Lewis Hamilton has revealed that his initial instinct was to start the Bahrain Grand Prix in Malaysia on intermediate tyres, only for Ferrari’s senior trackside figures to persuade him to accept the team’s slick-tyre gamble. The admission has prompted Ted Kravitz to question why the seven-time world champion did not simply overrule the Scuderia and insist on the tyre he believed was correct.
Hamilton explained in the Singapore Grand Prix paddock that Ferrari’s final call was reached collectively. Team principal Fred Vasseur, head of track engineering Matteo Togninalli, race engineer Carlo Santi and Hamilton himself all contributed information and opinions before the decision was made.
But the Briton’s own observations were clear. He recalled recognising that the circuit was still wet as he entered the pit lane, repeating the same assessment when he reached the pit wall and again after returning to the garage. His preference was therefore to begin the race on intermediates.
According to Hamilton, the three other voices involved in the discussion offered a different interpretation of the conditions. Faced with several team members reaching the same conclusion, he was eventually persuaded to follow their recommendation and start on Soft slick tyres.
The aftermath has already led to extensive discussions between Lewis Hamilton and Ferrari over the failed Sepang strategy, with the team now looking at how similar decisions can be handled more effectively in the future.
Lewis Hamilton admits his original instinct was correct
Hamilton stressed that the process reflected how Ferrari works as a team. When several experienced people reach one conclusion and the driver holds another view, there is a natural tendency to trust the collective judgement rather than insist that the individual instinct must prevail.
At Sepang, however, the driver’s original reading of the conditions proved to be the better one. Hamilton acknowledged that there are situations in which three people can be wrong and one can be right, leaving the individual wishing afterwards that he had trusted his own judgement.
He nevertheless avoided blaming the people involved personally. Hamilton emphasised that everyone had been trying to make the best possible decision with the information available, even though the conclusion was ultimately not good enough.
Ferrari has since held what Hamilton described as a major internal discussion about the process. The objective is to find a more consistent method of reaching the correct conclusion when similar situations develop in future races.
Ted Kravitz questions why Lewis Hamilton did not overrule Ferrari
Ted Kravitz found one aspect of Hamilton’s explanation particularly difficult to understand. After hearing that the Ferrari driver repeatedly believed intermediates were the correct choice, the Sky Sports F1 reporter questioned why Hamilton did not simply assert that he was driving the car and wanted the wet-weather tyre.
Kravitz was also intrigued by what the post-race discussion inside Ferrari might have looked like, given that Hamilton had argued for intermediates before ultimately accepting the alternative recommendation.
His broader question concerned where responsibility should sit when the driver’s direct feel for the track conflicts with the information and analysis being provided from the pit wall.
That debate has become especially relevant because the wrong starting tyre did not simply cost Ferrari a small amount of time. Those who remained on slicks quickly became detached from the cars running on intermediates.
Ferrari’s slick gamble cost Lewis Hamilton more than 80 seconds
Ferrari was far from alone in choosing slick tyres. More than half of the field initially went in the same direction, although several drivers changed to intermediates before the green flag once they had gathered more information about the conditions.
The cars that persisted with dry tyres were immediately punished. Lewis Hamilton had fallen more than 80 seconds behind the leader by the time a Safety Car appeared on lap nine and compressed the field.
The neutralisation effectively rescued Ferrari’s race. By the time racing resumed, the dry tyres had become the faster option, allowing Hamilton to rebuild his afternoon rather than continue losing enormous amounts of time.
The seven-time world champion eventually fought his way back to third place, but believed the initial tyre decision potentially cost him the opportunity to win for the first time since Barcelona.
The entire episode has added another chapter to Ferrari’s recurring debate over strategy and execution, areas that have remained under scrutiny despite the strong recovery to the podium.
Naomi Schiff sees the decision as a genuine 50-50 call
Naomi Schiff offered a more sympathetic interpretation of Ferrari’s decision. The Sky Sports analyst suggested that Hamilton ultimately had the authority to insist on intermediates if he felt strongly enough about the conditions.
Her view was that the Briton could theoretically have refused to leave the garage unless Ferrari fitted the tyres he wanted. Instead, the opinions of Fred Vasseur, Matteo Togninalli and Carlo Santi persuaded him that slicks represented the better option.
Schiff also stressed how difficult the initial judgement actually was. Ferrari attracted intense attention because Hamilton was due to start from the front row and fans were anticipating a direct fight with Max Verstappen, but many other drivers had reached the same initial conclusion.
She recalled that 13 of the 22 drivers started the race on slick tyres, reinforcing her assessment that the choice was effectively a 50-50 decision rather than an obvious mistake unique to Ferrari.
Why Ferrari still faces criticism despite others making the same mistake
The scrutiny surrounding Ferrari is intensified by the team’s established reputation for costly strategic errors. Former Haas team principal Guenther Steiner recently criticised the Scuderia’s decision-making and suggested that Ferrari has developed a recurring tendency to come out on the wrong side of difficult calls.
Charles Leclerc has also urged the Maranello team to study Red Bull’s strategic execution after Sepang. Red Bull placed Max Verstappen on intermediates from the start, and the decision immediately proved correct as the polesitter avoided the enormous time losses suffered by the slick runners before going on to win the race.
The contrast has added weight to the argument that Ferrari must improve not only its initial strategic judgement but also the speed with which it reacts when conditions demonstrate that the original plan is failing.
That issue is particularly relevant because some drivers who initially chose slicks changed their minds before the race properly began. Ferrari instead committed to its approach with Hamilton, despite his repeated concern that the circuit remained too wet.
Ferrari now wants a better decision-making process
The most important consequence of Hamilton’s admission is therefore not simply that his instinct happened to be correct. It is that Ferrari now has to examine how competing views are weighed when the driver’s immediate trackside feedback conflicts with the team’s broader information.
Hamilton has made clear that responsibility was shared rather than belonging to one individual. His account included Fred Vasseur, Matteo Togninalli, Carlo Santi and himself as participants in the final decision, while also acknowledging that the process produced the wrong answer on this occasion.
Ferrari’s focus now turns towards making that process more reliable. The team arrives in Singapore with another demanding weekend ahead, where limited preparation time under the Sprint format will place even greater importance on rapid and accurate decision-making. Fred Vasseur has already outlined Ferrari’s key challenge for the Singapore Sprint weekend.
Sepang ultimately ended with Hamilton on the podium, but the Safety Car disguised how damaging the opening tyre call had been. Without that intervention, Ferrari’s strategic error could have defined the entire race. The lesson Hamilton and the team are now trying to address is how to ensure that, the next time his instinct and the pit wall disagree, Ferrari reaches the correct conclusion before the opportunity is lost.
Leave a Reply