Jolyon Palmer has criticised Ferrari’s radio communication with Lewis Hamilton before the strategy decision that ultimately cost the seven-time world champion a potential Singapore Grand Prix podium. The former Formula 1 driver was particularly frustrated that Hamilton was initially given information he had not requested while trying to assess the condition and pace of rival cars.
The Briton chose not to pit during the Virtual Safety Car triggered by Lance Stroll, leaving him committed to a very long stint on the soft tyre he had fitted on lap 18. His pace subsequently deteriorated and Ferrari instructed him to surrender second place to Charles Leclerc before Kimi Antonelli, Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri also passed him, dropping the Briton to sixth.
Jolyon Palmer questions Ferrari radio message to Lewis Hamilton
Although Lewis Hamilton later accepted responsibility for the Singapore strategy gamble, Palmer believed Ferrari’s communication had made his decision more difficult than necessary.
Shortly before Stroll retired, Hamilton asked race engineer Carlo Santi how quickly the other drivers had been running at the end of their previous tyre stints. Instead, Santi initially replied with a reference to laps in the high 1m36s range.
Hamilton did not understand what that figure represented and asked for clarification. Santi then explained that the other cars were currently lapping around the mid-to-high 1m36s, but that was not the information Hamilton wanted because those competitors were already running on fresh tyres.
The Ferrari driver therefore repeated that he wanted their pace specifically at the end of the previous stint. Santi eventually provided the requested information, but Palmer argued during Channel 4’s coverage that such an exchange made life unnecessarily difficult for a driver who needed concise and immediately useful data while pushing at full speed.
Palmer says communication put Ferrari on the back foot
Palmer later expanded on the incident during F1TV coverage. He acknowledged that Hamilton and Ferrari had attempted to discuss the situation before the Virtual Safety Car appeared, but considered the communication poor because the driver initially received the current pace of his rivals rather than the end-of-stint figures he had requested.
He stressed that Hamilton was simultaneously driving flat out, managing the bumps and trying to understand the wider strategic picture. In Palmer’s view, that made clear communication particularly important.
The former Renault driver contrasted the exchange with the highly efficient understanding often associated with Max Verstappen and his race engineer. Palmer felt Ferrari’s communication fell well short of that standard because Hamilton had to repeat his request before receiving the relevant information.
The timing then made the problem more significant. The Virtual Safety Car was deployed soon afterwards, forcing Hamilton to make his decision quickly. Palmer’s assessment was that the Briton ultimately made the call himself, but did so without having received the information he wanted early enough, leaving Ferrari at a disadvantage when the strategic opportunity appeared.
Hamilton’s Singapore gamble ends in sixth place
The episode added another layer to a difficult race for Hamilton. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff later considered the Ferrari driver effectively unable to defend his position on worn soft tyres as Antonelli capitalised to secure an important podium for his championship campaign.
Hamilton had initially remained on track to preserve track position, but the decision required him to stretch the soft compound far beyond the point at which his rivals had gained the advantage of fresher rubber. Ferrari later asked him to let Leclerc through, while Antonelli and both McLaren drivers also overtook him.
The situation formed part of a wider strategic debate after Marina Bay, with Fred Vasseur subsequently addressing questions about Ferrari’s Singapore decisions. A broader analysis of Ferrari’s Singapore Grand Prix also highlighted how the race developed for both Hamilton and Charles Leclerc.
Palmer’s criticism, however, centred on the communication before the decisive call rather than absolving Hamilton of responsibility. His argument was that a driver facing an imminent strategy decision should receive the precise information requested as simply and quickly as possible, particularly when circumstances can change within seconds under race conditions.
The radio episode also revived discussion around Ferrari’s communication with Hamilton, an area that had already caused difficulties during 2025 with former race engineer Riccardo Adami. Karun Chandhok has similarly suggested that Hamilton would benefit from the kind of understanding Max Verstappen shares with Gianpiero Lambiase, arguing that such an effective relationship can reduce the amount of radio communication required.
Leave a Reply