Whenever Ferrari endures a difficult Formula 1 weekend, the same question quickly returns: is Fred Vasseur really the problem at Maranello? After the Madrid Grand Prix, the debate became a major talking point again among Ferrari fans and commentators, particularly after a difficult qualifying session left the team facing a race heavily influenced by its starting positions.
Engineer Riccardo Romanelli has approached the Fred Vasseur debate from a completely different perspective. Rather than focusing only on results or championship positions, Riccardo Romanelli has tried to answer a broader technical and organisational question: how much influence does a Formula 1 team principal really have over the performance of a car?
The analysis leads to an important conclusion. Reducing all of Ferrari’s problems to Fred Vasseur means simplifying a reality that is considerably more complex, particularly in modern Formula 1, where performance depends on the interaction of hundreds of processes and thousands of people.
Why Fred Vasseur keeps returning to the centre of the Ferrari debate
Pressure at Ferrari is different from that experienced by almost any other Formula 1 team. Every victory can be celebrated as a historic event, while every difficult weekend can quickly develop into a crisis.
That is the first point highlighted by Riccardo Romanelli. In the Ferrari environment, there is often a tendency to look for one clearly identifiable person to hold responsible when results fail to meet expectations. Inevitably, the team principal becomes one of the most exposed figures.
But attributing the performance of a Formula 1 car designed, developed, produced and operated by thousands of people to one individual alone risks overlooking how a modern team actually functions.
How much does a Formula 1 team principal really influence performance?
For Riccardo Romanelli, the answer is much more nuanced. A team principal does not design the floor, develop the power unit or personally determine the aerodynamic concept of the car. The role is instead to create an organisation in which engineers, technical departments and operational teams can work together as effectively as possible.
Modern Formula 1 teams are enormous technical systems in which several different areas contribute to the final level of performance:
- aerodynamics;
- chassis development;
- power unit development;
- simulation;
- production;
- race strategy.
The team principal has to coordinate that structure, establish priorities and provide leadership, but the final result remains the product of collective work rather than the contribution of one person.
Ferrari’s SF-26 development shows the 2026 project is not standing still
One of the most interesting parts of Riccardo Romanelli’s analysis concerns the evolution of the SF-26 itself. Compared with previous seasons, Ferrari has introduced numerous developments during 2026, changing the car in several areas and continuing to experiment with different technical solutions.
Riccardo Romanelli also notes that some concepts introduced by Ferrari have subsequently appeared in solutions adopted by other teams. For ScuderiaFans, that is significant because it suggests Ferrari has demonstrated a greater ability to innovate than it was often credited with in recent years. The wider direction of Ferrari’s 2026 SF-26 development therefore matters beyond the results of a single Grand Prix.
The fact that the SF-26 is not currently the best Formula 1 car does not automatically mean the project has remained static. Ferrari has continued modifying the package, while the team’s technical work has also revealed where further improvement is still required.
Madrid provided another example of the compromises Ferrari is dealing with. The team had to balance several conflicting demands from the car, with the SF-26’s stiff setup at Madring exposing an important performance compromise during the Spanish Grand Prix weekend.
The SF-26 has corrected some of Ferrari’s previous weaknesses
Riccardo Romanelli also identifies a concrete improvement that emerged during the Madrid Grand Prix. Charles Leclerc completed a very long stint without suffering the kind of major performance collapse that had affected Ferrari cars during certain races in previous seasons.
According to Riccardo Romanelli, that is evidence that Ferrari has made progress with tyre management and the SF-26’s behaviour over longer race stints. Charles Leclerc’s race eventually became more difficult towards the end, but the details behind Charles Leclerc’s final Madrid stint and late loss of pace underline how different phases of a race can expose different characteristics of the car.
For Riccardo Romanelli, the broader improvement in long-run behaviour represents genuine technical progress. Ferrari may still have weaknesses, but that does not mean every aspect of the SF-26 has failed to evolve.
Ferrari’s biggest weakness remains qualifying performance
The more persistent limitation remains qualifying, where Ferrari continues to lose ground when the drivers need to extract the maximum available performance over a single lap.
This weakness has become an increasingly important part of Ferrari’s 2026 season because a difficult grid position can compromise the entire race, even when the SF-26 shows stronger pace over a longer stint. The issue was again visible in Madrid, where qualifying performance shaped the possibilities available on Sunday.
