Charles Leclerc’s aggressive attempt to overtake Lewis Hamilton at the 2026 Mexico City Grand Prix has drawn criticism from two former Formula 1 world champions, with Damon Hill questioning the Ferrari driver’s judgement and Nico Rosberg concluding that a five-second penalty was justified. Both believe the Monegasque went too far in his opening-lap battle with his team-mate, although they approached the controversial incident from different perspectives.
The confrontation came just a day after Lewis Hamilton secured Ferrari’s first pole position of the 2026 season, beating Charles Leclerc, who had briefly held provisional pole before slipping to third in the final qualifying runs. Damon Hill suggested that the disappointment of losing out to his team-mate may have contributed to Leclerc’s particularly aggressive approach at the start.
How Charles Leclerc’s move on Lewis Hamilton unfolded in Mexico
Starting third on the grid, Charles Leclerc immediately made progress by getting ahead of Mercedes driver George Russell before challenging Lewis Hamilton through the opening chicane.
The seven-time world champion initially resisted the attack, but his Ferrari team-mate continued to apply pressure and attempted to overtake around the outside of Turn 4. The manoeuvre resulted in both Ferrari drivers leaving the circuit, allowing Max Verstappen to capitalise and move into second place.
The incident subsequently became the subject of an FIA investigation, with Charles Leclerc receiving a five-second time penalty. The decision added another complication to a race already marked by tensions between Ferrari’s two drivers at the Mexico City Grand Prix.
It also raised questions about whether the Monegasque had been sufficiently in control of his car when attempting to complete the move, particularly given how late he appeared to brake.
Nico Rosberg changes his assessment of Charles Leclerc’s five-second penalty
Analysing the incident on Sky Sports F1, Nico Rosberg initially believed that Charles Leclerc had done enough to establish himself ahead of Lewis Hamilton and should therefore have been permitted to retain the position.
However, the 2016 world champion reconsidered after studying the replay more closely. He concluded that Leclerc had braked considerably too late on the outside, making it unrealistic for the Ferrari driver to negotiate the corner successfully.
That detail fundamentally changed Rosberg’s interpretation of the incident. Although he initially regarded the Monegasque as entitled to the position, he ultimately decided that the manoeuvre warranted a sporting penalty because of the excessive aggression involved.
Rosberg considered a five-second penalty the fairest outcome, arguing that Charles Leclerc deserved to lose some race time but that a ten-second sanction would have been excessive. His reasoning also took into account the fact that Lewis Hamilton had left the track during the same incident.
The former Mercedes driver therefore arrived at the same conclusion as the stewards, whose decision to impose the lesser sanction rather than a ten-second penalty became another significant talking point. The FIA’s explanation of Charles Leclerc’s five-second penalty provides further context for how the incident was judged.
Damon Hill questions Charles Leclerc’s aggression after Lewis Hamilton’s pole
While Nico Rosberg concentrated primarily on the driving standards involved, Damon Hill offered a different interpretation during his analysis for BBC Radio 5 Live.
The 1996 Formula 1 world champion suggested that Charles Leclerc’s disappointment following qualifying could help explain the intensity of his attack on Lewis Hamilton. The Ferrari driver had been in contention for pole position on Saturday, only to finish third as his team-mate claimed the fastest time.
Hill considered the attempted outside pass excessively ambitious and argued that Leclerc had placed too much at risk by committing so aggressively against his own team-mate.
He also suggested that Ferrari would be questioning the decision-making behind the manoeuvre, given the potential consequences of an opening-lap confrontation between its two drivers.
His criticism focused not only on whether the move was technically permissible but also on the judgement involved in attempting it against another Ferrari. That distinction is particularly relevant following Fred Vasseur’s response to the Hamilton-Leclerc confrontation, which placed the conduct of the team’s drivers under further scrutiny.
Why the FIA’s first-lap instructions complicated the Ferrari incident
The controversy also unfolded against the background of stricter FIA scrutiny of drivers gaining an advantage by cutting corners on the opening lap.
Before the Mexico City Grand Prix, the governing body had warned that first-lap corner-cutting would be policed more firmly in 2026. Drivers who gained an advantage up to Turn 4 were given until Turn 12 to return the relevant position.
However, the circumstances involving Charles Leclerc, Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen made the situation more complicated than a straightforward exchange between two competitors.
Verstappen had overtaken Hamilton during the Ferrari confrontation, altering the running order and complicating the question of which position should be returned.
The Red Bull driver subsequently informed his team over the radio that he believed Leclerc was required to surrender the lead. The position eventually changed hands when the two drivers made their pit stops at the same time.
For Ferrari, the episode highlighted how quickly an internal battle can influence the wider race. What began as an attempt by Charles Leclerc to challenge Lewis Hamilton developed into a stewards’ investigation, a time penalty and an opportunity for Max Verstappen.
With both Damon Hill and Nico Rosberg critical of the Monegasque’s approach, the incident has also intensified attention on the relationship between Ferrari’s two drivers. Their season-long head-to-head comparison provides a broader perspective on the competitive rivalry, while the events in Mexico underline the difficulties of managing two drivers fighting for the same positions on track.
Leave a Reply