Defining the 2025 Formula 1 season as one of the worst in Ferrari’s illustrious history might sound like a bit of an exaggeration, especially for a team that has experienced truly dramatic and turbulent years in the past. Those who lived through the disappointments of the 2020 Formula 1 World Championship, with all its unexpected twists, high-pressure moments, and race-ending failures, understand precisely what is meant by this statement. The Maranello team has faced far more challenging and even catastrophic situations in previous seasons than what is being witnessed in 2025. However, it is undeniable that achieving only five podium finishes—specifically in Saudi Arabia, Monaco, Spain, Austria, and Belgium—combined with the solitary pole position claimed at the Hungarian Grand Prix thanks primarily to Charles Leclerc’s exceptionally talented in terms of one-lap speed, does not suffice to give significance or a sense of achievement to a year that has otherwise unfolded in an unusually lackluster and somewhat anonymous manner for the historic Italian team.
In terms of raw performance, Ferrari is noticeably struggling. Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton are doing everything within their capabilities and even going above and beyond the limits of what might reasonably be expected, in order to extract results that are superior to what the current potential of the SF-25 car allows. Yet, despite their relentless efforts on track, the team as a whole seems to be preoccupied with matters that extend beyond immediate performance considerations. From an external perspective, it appears that Ferrari, a team with an illustrious legacy dating back decades, is almost disconnected from the viewpoints and insights of its own drivers. Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc, even though they may hold slightly different perspectives on which specific aspects of the car and team operations require improvement to enable progress and competitiveness, both recognize that team principal Frederic Vasseur can, in certain circumstances, appear somewhat removed or detached from the actual racing context, rather than fully immersed in the intricate dynamics of a Formula 1 weekend.
A particularly illustrative example of this occurred during the Singapore Grand Prix weekend, when Frederic Vasseur made public statements that appeared to downplay the significant performance gains made by Mercedes. The French manager stated that Ferrari was not the only team to have been overtaken this season; even McLaren was beaten, at least on a track as unique, demanding, and challenging as the Marina Bay Street Circuit. The impression given was almost one of attempting to conceal or minimize internal issues, perhaps as a psychological measure to avoid acknowledging that Ferrari had been caught off guard along with other teams. In this specific situation, Frederic Vasseur came across more as a reflective philosophy teacher, calmly analyzing circumstances from a theoretical standpoint, rather than a decisive orchestra conductor orchestrating a team strategy under high-pressure conditions. While it may be comforting in the short term to acknowledge that Ferrari was not the only team to be overtaken by Mercedes, this perspective does little to address the very real and pressing challenges that await the team in the near future, such as the upcoming Grand Prix races in Austin and Mexico. These are tracks where performance deficits are unlikely to be masked, and where failing to maintain competitive consistency could prove extremely costly—especially now that Ferrari has lost second place in the Constructors’ Championship and is in genuine danger of also losing third place to Red Bull, a team that, notably, has essentially contested the championship with just a single consistently performing driver.
Ferrari: the wrong mentality frustrating drivers
The core issue is the mentality permeating the team, and this is clearly affecting the drivers in profound ways. While Frederic Vasseur is occupied with trying to manage optics and perhaps divert attention from internal performance problems, the drivers are experiencing frustration that extends beyond on-track performance. This dissatisfaction impacts both their competitive output during races and practice sessions and also their overall morale and psychological state. The relationship between team mentality and driver mindset is deeply intertwined in Formula 1, and a disconnect here can manifest in lost opportunities, inconsistent performance, and even the potential for long-term consequences regarding driver retention and team stability.
One of the most striking examples of this disconnect is observed in the highly erratic performance of the SF-25 over a typical race weekend. On Fridays, during the initial practice sessions, the car often appears competitive, giving the impression that it can challenge rival drivers, fight for podium positions, and occasionally even aim for higher honors. Yet, by the time Free Practice 3 concludes, the car frequently seems to deflate in terms of pace and performance, almost as if it were a balloon that has been poorly tied and is losing air rapidly. This dramatic drop-off in performance cannot simply be attributed to changes in engine mappings or power unit configurations. Analysts and insiders suggest that the decline may also stem from the strategic choices and operational pressures placed on the drivers by the engineers, such as the requirement for extensive lift-and-coast techniques during race simulations and strategic stints. These operational constraints, designed to manage tire wear or balance the car’s behavior, may inadvertently limit the drivers’ ability to extract the car’s full potential, further compounding frustration.
Among the many technical challenges faced by Ferrari is the difficulty in maintaining the optimal ride height, or the “height from the ground” at which the car functions most effectively. On Fridays, the SF-25 can run at a slightly lower ride height, allowing for increased aerodynamic efficiency and competitiveness. However, from Saturday onward, with the setup intended for qualifying and the race, the car’s ride height rises just enough to disrupt balance and neutralize the potential performance gains, effectively nullifying much of the work done on Friday. There may also be additional, less obvious factors influencing these setup choices, meaning that the situation is likely complex and multifaceted rather than attributable to a single cause.
The central question remains: why persist with a Friday setup that is known in advance to be unsuitable for the weekend’s competitive sessions? Is this approach intended to create a scenario where drivers can be told, in hindsight, that without these particular challenges, the SF-25 could have been capable of competing with the front-runners and fighting at the top of the field? While this mentality may provide temporary reassurance to management, it clearly does not foster an environment conducive to performance improvement or driver satisfaction.
This issue becomes increasingly apparent as each Grand Prix unfolds. The longer the season progresses, the more visible the dissatisfaction among the drivers becomes. Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton want to see a proactive reaction from the team, concrete steps being taken to address genuine problems, and a clear focus on long-term competitiveness rather than being caught up in short-term maneuvers or theoretical games that yield little tangible benefit. Of course, with the season nearing its conclusion and the team inevitably needing to focus on 2026 car development due to budget cap restrictions, the allocation of resources is understandable. However, the problem is compounded by the fact that rival teams continue to introduce upgrades—technical improvements that actually enhance performance and contribute to better results. The persistent question remains: why does Ferrari struggle to implement effective upgrades that work in practice? What structural or operational factors are impeding progress?
If Ferrari were to concentrate immediately on the setup that would naturally produce challenges in qualifying and race conditions, even the Friday results might appear disappointing. However, the key difference would be that the drivers would perceive a team that is genuinely committed to learning from adverse situations. They would see a group willing to accept responsibility, confront problems head-on, and actively seek progress rather than masking issues behind strategic illusions.
From an outside perspective, it almost seems as though Ferrari has lost its internal sense of direction and strategic coherence. The approach to each Grand Prix, when viewed objectively, appears to be guided by the wrong mindset—one that prioritizes optics and reassurance over decisive action and driver-focused performance improvements. The consequences for Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton are significant, as the ongoing disconnect between management mentality and driver expectations may lead to growing frustration. It would not be surprising if one, or even both, eventually decided to pursue opportunities elsewhere in search of a team environment better suited to their ambitions and capabilities. Lewis Hamilton, now approaching the twilight years of his remarkable career, may be less affected by long-term concerns, but Charles Leclerc, a young driver with immense talent and ambition, is unlikely to tolerate this environment for an extended period without serious consideration of his future.
Leave a Reply