Ferrari’s difficulties over one lap are also becoming more technically complex. Recent analysis of the SF-26 qualifying problem affecting Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton has highlighted how power delivery, electronic management and the extraction of peak performance can all contribute to the limitation.
The differences between qualifying phases and sectors can also be examined through the ScuderiaFans F1 Qualifying Pace & Sector Comparison, which provides additional context for where small losses over one lap can accumulate.
The Mercedes comparison puts the Fred Vasseur debate into perspective
Riccardo Romanelli also draws a significant comparison with Mercedes. Toto Wolff is frequently presented as a model of a successful Formula 1 team principal, yet Mercedes also experienced several difficult seasons in which the team was unable to win the Drivers’ Championship with Lewis Hamilton.
Riccardo Romanelli’s point is that Toto Wolff’s position was not automatically treated as the explanation for every disappointing Mercedes weekend. That comparison is particularly relevant in 2026, when the competitiveness of the Mercedes W17 has become an important reference point for Ferrari and the rest of the field.
The comparison illustrates why judging a team principal purely through the result of one Grand Prix can be misleading. The performance visible on track is often the result of technical and organisational decisions taken months or even years earlier.
Formula 1 problems are not solved simply by changing the “general”
Riccardo Romanelli uses a particularly effective analogy to explain the point. Replacing a team principal in the expectation that a Formula 1 team’s problems will immediately disappear is similar to believing that a war can be won simply by changing the general.
In reality, the work of a senior manager produces its effects over the medium and long term through recruitment, organisation, technical structures, investment priorities and the way different departments interact.
Decisions taken today may influence a Formula 1 team’s competitiveness not only in the following race, but across future seasons. That is one reason why constantly changing senior management can create new problems rather than immediately solving existing ones.
What has actually changed at Ferrari under Fred Vasseur?
According to the analysis, Ferrari has shown something in 2026 that was less evident during some previous seasons: a willingness to continue bringing updates and experimenting with new technical solutions rather than accepting the limitations of the original package.
Riccardo Romanelli highlights the team’s willingness to introduce innovations during the season and to accept a degree of development risk. That represents a change from periods in which Ferrari was frequently criticised for being too conservative with its in-season development.
That does not mean every upgrade has delivered the desired result, nor does it remove responsibility from Fred Vasseur for the overall direction of the team. It does, however, make the picture more complicated than simply concluding that the SF-26’s weaknesses are evidence of failed leadership.
Is Fred Vasseur really Ferrari’s only problem?
ScuderiaFans’ answer is clear: no. That does not mean Fred Vasseur is free from responsibility. As Ferrari team principal, Fred Vasseur is accountable for the organisation, its direction and many of the decisions that shape its long-term performance. But the competitiveness of the SF-26 depends on several factors operating simultaneously.
Riccardo Romanelli identifies a number of areas currently influencing Ferrari’s performance:
- power unit development;
- electrical energy management;
- aerodynamic development;
- reliability;
- the use of resources under the budget cap;
- the technical organisation of the team.
These issues interact with one another, which is why Ferrari’s difficulties cannot easily be reduced to one person or one department. The wider picture behind the SF-26’s engine deficit, qualifying weaknesses and costly errors shows how several separate limitations can combine to affect the same race weekend.
Fred Vasseur has also called for greater stability at Ferrari
Fred Vasseur himself has repeatedly argued that Ferrari must avoid moving from enthusiasm to crisis within the space of a single weekend. The Ferrari team principal has stressed the importance of maintaining stability inside an organisation operating under a level of scrutiny and pressure that is unusual even by Formula 1 standards.
That idea closely matches the argument made by Riccardo Romanelli: sustainable improvement is built through continuity, organisation and technical development rather than through constantly searching for a different person to blame whenever results disappoint.
The original question remains deliberately provocative, but the technical analysis produces a more complex answer than much of the debate surrounding Ferrari. Fred Vasseur is Ferrari’s team principal and therefore inevitably carries responsibility, but Riccardo Romanelli argues that the performance of the SF-26 cannot be explained by attributing everything to one individual.
Ferrari has introduced numerous developments during the 2026 season, improved aspects of the car’s long-run behaviour and shown a greater willingness to pursue technical innovation. At the same time, qualifying performance, power unit development, energy management, reliability and the organisation of the technical structure remain critical areas.
The real assessment of a Formula 1 team principal cannot be made on the basis of one difficult weekend. It depends on whether that person can build an organisation capable of becoming consistently competitive over time.
Leave a Reply