Lewis Hamilton finished P6 in the Drivers’ Standings in his first season at Ferrari, 86 points off teammate Charles Leclerc. Photo: RacePictures.
After Michael Schumacher’s illustrious 11-year run, Ferrari has crowned just one champion, Kimi Räikkönen in 2007. Following a Constructors’ title in 2008, the team has neither won another championship nor mounted what could reasonably be described as a sustained title challenge.
The problem, however, has never been a lack of drivers capable of winning championships. Three Formula 1 champions have taken the coveted red seat in the past 15 years, Fernando Alonso, Sebastian Vettel and Hamilton, only to spearhead failed title bids in which the Scuderia itself was often the decisive limiting factor. The issue, bluntly put, is cultural.
Ferrari must evolve past outdated F1 driver concept
Ferrari must accept that structures need to evolve with time. In a sport as marginal, technical, and volatile as Formula 1, it is naïve, if not negligent, to pretend that a team’s inaction to a driver’s input does not directly influence results.
Driver feedback has long been a cornerstone of Adrian Newey’s design philosophy. It was also instrumental in helping Red Bull crack the previously undecipherable RB21, as the team consciously shifted emphasis away from simulation-heavy data and began listening more closely to Max Verstappen’s input.
Lewis Hamilton giving his team the okay in Singapore. Photo: RacePictures.
In Formula 1’s modern era, a driver’s role extends far beyond the confines of the cockpit. The act of driving is merely the final output of an exhaustive process that includes preparation, development work, simulator sessions, and technical feedback, commitments that, in terms of time and influence, far outweigh the minutes spent on track.
That reality alone raises a fundamental question: is a driver’s value off the circuit now just as important as what they deliver on it?
Why Ferrari’s dry spell may not end soon
Former Ferrari team principal Maurizio Arrivabene recently outlined what he considers a career-ending trait in Formula 1 drivers: when they begin offering engineering feedback, “it’s over.” Echoing comments previously made by Ferrari chairman John Elkann, Arrivabene – who led the team in Vettel’s era – reinforced the belief that drivers should focus solely on racing and leave the technical direction to others.
That outlook reflects a deeper problem. Drivers are not outsiders to the engineering process, they are a critical part of it. Even when a driver’s assessment is imperfect, their perspective alone could help push the team forward in one way or another.
Hamilton’s input could be the differentiator at Ferrari
Ferrari’s long-standing mantra of “Ferrari above all” has increasingly overridden the value of key individuals within the organisation. What once sounded noble now feels outdated and, more importantly, performance-capping. It inevitably raises a simple but uncomfortable question: why sign Hamilton at all?
If Ferrari sought a driver who would merely extract lap time and refrain from challenging internal processes, even those in clear need of evolution, then signing Hamilton was a fundamental miscalculation. His value has never been confined to ‘just’ driving a car quickly.
With Hamilton, the Scuderia would be wise to fully exploit the breadth of his experience and technical understanding. Used correctly, that knowledge could help reset Ferrari’s cycle of near-misses. Ignored, it risks becoming just another chapter in a story the team has been repeating for far too long.