Ferrari’s Hungarian GP mystery: What really slowed down Charles Leclerc?

An in-depth look at the issue that compromised Leclerc’s race and the possible cause behind it

Charles Leclerc appeared to be on track for a strong result at the 2025 Hungarian Grand Prix, but his race took a surprising and disappointing turn due to a mysterious issue in the final stages. The Ferrari driver had shown a competitive pace in the first half of the race, enough to stay ahead of both McLaren drivers. After securing a brilliant pole position on Saturday and delivering a strong first stint on Sunday, expectations were high for Leclerc to potentially claim his first win of the season.

However, in the final third of the Grand Prix, Charles Leclerc’s race pace suddenly dropped by as much as two seconds per lap. From dreams of victory to a painful reality, the Monegasque driver eventually finished off the podium in fourth place, overtaken even by George Russell in the Mercedes. The frustrating end to what had started as a promising race left Charles Leclerc clearly upset, a mood reflected in his angry and emotional team radio messages broadcast throughout the final stint.

What slowed down Charles Leclerc
The most likely cause of the sudden drop in performance appears to be related to tyre pressure management on the hard compound tyres fitted during the final stint. Ferrari is believed to have increased the tyre pressures compared to previous stints. Higher pressures help accelerate tyre warm-up—something backed up by Leclerc’s quick purple micro-sectors immediately after the pit stop.

However, this kind of change significantly alters the car’s balance. Charles Leclerc immediately reported that something felt off after his pit stop. Increasing tyre pressures can negatively impact the thermal stability of the tyre compound over longer runs, leading to overheating and uneven degradation—precisely the symptoms that explain the sharp loss of performance as the stint progressed.

The possible cause behind Ferrari’s decision
As for the motivation behind the setup change, while it might appear that Ferrari simply raised the pressures to help Charles Leclerc defend against Oscar Piastri, that theory doesn’t fully hold up. A more likely explanation is that the team made the adjustment in an effort to protect the plank under the car.

Plank wear is heavily regulated by Formula 1’s technical rules, and Ferrari’s SF-25 has shown consistent vulnerability in this area throughout the season. If the team believed the plank was close to breaching the wear limit, increasing tyre pressure would raise the car’s ride height slightly and reduce vertical compression, mitigating the risk of bottoming out and excessive plank wear.

Additionally, during the final phase of the Grand Prix, Leclerc’s SF-25 showed noticeable derating on the straights, suggesting that Ferrari may have altered the hybrid power deployment strategy. By reducing maximum top speed through a conservative hybrid mapping, the car generates less aerodynamic load, raising the ride height even further and limiting contact between the car’s floor and the asphalt.

Team radio reveals driver frustration
The Ferrari pit wall also instructed Charles Leclerc to increase his management and even to avoid the kerbs at Turn 11, a fast right-hander. These messages are consistent with the theory of plank preservation. Further confirmation comes from Charles Leclerc’s furious radio messages after the pit stop, where he complained about a dramatic loss of grip and competitiveness, and about not being warned in advance. According to Charles Leclerc, an earlier warning would have allowed him to adapt his driving style and manage the situation more conservatively, perhaps preserving the plank and avoiding such a drastic loss of performance.

Charles Leclerc’s complaints suggest that the team may have known the setup was aggressive—something supported by the strong pace in qualifying and the first part of the race—but were also aware it could become risky over a long stint. It’s possible that Ferrari had already discussed this as a contingency plan in their race briefing, in case of signs of excessive wear. Still, the Monegasque driver clearly would have preferred to be involved in the decision and to try and mitigate the issue from the cockpit before resorting to an aggressive performance-limiting solution.

Adding to the confusion was a vague team message about a “chassis anomaly.” Considering that the plank is part of the car’s floor structure, it’s possible that the message referred specifically to this element. It is less likely that there was an actual structural crack or failure in the chassis itself, which would have caused a much more extreme imbalance and possibly forced a retirement.