Ferrari supporters have somehow found an even more creative way to suffer. Watching a red car struggle to fight consistently for victories was apparently not enough. Debating aerodynamics, suspension, tyres, power units, development and a season in which Mercedes has repeatedly shown an extra gear was not enough either, nor was watching McLaren recover after a quiet and delayed start. Now there is something even more absorbing: a civil war between supporters of the same team.
On one side are the Charles Leclerc supporters. On the other, the Lewis Hamilton supporters. Somewhere in the middle sits the Prancing Horse, which increasingly seems to have become a secondary detail. The great argument of the moment is ADUO-1 against ADUO-2, complete with telemetry traces, tiny numerical differences, supposed horsepower figures, mysterious engine mappings and laboratory-style analysis from people who, with apologies for the provocation, might struggle to distinguish a torque curve from a corner on the circuit.
Ferrari’s ADUO debate has become a fan civil war
If one Ferrari driver loses or performs badly, the explanation is Ferrari. If that same driver wins, the credit belongs entirely to the driver. If the team-mate finishes behind, it immediately becomes definitive proof that somebody in Maranello is sabotaging the other side of the garage.
At this point, there is almost no need to run the Grand Prix. Publish a telemetry graph instead and allow the digital armies to award the world championship themselves. Or perhaps the prize that appears to matter even more: deciding who is the undisputed number one inside Ferrari.
There is nothing wrong with analysing differences between the two drivers. In fact, a proper Charles Leclerc vs Lewis Hamilton head-to-head comparison can provide useful context across qualifying, race results, race pace and other metrics. The problem begins when individual figures are treated as proof of a predetermined conspiracy rather than one part of a much larger technical and sporting picture.
The parallel championship of Ferrari conspiracy theories
Naturally, Fred Vasseur could not escape this parallel championship. The Ferrari team principal has effectively become a mythical figure in these theories, apparently possessing powers that even Formula 1’s technical regulations do not grant him.
According to the most imaginative interpretations, Fred Vasseur decides which car should be fast, which power unit should work better, which driver should receive the correct set-up and, presumably, what temperature the asphalt should reach. Whenever something goes well for Lewis Hamilton, Fred Vasseur must be favouring Lewis Hamilton. Whenever something goes well for Charles Leclerc, Fred Vasseur must be favouring Charles Leclerc. If both perform badly, then presumably Fred Vasseur is favouring somebody else.
It is a wonderfully convenient theory because it is impossible to disprove. Whatever happens simply becomes further confirmation.
Meanwhile, Ferrari itself continues struggling to solve the real puzzle. That subject is rather less entertaining because it requires discussions about car concept, development, correlation, technical management, the power unit and the team’s ability to turn updates into genuine performance on track.
Those issues are more complicated than deciding whether Lewis Hamilton lost a tenth at one particular corner or whether Charles Leclerc was somehow disadvantaged because somebody in Maranello supposedly removed a few mysterious kilowatts from his battery. Ferrari’s actual ADUO power-unit development programme involves long lead times, technical compromises and regulatory limitations, not simply a switch that can be used to favour one side of the garage.
Ferrari fandom has turned into its own reality show
The debate has increasingly begun to resemble a Ferrari version of Big Brother, with Formula 1 cars replacing the contestants. Who has the better engine? Who received the better mapping? Who received the update first? Who was given the stronger set-up? Who is the real number one? Who is being protected? Who is being abandoned? Who beat the other through one specific corner?
These are apparently essential questions for a team that still needs to explain why it cannot consistently transform its potential into a position ahead of its rivals.
The irony is that the Ferrari driver-management debate is not entirely imaginary. Real decisions do have to be made when two competitive drivers share a garage, especially when their interests collide. Fred Vasseur has already spoken about the responsibility carried by both drivers after the tension between Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton. But legitimate sporting questions are very different from assuming that every tenth of a second is evidence of a hidden agenda.
The strangest part is calling this Ferrari support
This is where the situation becomes genuinely surreal. Many of the loudest participants in this exhausting argument still describe themselves as Ferrari supporters.
