'A lack of respect' - Ferrari's authority problem is getting out of hand

Ferrari had the pace to win the Mexican Grand Prix, potentially with both cars finishing first and second. Instead, a confrontation between Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton on the opening lap helped turn a golden opportunity into another frustrating afternoon.

But the most damaging aspect of the incident may have been what it further revealed about the team’s increasingly difficult relationship with its drivers.

The clash at Turn 4 was the catalyst. Hamilton and Leclerc went wheel-to-wheel, both ran wide, and the Monegasque emerged ahead. When Hamilton subsequently lost another position to Max Verstappen, Ferrari‘s chance of securing a one-two began to slip away.

Leclerc was eventually handed a five-second penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage, but the damage had already been done. Hamilton was furious, Ferrari lost valuable points, and the team was left facing uncomfortable questions about how it manages its two drivers. Again.

Neither driver emerged from the incident happy with the other’s behaviour, but their explanations afterwards revealed a more fundamental problem: they appear to have very different ideas about what should happen when their personal ambitions collide with the interests of Ferrari.

Hamilton’s interpretation was straightforward. He said the drivers had discussed in their briefing that anyone going off at Turn 1 had to return the position. Leclerc’s failure to do so was therefore not simply an aggressive racing decision, but a failure to respect an agreement.

“In the drivers’ briefing, we discussed that as soon as you go off in Turn 1, you have to give the position back,” Hamilton explained. “But obviously, last year I got a 10-second penalty for that same move that he did.”

The seven-time world champion was particularly frustrated because he believed Ferrari had thrown away a race it could easily have won.

“We had the car to easily have first and second, but due to the first two corners, that kind of went away,” he said. “And then after that, we just gave it basically to Max, and then all they had to do was just stay ahead of us.”

Leclerc offered a different interpretation. He acknowledged that the penalty was deserved “in a way”, but suggested the situation was less clear-cut than Hamilton had made out.

Both drivers had gone off at Turn 4, he explained, and he wasn’t sure precisely what Hamilton expected him to do. With Verstappen having already passed Hamilton, Leclerc felt retaining second place was worth the risk.

“I don’t know if Lewis’s point was for me to get P3, but at least having a Red Bull second, I felt it was worth it to kind of keep the position and see what happened,” he said.

Leclerc also pointed out that he felt Hamilton had pushed him wide during their battle, but he considered that part of racing between team-mates fighting for position.

“I could be also unhappy with how much he pushed me all the track out of Turn 1,” he said. “But I think it’s racing when you are fighting for it.”

“The guy is 28 years old, so I don’t think it’s an age thing.”

There is a reasonable argument that Leclerc was trying to protect Ferrari’s chances of keeping Verstappen behind, rather than deliberately sacrificing a potential one-two, but that doesn’t resolve the central issue.

If the drivers can’t agree on what is expected of them in precisely these circumstances, Ferrari has a problem that goes beyond one controversial first-lap incident.

Team principal Fred Vasseur was equally unhappy with the outcome, although he was careful not to single out either driver. His frustration was directed at the wider implications of the incident, particularly given the progress Ferrari had made with its car.

“I think it’s a lack of respect for the brand, for all the people who work in Maranello and for the efforts we’re making,” he said. “We’ve taken a real step forward in terms of performance and throwing away a win in this way is hard to accept.”

Vasseur insisted he wasn’t pointing the finger at either driver, saying he wanted to speak to both, but his assessment of what Ferrari had thrown away was blunt.

“When you leave first and third in Mexico, where you haven’t overtaken in 72 years, you don’t expect to come second and fourth.”

It was a clear indication that Ferrari’s management considers the incident more than just an unfortunate racing clash. The team had made the progress necessary to challenge for victories, only to see that work compromised by its own drivers.

And Hamilton’s reaction suggested once again that this is not an isolated disagreement.

The Briton has repeatedly called for clearer rules of engagement with his team-mate. Following another costly clash with Leclerc at Monza, he called for a written set of guidelines to prevent similar situations.

In Mexico, he was again asking for serious conversations and questioning whether anything had actually changed.

“We don’t have rules of engagement, and whether or not that will change anything from Charles’ side, I don’t know,” Hamilton said. “We’ve just got to figure it out, but something needs to change for sure.”

His frustration went further than simply losing a race. Hamilton believes the responsibility of a driver extends beyond the cockpit, particularly when a team has worked so hard to put a competitive car on track.

“The core thing to remember, which maybe comes with age, is that every decision you make in the car impacts all the people that work in the background for the whole team,” he said. “Working as a team is a part of our job and a part of our contract. We have to work as a team, which we could have easily done today.”

It was a pointed criticism of Leclerc, even if Hamilton stopped short of directly accusing his team-mate of deliberately putting his own interests ahead of Ferrari’s.

He was more explicit when asked whether inexperience might have contributed to Leclerc’s decision.

Hamilton rejected the suggestion that age was a factor, instead questioning his team-mate’s mentality when fighting for a victory.

“The guy is 28 years old, so I don’t think it’s an age thing. I think it’s a mentality thing. It’s like, ‘Do or die. Either I win or none of us do,’ and it shouldn’t be that. It should be us having, getting that one-two,” he said.

Hamilton contrasted the incident with his own approach at Silverstone, where he believed he could have taken Leclerc out but instead prioritised securing a strong result for Ferrari.

Whether the two situations were directly comparable is debatable, but the message was clear: he expects his team-mate to make similar compromises when the team’s interests are at stake.

Airing the dirty laundry in public

Despite all his good intentions to move the team forward, Hamilton’s willingness to discuss the disagreement so openly is itself revealing of the difficult situation Ferrari is facing.

His frustrations were not confined to the team radio about conversations in private briefings, or his complaints that Ferrari had “big, big problems”.

In the press conference, he repeatedly returned to the need for action, suggesting that previous discussions had failed to deliver a lasting solution.

“I don’t really know what will be done because up until now nothing really has been done,” he said.

That is arguably the most uncomfortable comment for Ferrari.

Hamilton even acknowledged that Vasseur was doing his best, describing the Frenchman as someone who wanted both drivers to succeed.

But sympathy for the difficulty of managing two competitive drivers doesn’t remove the responsibility to manage them.

Hamilton’s comparison with his time at Mercedes was telling. He acknowledged that his battles with Nico Rosberg had produced some extremely difficult moments, but felt those situations had ultimately been handled well by the team.

He doesn’t necessarily believe Ferrari is managing its current situation as effectively.

There is also a danger that the public nature of the disagreement becomes a problem in itself. Drivers will inevitably disagree, particularly when they are competing for the same piece of track, but teams need mechanisms to resolve those disputes without allowing them to undermine the wider operation.

When one driver is publicly questioning the other’s decisions and the team’s ability to enforce its own rules, it suggests those mechanisms aren’t working as they should.