- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
George Russell claimed his first Formula One sprint race win at the 2026 Chinese Grand Prix, maintaining his perfect start to the season after a closely fought contest that highlighted both Mercedes’ strengths and the evolving competitive order under the 2026 regulations.
I’ll stand with ya….excellent post. Spot on, very neutral and stating of the facts. Well done.Ollywood1987 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2026, 11:23I genuinely can’t tell any more whether some of you are trolling or whether checking facts has simply become optional.
Because this has gone from perfectly reasonable criticism of Hamilton’s Baku weekend to an increasingly bizarre collection of things that are either unsupported, misleading or just flat-out wrong.
Let’s start with Baku, because apparently P2 and P6 on a qualifying results sheet is now all the analysis required on a website with “technical” in its name.
Hamilton was 0.100s FASTER than Leclerc in Q1.
Leclerc was 0.257s faster in Q2.
Then came Q3.
Ferrari changed the run plan. Hamilton ended up roughly 25 seconds behind Russell, effectively running in clean air, while Leclerc had Hamilton ahead of him providing the tow.
Hamilton’s own description afterwards was pretty unambiguous: he had no tow, was effectively a sitting duck, and then gave Charles a very good tow towards the line.
Formula 1’s own post-qualifying analysis says Hamilton’s position at the head of the Ferrari pairing left him without the tow on the crucial Q3 runs and prevented him challenging the front two rows.
Hamilton estimated from what he had experienced in FP3 that the effect of the tow around Baku was worth roughly six tenths.
His final deficit to Leclerc?
0.495s.
Now, before someone has an aneurysm, that does NOT prove Hamilton would have beaten Leclerc with identical circumstances. Leclerc produced the better Q3 result. Hamilton also struggled getting these tyres into the window and Leclerc had been genuinely faster in Q2.
But pretending that 0.495s represents some clean, enormous difference in raw driver pace while ignoring one Ferrari towing the other around Baku is ridiculous.
It isn’t analysis. It’s choosing the answer first and working backwards.
And then came this apparently magnificent Leclerc race we’re now supposed to regard as further evidence of Hamilton’s demise.
Charles started P2.
Piastri passed him.
Hadjar passed him.
Verstappen passed him.
He went backwards from the front row.
Hamilton’s race wasn’t anything special either. He started sixth, finished sixth, passed Norris and was later passed by Antonelli. Leclerc ultimately finished fourth and was the better Ferrari over the weekend.
That’s it.
That’s the reasonable conclusion.
Not “Leclerc is in another league”. Not “Hamilton can’t beat Charles”. Not whatever mythology is currently being assembled from one tow-assisted qualifying result.
Because unfortunately we have these awkward little things called statistics.
Current championship:
Hamilton: 199
Leclerc: 179
That’s Hamilton +20.
Before Baku, Formula 1’s own published 2026 teammate comparison had them:
Qualifying: 7-7
Races: Hamilton 8-6 Leclerc
Add Baku:
Qualifying: Leclerc 8-7 Hamilton
Races: Hamilton 8-7 Leclerc
Read that again.
After 15 Grands Prix, Charles leads Lewis 8-7 in qualifying.
Lewis leads Charles 8-7 in races.
Lewis leads Charles by 24 points in the championship.
Yet apparently we’ve established that Hamilton “isn’t able to beat Charles”.
That is an absolutely magnificent sentence to post while Hamilton is, quite literally, beating Charles.
You don’t even need telemetry to rebut it. You need access to the Formula 1 website and functioning eyesight.
Then we arrive at my favourite part: “Hamilton development”.
Apparently Hamilton has now personally designed the SF-26.
Someone should tell Loïc Serra and the hundreds of engineers at Maranello that they can go home. Lewis apparently has CATIA installed on his laptop and is doing suspension kinematics between media sessions.
Drivers provide feedback.
Engineers develop Formula 1 cars.
Ferrari themselves have explained this.
Jérôme d’Ambrosio has specifically said Ferrari listens to BOTH drivers, that Hamilton and Leclerc often arrive at factory meetings asking for very similar things conceptually, and that the engineering team ultimately develops the package around maximising downforce and performance.