Apparently, being a Ferrari supporter has acquired a very particular meaning: supporting Ferrari as long as your preferred driver wins. If the other driver succeeds, an explanation must immediately be found. Perhaps there was a conspiracy. Perhaps it was the mapping. Perhaps there was a team order. Perhaps Fred Vasseur or John Elkann secretly preferred one side.
Above all, some supporters appear to actively hope that the other Ferrari performs badly.
That is the most miserable part of the whole situation. There are people who declare themselves Ferrari fans and then spend an entire weekend hoping one Ferrari will be slower than the other. Not because it helps the team. It helps their preferred narrative.
If Charles Leclerc struggles, a Charles Leclerc supporter can claim Ferrari is favouring Lewis Hamilton. If Lewis Hamilton struggles, a Lewis Hamilton supporter can claim Ferrari is backing Charles Leclerc. Either way, somebody gets the satisfaction of being proved right.
Winning the social-media argument while Ferrari loses on track
What an achievement. The only problem is that while people celebrate the failure of the team-mate they dislike, a Mercedes may still be ahead, McLaren may still be closing the gap, and Max Verstappen may still arrive in the Red Bull with no intention whatsoever of giving up.
Never mind. The important thing is apparently winning the argument on social media.
That seems to have become Ferrari’s new championship. It is no longer about who wins the Grand Prix. It is about who can prove first that their preferred driver was disadvantaged, that the other driver was favoured and that their hero would have conquered Formula 1 if only it had not been for that cursed ADUO-1.
The obsession with internal rankings is particularly strange when there are already meaningful ways of assessing the competitive picture. Ferrari’s own analysis has repeatedly shown that strategy, specification differences, tyre behaviour, traffic and circuit characteristics can influence the comparison between two drivers. Even team-order scenarios require much broader context than simply declaring one driver favoured or disadvantaged.
Ferrari’s real fight is against its own deficit
While the two digital armies tear Ferrari support into rival tribes, the actual red car continues searching for the level of performance that should be normal for a team of Ferrari’s stature.
That is what should genuinely make supporters angry.
Not Lewis Hamilton against Charles Leclerc. Not Charles Leclerc against Lewis Hamilton. Not ADUO-1 against ADUO-2.
Ferrari against its own deficit.
That would be a genuinely interesting battle. Because when a Mercedes W17 is ahead of a Ferrari, it does not matter which Ferrari driver has the prettier telemetry number. It does not matter which group of supporters has invented the most elaborate explanation. It does not matter which power-unit specification has been declared superior.
Ferrari has lost.
The technical differences between engine specifications remain worthy of serious analysis, and Ferrari’s progress should be judged with evidence rather than slogans. The wider picture can be followed through the site’s Ferrari technical analysis coverage, where individual gains only make sense when placed alongside chassis behaviour, energy deployment, tyre performance and the overall competitive gap.
Ferrari should matter more than the faction
If celebrating Ferrari’s defeat requires waiting for the other Ferrari to finish even further behind, then perhaps the real problem is no longer the engine version. It is not Fred Vasseur. It is not even Lewis Hamilton or Charles Leclerc.
The problem is that some people have become so invested in proving their faction right that they have forgotten which team they supposedly support.
There will always be comparisons between Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc. There should be. They are two elite drivers sharing the same team, and their performances will inevitably be examined against each other throughout the season. But those comparisons should illuminate Ferrari’s strengths and weaknesses, not turn every technical difference into evidence of sabotage.
Supporting one driver more than another is perfectly normal. Hoping the other Ferrari fails so that an argument can be won is something else entirely.
Ferrari’s real opponents remain outside its own garage. Until the Scuderia consistently converts its potential into victories and defeats Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull and the rest on track, the endless internal war over ADUO-1, ADUO-2, Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc risks becoming little more than noise surrounding the one result that ultimately matters.
And when Ferrari finishes behind, no amount of telemetry warfare can turn that defeat into a victory.
Leave a Reply