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.
Leave a Reply