Vasseur has said essentially the same thing. Hamilton brings requests. Leclerc brings requests. Some are implemented. Some are rejected because they don’t make engineering or cost-cap sense.
So when someone asks whether Ferrari’s disappointing in-season development is a normal “Hamilton development/design cycle”, what exactly is the proposed mechanism here?
Did Hamilton draw the floor?
Did Hamilton design the rear suspension?
Did Hamilton specify the aero maps?
Did Hamilton develop the combustion architecture?
Did he sneak into the wind tunnel at night and start moving vortex generators around?
It’s such an embarrassingly simplistic understanding of how a modern Formula 1 team operates that I’m surprised it survived being typed out.
Yes, Hamilton had substantial input into what he wanted from the 2026 car.
So did Leclerc.
That’s literally part of their job.
Input is not design.
Feedback is not CFD.
And a driver saying “I need more front-end confidence here” isn’t responsible for whether Ferrari’s aerodynamic department subsequently finds three points of downforce.
Then Chuckjr somehow managed to improve on that with the suggestion Ferrari should “punt the old has-been” because losing Hamilton would free “basically unlimited resources” to throw at the car.
This one doesn’t even require interpretation.
It’s simply wrong.
The 2026 Formula 1 team cost cap is $215 million.
DRIVER SALARIES AND RETAINERS ARE EXCLUDED.
Hamilton could theoretically be paid £1 or £100 million and that does not alter Ferrari’s $215m team-cost-cap allowance.
Replace Hamilton with a driver willing to race for a Tesco meal deal and Ferrari obviously saves corporate money.
What Ferrari does NOT receive is Lewis Hamilton’s former salary magically appearing as additional cost-cap headroom for aerodynamic development.
So the argument that sacking Hamilton frees tens of millions to “throw at the car” misunderstands the regulation it is attempting to invoke.
Quite impressive, really.
Then apparently Ferrari is also “too small” to compete with the “Mercedes empire”, so Ferrari must concentrate everything on Leclerc because Mercedes and McLaren can somehow afford to support two drivers.
Again: what?
The entire purpose of the cost cap is to stop the size and wealth of the parent organisation translating directly into unlimited car-development expenditure.
Mercedes does not get two $215m development allowances because it employs Russell and Antonelli.
McLaren doesn’t split some enormous uncapped pot between Norris and Piastri.
And Ferrari doesn’t recover half its development budget by declaring Leclerc The Chosen One.
They operate a Formula 1 team.
There are two cars.
The aerodynamic, mechanical and power-unit development programmes are overwhelmingly TEAM programmes.
The idea that Ferrari should abandon one side of the garage so Charles can absorb its mystical unused development resources sounds less like modern Formula 1 and more like someone remembering Schumacher-era Ferrari and hoping the regulations haven’t changed in 25 years.
And while we’re cleaning up the history, Hamilton joined Ferrari in 2025.
2026 is his SECOND Ferrari season.
His first season was poor. Absolutely.
His second currently has him third in the World Championship, 24 points ahead of Leclerc, with the race head-to-head 8-7 in his favour.
That doesn’t make Hamilton flawless.
It doesn’t mean he’s driving better than Charles every weekend.
It doesn’t mean Baku was good.
It doesn’t even mean he’ll finish ahead of Charles over the season.
It means the evidence we actually have right now bears absolutely no resemblance to this cartoon being drawn of an ancient, hopeless driver being comprehensively dismantled by his teammate while simultaneously destroying Ferrari’s car, finances and development programme.
Criticise Hamilton for Baku. There’s material there.
Criticise his tyre preparation.
Criticise his qualifying execution.
Criticise weekends where Charles is genuinely faster.
Criticise 2025 until your keyboard wears out.
All perfectly defensible.
But if you’re going to claim in September 2026 that Hamilton “can’t beat Charles” while Hamilton is 24 points ahead of Charles and leads him 8-7 in race finishes, perhaps take five seconds to look at the standings before pressing Submit.
If you’re going to blame Hamilton for Ferrari’s engineering development, perhaps learn what a driver’s role in car development actually is.
And if you’re going to claim his salary is consuming Ferrari’s cost-capped development budget, perhaps read the financial regulations before explaining them to everyone else.
