Former Ferrari engineer Luigi Mazzola believes the Scuderia risks relying too heavily on telemetry when making crucial Formula 1 decisions, arguing that there comes a point when data can begin to replace the instinct and experience of the people on the pit wall. Ahead of the Italian Grand Prix at Monza, Mazzola believes Ferrari needs to rediscover the right balance between numbers, engineering judgement and driver feedback.
Formula 1 in 2026 is increasingly a championship shaped by data. Every lap generates thousands of pieces of information covering temperatures, tyre degradation, energy consumption, aerodynamics, suspension behaviour and batteries. Everything is analysed in real time by engineers at the circuit and back at the factory.
Yet in an exclusive interview with NEWSF1, Luigi Mazzola raised a broader concern: Ferrari may sometimes listen too closely to telemetry and not enough to what is actually unfolding on the track. In his view, the issue was particularly evident during the Dutch Grand Prix at Zandvoort.
Luigi Mazzola says Ferrari telemetry must support decisions, not delay them
Luigi Mazzola starts from a clear principle: modern Formula 1 could not function without telemetry. Data allows engineers to understand how a car behaves across every section of a circuit and provides indispensable information for making strategic decisions during a race.
The problem, according to the former Ferrari engineer, begins when a team waits for the numbers to validate every decision before acting. There are situations in which the decision needs to come before the complete data set because a Grand Prix can evolve faster than mathematical models and simulations.
That distinction between analysis and reaction has become increasingly important as teams manage ever more complex cars and enormous quantities of information. Ferrari’s challenge, in Mazzola’s view, is therefore not to use less data, but to prevent the search for certainty from slowing down the decision-making process.
Zandvoort highlighted Ferrari’s decision-making problem
Luigi Mazzola pointed to the Dutch Grand Prix as an example. Ferrari had competitive race pace with the SF-26, but he believes the pit wall took too long to respond to what its rivals were doing.
Mercedes made its decision almost immediately, while Ferrari continued evaluating scenarios, simulations and pit-stop windows. Those few seconds, according to Mazzola, illustrated the weakness of an approach that can become too dependent on telemetry.
The issue fits into the wider questions raised by Ferrari’s Zandvoort weekend. The team subsequently faced scrutiny over its execution, with Fred Vasseur calling for a review after mistakes cost Ferrari a potential podium opportunity. A broader technical analysis of the Dutch Grand Prix also highlighted how Ferrari failed to maximise encouraging SF-26 pace.
Why engineering experience still matters in modern Formula 1
One of Luigi Mazzola’s central points concerns the role of the people making decisions. Telemetry, he argues, should assist the engineer rather than replace the engineer.
The people on the pit wall need to be capable of reading the context of the race, interpreting what the driver is experiencing and making a call even when the available information is not yet complete. Experience, sensitivity and an understanding of racing therefore remain essential alongside sophisticated simulation tools.
Formula 1 cannot always be reduced to a mathematical calculation. Traffic, Safety Cars, unexpected events, the behaviour of rival teams and rapidly changing track conditions can all alter the strategic picture before every variable has been processed.
Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc can detect what telemetry does not yet show
Luigi Mazzola also emphasised the importance of driver feedback. Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc can feel changes in grip, balance and tyre behaviour before some of those variations become clearly visible in telemetry.
For that reason, the communication between driver and engineer must remain continuous. Disregarding a driver’s sensations simply because the available data appears to suggest something different can, in Mazzola’s view, become a strategic mistake.
That relationship between driver input and the engineering process is particularly relevant with a car as technically complex as the SF-26. Ferrari has continued developing the package throughout the season, while detailed analysis of the SF-26’s technical evolution has shown how many interacting variables engineers must manage during a Grand Prix weekend.
How Mercedes and McLaren use data differently, according to Mazzola
According to Luigi Mazzola, the difference between Ferrari, Mercedes and McLaren is not the amount of information available to each team. All three operate highly advanced data and telemetry systems.
The distinction lies in how that information is turned into action. Mazzola believes Mercedes uses telemetry to confirm rapidly a decision that has already been identified, while McLaren tends to construct highly flexible strategies that can adapt as circumstances change.
Ferrari, by contrast, can sometimes appear to wait for definitive confirmation before committing to a decision. In a sport where several seconds can completely alter a strategic window, that delay can become costly.
Formula 1 cannot be reduced to an algorithm
For Luigi Mazzola, one of the risks of modern Formula 1 is the belief that every decision can be calculated perfectly in advance. A Grand Prix also involves unpredictability, traffic, Safety Cars, rival behaviour and intuition.
No mathematical model can anticipate every possible scenario. A winning team must therefore combine the enormous value of telemetry with the ability to make fast decisions when circumstances demand it.
The point is not to return to an era in which engineers worked without sophisticated information. Instead, Mazzola believes the objective should be to use data to make better decisions without allowing the need for additional confirmation to make those decisions arrive too late.
Monza will test Ferrari’s approach to telemetry and strategy
The Italian Grand Prix provides an ideal test of that philosophy. Strategic windows at Monza can be narrow, meaning every second lost while considering a decision can affect the final result.
Ferrari has also adapted the SF-26 specifically to the demands of its home circuit, including work designed to improve efficiency and straight-line performance. The team has considered changes aimed at extracting more top speed from the SF-26 at Monza, adding another layer to the technical and strategic decisions required during the weekend.
According to Luigi Mazzola, Ferrari must demonstrate at Monza that telemetry is being used as a support tool rather than something that slows down decision-making. If the pit wall can react more quickly, he believes the SF-26 will have a better opportunity to exploit the potential it has shown in recent races.
Mazzola’s assessment therefore goes beyond the specific events at Zandvoort. His argument is not that Ferrari should abandon its data-driven approach, but that the team must find the correct balance between telemetry, engineering experience and the sensations communicated by Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc.
The SF-26 appears to have made an important technical step forward, but in Luigi Mazzola’s view Ferrari’s next improvement also needs to be cultural: using data to make better decisions, rather than allowing it to make those decisions later.
Leave a Reply