Ferrari’s communication with Lewis Hamilton has become a central talking point after the Singapore Grand Prix, with Karun Chandhok arguing that the seven-time world champion may not have been given enough of the wider strategic picture before making the decision that ultimately cost him several positions.
Rather than treating the incident purely as a mistake from the cockpit, Chandhok focused on the responsibility of the pit wall to translate complex race information into clear instructions. He contrasted Ferrari’s situation with the long-established understanding between Max Verstappen and Gianpiero Lambiase at Red Bull, where even radio problems did not prevent the pair from finding a way to communicate.
Why Karun Chandhok believes Ferrari communication mattered
Lewis Hamilton remained on track when Lance Stroll’s retirement triggered a Virtual Safety Car, despite Ferrari calling him into the pits. The decision gave the British driver track position in the short term, but left him exposed later as his tyres deteriorated.
Hamilton subsequently accepted responsibility for staying out, and Ferrari also acknowledged that the final decision had been made from the cockpit. Chandhok, however, argued that this did not remove the pit wall from the equation.
His reasoning was based on the very different information available to driver and team. From inside the car, Hamilton could see the immediate gaps and the cars around him, but Ferrari’s strategists and race engineer Carlo Santi had access to the broader picture of tyre ages, rival strategies and the likely consequences of staying out.
For Chandhok, that difference made communication critical. The issue was therefore not simply whether Hamilton made the wrong call, but whether Ferrari had conveyed enough information for him to understand why pitting under the VSC was the stronger option.
More developments surrounding the seven-time world champion can be followed in the Lewis Hamilton Ferrari news section.
Hamilton’s earlier frustration may have influenced the VSC decision
Chandhok also suggested that the Singapore decision cannot be viewed entirely in isolation from what had happened earlier in the race.
After stopping on lap 18 and switching to Soft tyres, Lewis Hamilton closed on Charles Leclerc. Ferrari did not swap the positions of its two drivers, and Chandhok suspected that the situation may have left the Briton frustrated by the time the VSC opportunity arrived later in the Grand Prix.
That interpretation remains Chandhok’s assessment rather than a confirmed explanation from Hamilton. The Ferrari driver did not complete his normal post-race media duties because he felt unwell, meaning he did not publicly provide a detailed account of the full decision-making sequence immediately afterwards.
Some of the relevant radio traffic from the Virtual Safety Car period was also not available through the public broadcast channels. As a result, the complete exchange between Hamilton and the Ferrari pit wall was not heard outside the team.
How the Singapore strategy gamble unravelled
Staying out initially appeared attractive because Hamilton moved ahead of Charles Leclerc when the Monegasque stopped under the VSC. The benefit was track position, but the cost was remaining on older tyres while rivals gained a substantial tyre-life advantage.
Leclerc quickly caught and repassed his team-mate. Kimi Antonelli then followed, before Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri also found their way through as Hamilton’s strategy deteriorated during the closing phase of the race.
The decision therefore became one of the defining moments of Ferrari’s Singapore Grand Prix. Hamilton later apologised to the team and accepted that choosing not to pit had been his mistake.
The episode followed another recent race in which Lewis Hamilton discussed Ferrari strategy after the failed Sepang tyre gamble, keeping the subject of driver-pit wall decision-making firmly in focus.
Max Verstappen and Gianpiero Lambiase offer Chandhok a benchmark
Chandhok’s most pointed comparison came from the other end of the field. Max Verstappen encountered radio-signal problems during the Singapore Grand Prix, making parts of his communication with Red Bull difficult to understand.
Yet Gianpiero Lambiase adapted. At one stage, the race engineer created a simple workaround by telling Verstappen that remaining silent would indicate he wanted to pit behind the Safety Car.
For Chandhok, that moment demonstrated what elite race communication can look like when circumstances become difficult. His point was not that Ferrari needed to copy the exact wording used by Red Bull, but that the pit wall must be capable of giving the driver enough clarity to make the correct decision even when information is incomplete or communications are compromised.
The comparison was particularly striking because Verstappen and Lambiase have worked together for more than a decade. Their relationship has been built through years of races, changing strategic situations and high-pressure championship battles.
Lewis Hamilton and Carlo Santi are still building their working relationship
Ferrari’s current driver-engineer partnership is at a much earlier stage. Carlo Santi only became Lewis Hamilton’s race engineer at the start of the 2026 season, replacing Riccardo Adami, who had worked with the British driver during 2025.
That means Hamilton and Santi have had far less time to build the instinctive understanding that can develop between a driver and engineer after years of working together.
In rapidly changing races, that familiarity can matter. A driver may need only a short instruction to understand the broader strategic intention if the relationship has already established a shared language. With a newer partnership, more explicit information may sometimes be necessary.
Chandhok’s argument therefore placed Ferrari’s Singapore problem within a broader communication context rather than reducing it to one incorrect decision by Hamilton.
Ferrari faces wider questions over race execution
The Singapore episode adds another layer to the discussion around Ferrari’s race execution. The Scuderia has spent recent races managing strategic uncertainty, while Lewis Hamilton has also spoken about organisational and decision-making areas that require improvement.
That does not change the fact that Hamilton chose to stay out under the VSC and later took responsibility for the consequences. Chandhok’s point is instead that responsibility inside a Formula 1 team is not always confined to the person making the final call.
The driver operates with a narrow view of the race. The pit wall has the data, timing screens and strategic overview. For that reason, the quality of communication between those two sides can be just as important as the strategy itself.
Further context on the Scuderia’s wider performance and decision-making can be found in the Ferrari technical analysis section.
Red Bull’s engineering structure is also about to change
The example Chandhok used as a benchmark will not remain unchanged for much longer. Gianpiero Lambiase is set to leave Red Bull and join McLaren, although the date on which he will officially begin his new role has not yet been confirmed.
Max Verstappen is due to work with Tom Hart at the United States Grand Prix as part of a gradual transition. Hart has been selected as Lambiase’s replacement, bringing an end to one of Formula 1’s longest-running and most familiar driver-engineer partnerships.
For Ferrari, however, the immediate relevance of Chandhok’s comparison lies in Singapore. Lewis Hamilton made the final decision not to stop, but the former Formula 1 driver believes the episode also showed why the pit wall must communicate the bigger picture clearly enough for a driver to understand what is at stake before a strategic opportunity disappears.
Leave a Reply