hunger for victory. What is evident is a team struggling to plan effectively, execute strategies reliably, and maintain focus on clearly defined performance objectives. This has led to growing disillusionment among fans, who increasingly recognize that the team is trapped in a pattern of repeated mistakes and missed opportunities, seemingly resigned to a narrative of mediocrity despite its potential.
Leave a Reply