Lewis Hamilton has developed a positive relationship with new race engineer Carlo Santi during his improved 2026 Ferrari campaign, but the Dutch Grand Prix exposed a problem that goes beyond the relationship between driver and engineer: the Scuderia still needs greater clarity, confidence and decisiveness in its in-race communication.
A moment from Lewis Hamilton’s Mercedes career with Peter Bonnington illustrates the contrast particularly well. Their partnership was not mistake-free, but at its best it combined trust in the driver’s judgement with clear information from the pit wall. Zandvoort showed why Ferrari has not yet reached that same level consistently.
Lewis Hamilton’s Ferrari communication problem resurfaced at Zandvoort
Ferrari changed Hamilton’s engineering structure after the end of the 2025 season, when the team concluded that his partnership with Riccardo Adami was not working effectively enough. Carlo Santi subsequently took over as race engineer, while former McLaren engineer Cedric Grosjean also became part of the reshaped group around the seven-time world champion.
The changes have coincided with Hamilton’s resurgence in 2026. After securing his first Ferrari victory at the Spanish Grand Prix in Barcelona in June, the British driver warmly credited Carlo Santi with helping to reignite his enjoyment behind the wheel. The latest developments around the seven-time champion can be followed through ScuderiaFans’ Lewis Hamilton Ferrari coverage.
Yet the Dutch Grand Prix demonstrated that stronger personal chemistry does not automatically solve every operational weakness. Ferrari faced a difficult situation when Hamilton was running behind Charles Leclerc despite having fresher tyres. The team hesitated over whether to swap its drivers, and the absence of a clear explanation from the pit wall made the situation more frustrating.
Hamilton was not given Ferrari’s reasoning while he remained behind his team-mate, contributing to the sarcastic radio reactions that followed as he felt valuable time was being lost. The episode became part of the wider team-order debate involving Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc at Zandvoort.
Ferrari kept its one-stop idea hidden from Lewis Hamilton
The communication problem continued once Charles Leclerc eventually made his pit stop. Ferrari left Hamilton on track and began considering an ambitious one-stop strategy, but deliberately avoided revealing the plan because it did not want rival teams to understand what it was attempting.
That secrecy had consequences inside the cockpit. Kimi Antonelli and Lando Norris inevitably closed on fresher tyres, leaving Hamilton feeling as though Ferrari was experimenting with his race rather than following a strategy he properly understood. Fred Vasseur later explained Ferrari’s decision to conceal the one-stop strategy.
The problem was not simply whether the strategic gamble was correct. Bernie Collins highlighted after the race that Hamilton needed greater clarity from the pit wall because understanding the intended strategy would have helped him judge how aggressively he should manage his tyres.
Ferrari ultimately abandoned the one-stop attempt when a Virtual Safety Car created the opportunity to make a less costly pit stop. Collins’ assessment of the race centred on the way the Scuderia handled Hamilton’s information, an issue explored further in her analysis of Ferrari’s Zandvoort strategy management.
Peter Bonnington and Turkey 2020 offer Ferrari a useful contrast
Hamilton’s 12-season partnership with Peter Bonnington at Mercedes also produced strategic mistakes, but communication became one of its defining strengths. Perhaps the clearest example came during the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix, one of the most accomplished victories of Hamilton’s career and the race in which he secured his seventh Drivers’ Championship.
Hamilton completed 50 laps on the same set of intermediate tyres. As the circuit dried, the tread gradually wore away and the intermediates increasingly behaved like slick tyres. The unusual strategy worked, but another potential shower late in the race created a difficult decision for Mercedes.
Bonnington initially instructed Hamilton to make a pit stop. The Mercedes driver had enough of an advantage to retain the lead, but Hamilton was uncomfortable with the prospect of negotiating the slippery pit entry and preferred to remain on track.
At that point, Bonnington recognised that the driver had the better immediate feel for the grip level. He accepted Hamilton’s judgement rather than forcing the original instruction, while making sure his driver understood that the team remained prepared with a fresh set of intermediate tyres if conditions changed. Hamilton only needed to confirm that he wanted to stop.
The significance of that exchange was not its complexity. It was the combination of trust, clarity and reassurance. Mercedes supplied the strategic information available on the pit wall while still respecting what Hamilton could feel from inside the cockpit.
Carlo Santi must balance Lewis Hamilton’s instincts with Ferrari data
That balance remains a work in progress between Lewis Hamilton and Carlo Santi. During another tyre discussion at Zandvoort, Hamilton effectively reminded his engineer that Ferrari possessed the data and therefore needed to make the decision.
It captured the central challenge for the new partnership. Carlo Santi has to determine when Hamilton’s experience and instinct from the cockpit should take precedence and when the information available to Ferrari requires a firm instruction from the pit wall.
No engineer can simply defer to the driver on every strategic decision, just as raw data cannot always communicate the grip, confidence or changing conditions a driver is experiencing in real time. The strongest partnerships find a reliable way to combine both perspectives, which is what Hamilton and Peter Bonnington often achieved during their years together.
Ferrari’s handling of Zandvoort suggested that the issue extends beyond one radio relationship. The Scuderia appeared hesitant in deciding when to intervene between Hamilton and Charles Leclerc, then restricted information while pursuing the one-stop possibility. Those decisions contributed to the wider execution concerns that prompted Fred Vasseur to order a review after the Dutch Grand Prix.
Ferrari needs conviction as its title ambitions grow
Hamilton’s engineering restructuring has already delivered positive signs. His praise for Carlo Santi after Barcelona showed how much progress the relationship had made, and the contribution of the reshaped engineering group has been part of his stronger 2026 campaign.
The next stage is developing the confidence to make decisions quickly and communicate them clearly when races become complicated. Ferrari wants to move from being an outsider in the title battle to challenging consistently at the front, and marginal strategic situations become increasingly important when the competitive gaps are small.
The lesson from Hamilton’s Mercedes years is not that Peter Bonnington always made the correct decision. Rather, the strongest moments of their partnership showed how a driver and pit wall could disagree, exchange information and still leave the driver knowing exactly what support and options were available.
Hamilton and Carlo Santi have time to develop that understanding further. But the Dutch Grand Prix showed that Ferrari’s challenge is also organisational. If the Maranello team can combine Hamilton’s instincts with the information available on the pit wall and remove the hesitation that continues to appear in difficult race situations, its improved technical and sporting form could be backed by a more decisive operation when it matters most.
Leave a Reply