Lewis Hamilton’s Ferrari strategy decisions at the Bahrain Grand Prix in Malaysia and the Singapore Grand Prix have raised fresh questions about the level of trust between the seven-time Formula 1 world champion and his race engineer, Carlo Santi. Despite previously comparing the Italian engineer favourably with his long-time Mercedes colleague Peter Bonnington, Hamilton has now rejected instructions from the Ferrari pit wall in two consecutive races, with dramatically different consequences.
At Sepang, the British driver’s decision to remain on track rather than follow Ferrari’s planned pit stop contributed to his recovery to third place. Just one week later in Singapore, however, Hamilton again chose not to pit when instructed, this time under Virtual Safety Car conditions. The gamble proved costly, leaving him sixth and denying him a potential podium finish. The contrast has brought renewed attention to the relationship between the driver and the people responsible for managing his races.
Lewis Hamilton’s Ferrari strategy decisions produce contrasting results
The first disagreement came during the Bahrain Grand Prix, which was held at Malaysia’s Sepang International Circuit. Ferrari had already endured a difficult opening phase after starting on an unsuitable tyre compound, leaving Hamilton with considerable ground to recover.
Rather than follow the team’s subsequent instruction to enter the pits, the Briton elected to continue on track. Ferrari eventually reversed its original strategy call, allowing Hamilton to pursue the alternative approach he preferred. The decision worked in his favour as he fought back through the field and secured a podium finish.
The result offered encouragement after a challenging race, although the initial tyre selection remained a source of frustration. Hamilton subsequently confirmed that Ferrari would discuss the unsuccessful Sepang tyre strategy and examine how similar mistakes could be avoided.
That recovery also demonstrated the potential value of a driver challenging the pit wall when conditions are changing and strategic decisions become particularly difficult. However, the events of the following weekend illustrated the risks involved when a driver chooses to disregard instructions from the team.
Singapore GP mistake puts Hamilton and Carlo Santi under scrutiny
At Marina Bay, Hamilton once again found himself facing a decision that differed from Ferrari’s preferred strategy. With the race operating under Virtual Safety Car conditions, Carlo Santi instructed the seven-time world champion to enter the pits.
Hamilton rejected the call and remained on track, choosing to continue rather than take advantage of the opportunity to stop. Unlike at Sepang, the decision failed to produce the desired outcome.
The Ferrari driver eventually dropped to sixth place, sacrificing the possibility of another podium finish. What had appeared to be a successful example of Hamilton taking control of his strategy in Malaysia became a costly misjudgement in Singapore.
The two incidents have consequently intensified the discussion surrounding Lewis Hamilton’s relationship with Ferrari. His willingness to challenge the pit wall is not necessarily unusual for a driver of his experience, but consecutive disagreements over important strategic decisions raise questions about how effectively the team and driver are working together.
Ferrari has also faced continuing criticism of its strategic execution during the 2026 season. Nevertheless, the Singapore outcome demonstrated that responsibility for such decisions does not rest exclusively with the engineers. Hamilton’s decision to remain on track contributed directly to the missed opportunity.
Hamilton’s earlier praise for Carlo Santi contrasts with recent team radio decisions
The scrutiny is particularly notable because Hamilton had previously spoken so positively about his new race engineer. His partnership with Carlo Santi began after a difficult first season at Ferrari, during which repeated radio misunderstandings affected his working relationship with Riccardo Adami.
Before joining the Italian team, Hamilton had enjoyed an exceptionally successful relationship with Peter Bonnington at Mercedes. The pair developed a close professional understanding and won six Drivers’ World Championships together, establishing a partnership that became an important part of the Briton’s success.
Finding a similar level of communication and confidence at Maranello was therefore a significant consideration when Santi took over as his race engineer. Their collaboration initially appeared promising, particularly following Hamilton’s victory at the Barcelona-Catalunya Grand Prix in June.
After that success, Hamilton credited Santi with helping to restore his enthusiasm for racing. He also described the Italian engineer as his equivalent of Bonnington at Ferrari, explaining that he had even shared the comparison with his former Mercedes colleague.
The seven-time world champion highlighted Santi’s experience, maturity and calm manner, particularly in the way he communicated over the team radio. Hamilton considered those qualities important, having previously benefited from Bonnington’s composed approach during their successful years together.
Those remarks suggested that the new partnership was developing positively. Yet the recent decisions at Sepang and Singapore have introduced a different perspective, with Hamilton appearing increasingly willing to rely on his own judgement rather than accept Ferrari’s strategic instructions.
Does Lewis Hamilton have complete confidence in Ferrari’s pit wall?
The central question is whether Hamilton would have been equally prepared to reject consecutive strategy calls from Peter Bonnington during their time at Mercedes. His long-standing confidence in the British engineer provides an obvious comparison with the situation now unfolding at Ferrari.
Although Hamilton’s earlier praise indicated considerable respect for Santi, the two recent races suggest that the level of trust in the Italian team’s decision-making remains open to question. His successful intervention at Sepang may have reinforced his confidence in his own judgement, but Singapore demonstrated that taking responsibility for strategy can also produce damaging consequences.
The issue extends beyond the personal relationship between Hamilton and his engineer. Strategic decisions involve information gathered by the pit wall, including the wider race situation, while the driver contributes immediate feedback about the car, tyres and track conditions. Effective communication between the two sides is essential when a decision must be made quickly.
Hamilton’s recent experiences have also followed a period in which Ferrari had reasons to approach Singapore with optimism after the podium recovery in Malaysia. The missed opportunity at Marina Bay therefore added another frustration to a campaign already marked by questions over strategic execution.
Despite the apparent tension between Hamilton and Ferrari’s decision-makers, Santi is expected to continue in his position as the British driver’s race engineer. There is no indication of another change to the partnership.
For Hamilton and Ferrari, the challenge is now to establish a more consistent understanding of when to follow the team’s strategic direction and when the driver’s assessment should take priority. The contrasting outcomes at Sepang and Singapore have shown how influential those decisions can be, particularly when the difference between a podium finish and a disappointing result depends on a single pit stop.
With further races remaining on the 2026 Formula 1 calendar, the effectiveness of Hamilton’s communication with Santi and the wider Ferrari pit wall will remain an important part of the team’s efforts to improve its results.
Leave a Reply