Juan Pablo Montoya has called on Ferrari to impose internal penalties on Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc following their controversial opening-lap battle at the 2026 Mexico City Grand Prix. The former Formula 1 driver believes both must face consequences after their confrontation contributed to the Maranello team’s failure to convert a promising opportunity into victory.
Ferrari had arrived at the race in a strong position, with Hamilton securing his first pole position for the Scuderia and the team appearing to have the pace to challenge for a one-two finish. Instead, the two teammates became embroiled in a costly fight during the opening lap, allowing Max Verstappen to capitalise and eventually take victory for Red Bull. Hamilton recovered to finish second, while Leclerc had to settle for fourth.
Juan Pablo Montoya demands Ferrari penalties for Hamilton and Leclerc
Montoya believes the consequences of the incident should extend beyond the five-second time penalty imposed on Leclerc by the FIA stewards. In his view, Ferrari must make both drivers understand that compromising the team’s interests through their on-track decisions cannot be allowed to pass without an internal response.
The Colombian argued that serious discussions were necessary and that appropriate penalties should follow. He stressed that Hamilton and Leclerc needed to recognise that their actions would have consequences, particularly because he believed Ferrari should have won the Mexico City Grand Prix.
His criticism reflects the frustration surrounding a race in which the Italian team appeared capable of achieving considerably more than its eventual second- and fourth-place finishes. With both drivers fighting for position rather than consolidating Ferrari’s advantage, the opening lap became a decisive moment in the battle for victory.
The controversy has also renewed questions about how Ferrari manages the rivalry between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc, particularly when the team’s collective objectives are at stake.
How Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc lost control of Ferrari’s Mexico GP advantage
Hamilton had given Ferrari an ideal starting position by claiming pole in qualifying and successfully maintaining the lead when the lights went out. Leclerc moved into second place and then attempted to challenge his teammate as the field approached Turn 4.
The move proved controversial when both Ferrari drivers ran wide. Leclerc emerged ahead but was subsequently handed a five-second penalty for gaining an advantage, having failed to return the position after leaving the track.
The circumstances surrounding the FIA’s decision to impose a five-second penalty rather than a harsher sanction became a major talking point after the race.
Former world champion Nico Rosberg and 1996 title winner Damon Hill both considered Leclerc’s attempt excessively ambitious. Verstappen also agreed with Hamilton’s position that the Monegasque should have received a more severe penalty, particularly as the manoeuvre had allowed him to take the lead without subsequently surrendering the advantage.
The incident ultimately helped reshape the race in Verstappen’s favour. Despite Ferrari’s qualifying strength and the pace it had demonstrated, Red Bull secured the victory, leaving Hamilton on the second step of the podium and Leclerc outside the top three.
Leclerc’s decision not to restore the original order has since become a separate subject of debate, with the Ferrari driver providing his explanation for not handing the position back to Hamilton following their opening-lap confrontation.
James Hinchcliffe criticises both Ferrari drivers over costly mistakes
James Hinchcliffe was equally critical of the way Ferrari’s race unfolded. Speaking on F1TV, the former IndyCar driver admitted that he had expected the team’s drivers to avoid precisely this type of situation after receiving clear instructions about their responsibilities.
Hinchcliffe explained that he had previously assumed Hamilton and Leclerc understood what was required of them following discussions within Ferrari. Their conduct in Mexico convinced him that those expectations had not been met.
He expressed particular disappointment because both drivers frequently emphasise their affection for the Ferrari brand and the respect they have for the organisation. In his assessment, however, their behaviour on track failed to reflect those sentiments.
The F1TV pundit characterised the actions of both Hamilton and Leclerc as selfish, arguing that neither had shown sufficient consideration for the team’s interests. He was surprised that the situation had been allowed to develop to such an extent and questioned why Leclerc had not received a more substantial penalty.
Hinchcliffe also believed the confrontation had been entirely avoidable. Although he criticised the drivers strongly, he offered a more favourable assessment of team principal Fred Vasseur’s response during his post-race interview.
He praised Vasseur’s handling of the questions, while acknowledging that the Frenchman might already have had time to calm down. Nevertheless, Hinchcliffe anticipated that difficult conversations would follow behind closed doors at Maranello.
The issue of discipline and mutual respect has become especially relevant following Fred Vasseur’s response to the clash between his two drivers, with Ferrari facing renewed scrutiny over how it manages their competition on track.
Ferrari accused of throwing away its strongest chance of victory
Beyond the criticism of individual decisions, Hinchcliffe argued that the result should be regarded primarily as a missed Ferrari opportunity rather than simply a Red Bull success.
He acknowledged Verstappen’s exceptional ability and praised Red Bull for executing its race effectively. However, he maintained that Ferrari had effectively surrendered a victory it was capable of securing, with the actions of its own drivers playing a central role in that outcome.
Hinchcliffe also suggested that Mexico represented Ferrari’s strongest remaining opportunity to win a Grand Prix during the 2026 season, given the characteristics of the circuits still to come. That assessment made the missed chance particularly frustrating in his view.
He believed the team had earned the opportunity through its strong qualifying performance, only for Hamilton and Leclerc to let their colleagues down during the race. The disappointment was therefore not simply about the final classification, but about failing to capitalise on the work that had put Ferrari in contention for victory.
Montoya’s demand for internal penalties and Hinchcliffe’s criticism point towards the same concern: Ferrari cannot afford to have its two drivers undermine a potentially race-winning performance through their own rivalry.
Ferrari faces renewed questions over its rules of engagement
The Mexico City controversy has once again brought Ferrari’s approach to managing Hamilton and Leclerc into focus. Both drivers are competing at the highest level and naturally want to beat one another, but their freedom to race also carries responsibilities towards the team.
That balance becomes particularly important when Ferrari has the opportunity to fight for victory. An aggressive battle between teammates can create openings for rivals, and the consequences may extend well beyond the positions exchanged between the two cars.
For Montoya, the answer is to establish meaningful consequences when those decisions damage Ferrari’s prospects. Hinchcliffe, meanwhile, believes the team must address the behaviour directly through serious internal discussions rather than assuming that existing instructions are sufficient.
The Scuderia now faces the challenge of ensuring that Hamilton and Leclerc can continue competing without allowing their individual ambitions to compromise collective results. After losing a potential victory and one-two finish in Mexico, the pressure on Ferrari to clarify its expectations has only increased.
Leave a Reply