Lewis Hamilton’s relationship with Ferrari’s pit wall has come under renewed scrutiny following a difficult Singapore Grand Prix, with former Formula 1 driver Karun Chandhok suggesting that confidence between the seven-time world champion and his team is beginning to weaken. Chandhok believes both sides need to reset their approach after a series of strategic decisions contributed to Hamilton falling from third on the grid to sixth at Marina Bay.
The disappointment was particularly significant because Hamilton had arrived in Singapore hoping to challenge for victory. Instead, Charles Leclerc secured second place behind Max Verstappen, while his Ferrari team-mate finished three positions behind his starting place. Coming just one week after the Scuderia’s controversial tyre decision in Malaysia, the result has intensified questions about how Hamilton and his engineers are managing important decisions during races.
Karun Chandhok questions Lewis Hamilton’s trust in Ferrari
Speaking on the Sky F1 podcast, Karun Chandhok argued that the recent incidents suggest Ferrari and Lewis Hamilton need to reassess how they work together. The former Formula 1 driver believes there are signs that trust between Hamilton and the pit wall is starting to deteriorate, particularly when strategic choices must be made under pressure.
Chandhok identified Hamilton’s comments ahead of the Singapore Grand Prix as an important indication of the difficulties surrounding the partnership. During Thursday’s media activities at Marina Bay, the British driver initially defended Ferrari against criticism of its previous race strategy, questioning why the Italian team had received greater scrutiny than McLaren when both had chosen to start on slick tyres in Malaysia.
However, Chandhok highlighted how Hamilton subsequently acknowledged that his own preference had been to begin the Malaysian race on intermediate tyres. According to the seven-time world champion, three other members of the Ferrari team had persuaded him to support the slick-tyre decision during a meeting before the race.
For Chandhok, those two explanations revealed an uncomfortable contrast. Hamilton had publicly defended the team’s collective decision while also making clear that the final strategy differed from what he had personally wanted.
The disagreement followed a costly opening phase in Malaysia, where Ferrari’s decision to use slick tyres on a rain-affected circuit left Hamilton struggling while competitors who selected the more suitable compound gained substantial time. The incident subsequently prompted discussions between Lewis Hamilton and Ferrari over the Sepang tyre strategy.
Singapore GP strategy leaves Lewis Hamilton sixth as Charles Leclerc takes second
Any hopes that Singapore would provide an immediate response to the Malaysian setback were undermined by another complicated afternoon. Hamilton started third at Marina Bay with ambitions of fighting at the front, but his race developed very differently from that of Charles Leclerc.
The Monegasque finished second behind Max Verstappen and collected 18 championship points, while Hamilton crossed the line sixth to score eight. The ten-point difference between the Ferrari drivers added to the frustration of a weekend in which the Briton had appeared well placed to challenge for a stronger result.
Hamilton’s strategy was particularly unusual. He started on the Medium compound but was also the first driver to make a pit stop, an approach that Chandhok found difficult to understand. Among the seven highest finishers, Hamilton was the only driver to begin the race on Medium tyres, making his early stop stand out even more.
Chandhok considered that combination one of several decisions Ferrari had handled poorly. Starting on a compound generally associated with a longer opening stint, only to stop before the other leading contenders, created an apparent contradiction in the team’s approach to the race.
The outcome was a considerable contrast to the optimism surrounding Hamilton before the weekend, when his prospects of challenging for victory in Singapore had been supported by his previous success at Marina Bay and the potential competitiveness of the SF-26.
Lewis Hamilton takes responsibility for Singapore strategy decisions
Although Ferrari’s race management attracted criticism, Hamilton also acknowledged his own contribution to the disappointing result. The seven-time world champion apologised to the team as he crossed the finish line and accepted responsibility for choosing the unconventional strategy.
He also admitted that the decision not to pit during the Virtual Safety Car period had been his own. That detail is particularly important in understanding the concerns raised by Chandhok, because the Singapore race was not simply a case of Hamilton following instructions from the pit wall that subsequently proved unsuccessful.
Instead, the British driver had taken an active role in determining the strategy, including the choice to remain on track when the Virtual Safety Car created another opportunity to reconsider his position.
Chandhok interpreted that behaviour as a possible sign that Hamilton was becoming less willing to rely on Ferrari’s recommendations. In his assessment, the trust between driver and team was already showing signs of strain, and the decisions taken in Singapore suggested that Hamilton had chosen not to follow the team’s preferred approach.
That interpretation also creates a contrast with the previous weekend. In Malaysia, Hamilton explained that he had been persuaded to accept a tyre choice he initially opposed. In Singapore, he took responsibility for decisions that did not produce the result he had hoped for.
Why Ferrari and Lewis Hamilton face an important communication challenge
For Ferrari, the concerns extend beyond the disappointment of a single sixth-place finish. The Singapore Grand Prix followed immediately after the team’s problematic tyre selection in Malaysia, creating a sequence of events that has brought the relationship between Hamilton and his side of the garage into sharper focus.
Chandhok’s suggestion of a reset centres on restoring confidence in the decision-making process. His criticism indicates that the problem is not limited to whether a particular tyre strategy succeeds or fails, but also involves how the driver and team reach those decisions and respond when their initial preferences differ.
Hamilton’s acknowledgement of responsibility in Singapore does not remove the questions surrounding Ferrari’s wider strategic approach. Equally, his earlier defence of the team after Malaysia demonstrates that the situation involves more than straightforward public criticism of his engineers.
The contrast between Hamilton’s sixth place and Leclerc’s runner-up finish makes the issue especially relevant as the championship approaches its final rounds. Both drivers compete with the same team, but their Singapore results produced markedly different outcomes in terms of points and finishing positions.
For the seven-time world champion, the immediate challenge is to rebuild confidence in the decisions being made during races while continuing to work with Ferrari towards stronger results. Chandhok believes a reset is necessary, and the events of Malaysia and Singapore have made the relationship between Hamilton and the pit wall an increasingly important subject for the Scuderia to address.
Leave a Reply