By: The Singapore Grand Prix quickly turned from a dream into a nightmare for Lewis Hamilton. The Briton started third on medium tyres, which proved to be the worst choice, and stopped after 20 laps to fit the softest compound. When the Virtual Safety Car came out, it was easy to assume he would pit, but he never entered the pit lane. The decision had its logic, given how difficult it is to overtake at Marina Bay, but tyre wear was greater than expected and the Ferrari driver slipped to sixth.
After the GP, it emerged that he himself had decided to stay out, following his instincts rather than the pit wall's strategy, which had already let him down at Sepang. On that occasion, Hamilton publicly stressed that he had trusted three engineers rather than his own judgement, paying a high price for relying on the data. There, they had not split the strategies, partly because Ferrari's strength is also its weakness: it has two leading drivers, two exceptional talents. So which one do you give the riskier strategy to?
Speaking to the media, the Briton addressed another critical aspect of his Ferrari campaign: "My job is to adapt to the team's plans, but I tend to challenge the team and conventions, and that is what has brought me to my status." It is a proactive approach which, however, can quickly be perceived as arrogance by those who do not want to take orders from the «new arrival». It brings out the familiar Italian refrain of "we've always done it this way, who are you to change the plans?" Yet Hamilton has every quality needed to be listened to; it simply seems that Maranello has no interest in doing so. Perhaps there are corporate constraints, targets to meet and other objectives unknown to us.
Cover photo by Luca Martini / WHYOUT Images
All the news, photos, weather, session times and times from the United States GP 2026
