Ferrari vs. Hamilton and Leclerc: Are the drivers to blame?

Ferrari’s President Criticizes His Drivers: A Strategic Error?

John Elkann, Ferrari’s president’s recent decision to publicly criticize his drivers, Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc, has sparked intense debate in the Formula 1 world. This event, which occurred after the disappointing São Paulo Grand Prix, where both drivers suffered retirements, has been interpreted by many as a reflection of the problems that have plagued the Italian team during its 17-year title drought. Elkann, in his statements, highlighted the performance of the mechanics and the improvement of the car, but directed his criticism towards the drivers, suggesting that they should focus more on driving and less on talking. These words contrast with Ferrari’s recent victory in the World Endurance Championship (WEC), an achievement that highlights the disparity between successes in other categories and the lack of results in F1.

“Brazil was a big disappointment. We have mechanics who are winning the championship with their performance. Our engineers, there is no doubt that the car has improved. But the rest is not up to par. We have drivers for whom it is important that they concentrate on driving and talk less, because we still have important races ahead and it is not impossible to get second place [in the constructors’ championship]”.

John Elkann, President of Ferrari

Elkann’s stance has generated various reactions. Some interpret it as an attempt to motivate the team, while others see it as a sign of insecurity or arrogance, especially considering that Ferrari hasn’t won a drivers’ championship since 2007 nor a constructors’ one since 2008. This situation has led to questions about whether Elkann truly understands the differences between building a successful program in F1 and in WEC. Following Elkann’s statements, both drivers reacted on social media. Leclerc emphasized the need for “unity” at Ferrari, while Hamilton reaffirmed his support for the team and himself. These reactions raise questions about the future of the relationship between the drivers and the team’s management, as well as about Ferrari’s ability to achieve the unity needed to compete at the highest level. Elkann’s criticism has also highlighted internal tensions within the team. The reference to the car’s improvement, despite the results, has generated doubts. Ferrari has not achieved significant victories compared to its rivals, which has led to questioning the strategy and the development of the single-seater. The post by Charles Leclerc reflects the need for unity at Ferrari. The post by Lewis Hamilton shows his support for the team and himself.

Leclerc’s situation, who has expressed his frustration in the past, and Hamilton’s arrival, generate expectations and challenges for Ferrari. The possibility of Leclerc considering leaving the team in the future, if competitive results are not achieved, adds pressure to the team. The history of F1 shows that criticism of the drivers is not new, but in the case of Ferrari, the current situation demands a deep reflection on the strategy and direction of the team. Elkann’s reference to the WEC, while highlighting Ferrari’s success in that category, also raises questions. The “balance of performance” system in the WEC, designed to help new participants, could suggest that Ferrari needs favorable conditions to win, something that is not always the case in F1. The comparison with the Dallas Cowboys, a franchise with great prestige but without recent successes, illustrates Ferrari’s need to build a winning team sustainable over time.