Otherwise this isn’t technical discussion.
It’s fan fiction written by people who have discovered the phrase “car development”.
And putting it on F1Technical doesn’t magically make it technical.
Audi bullied their way into this MGU-H-less formula so there won't be a peep from them. When the 2026 technical rulebook was finalized and signed, all of the manufacturers (Mercedes HPP, Ferrari, Red Bull Powertrains, Honda, and Audi) collectively agreed to the baseline rule that a benchmark ICE would be declared using an ICE Performance Index to determine eligibility for ADUO.
Yawn
When he has a number 1 driver as his teammate the development waters get muddied a lot. See Button and Hamilton at Mclaren. Nico wasn't an issue because Nico was just copying Lewis. George again was just allowing Lewis to do his thing. At Ferrari it is still too early and Charles has a strong say in development but we see some new innovations brought over like the brakes, steering wheel and suspension. The aerodynamics is mostly not infouenced by the driver though.deadhead wrote: ↑26 Sep 2026, 19:25When Hamilton develops Formula 1 cars, does he only do that in the winter months?
For whatever reason his in season development of the SF26 Formula 1 car has been lacking this season as it seems to be going backwards, like any other year.
Just curious if this the normal Hamilton development/design cycle and should we expect him to once again deliver over the winter for the 2027 car
The charts are showing him faster in the corners though. He lost out on straight line and also the tyres had issues staying in tempersture range. I don't think you can really compare the two drivers with such different car configurations.
Now you're talking like it's a team that will never make a dominant car. A team that needs team orders to get one of its drivers into striking distance. This is backwards thinking. I rather push for them to make a dominant car that that the two drivers can fight freely for the championship like what Mercedes, McLaren and RedBull have /had in recent years. You don't think Ferrari can achieve this?Chuckjr wrote: ↑27 Sep 2026, 06:20Horner would be a good move for the team starting for the 2028 season. The team has always been over Fred’s head as I have said countless times. He’s a terrible principle and this is starting to be seen by more people who are finally willing to see Ferrari is too big for the guy. It is what it is.
Ferrari needs to move Chuck to #1, punt the old has been, and bring in a solid, ultra-motivated #2, and put all efforts forward to crown Chuck DWC. Losing the old man would free up basically unlimited resources to find a solid #2 and throw money at the car that isn’t in the budget limits.
They are too small of a company to compete with an empire like Merc. They need to consolidate their assets, and direct all energies to Chuck, and the car he wants. If Chuck still hasn’t delivered by the second/third year into the new engine regs, let him go and bring up #2.
Ferrari due to their small size and limited resources compared to Merc, must facilitate their strengths and point all of them 100% to one guy. The days of shared assets between teammates must end at Ferrari. They just are too small to spread out resources like that. Everything, everything needs to go to one guy. Make the whole team work in unison with a plan to put that one guy at the top in 2-3 years after Merc wins again in 2027. This is something Ferrari can do that Merc is not able. Even if Kimi wins (which he will), Merc still will approach the next season with both drivers getting equal budget. Moving to a one driver focus would offer a good competitive advantage for a small team (by comparison to Merc) like Ferrari and I think would make a huge difference to the positive for their effort. It also harmonizes the team since everyone knows the plan and there’s no wishy-washy. Every race decision is done to promote the #1 driver from race 1. This would be a huge advantage over Merc or any other team like Macca who split resources.
Ferrari has always been ruled by committee. That needs to change. Other TP’s have tried to put Ferrari F1 team as its own entity (like Montezemolo) separately run from the board of directors, but the board won’t allow it, and that is something that simply must change. Keep the company board concerned about selling cars and have the F1 team run by just F1 savvy leaders. Horner could do that extremely well and imo, should be a huge concern for him should he go to Ferrari. Horner was able to run the ship with just a small group at Red Bull and this served his style well. Unless Ferrari are willing to do something similar, it will limit greatly Horners ability to lead how he is comfortable, and that may prove disastrous. Ferrari needs to limit their risks, and allow those they hire for F1 to run autonomously. I hope if Horner does go, they give him full freedom, but I just can’t imagine that happening.
Should Ferrari hire Horner, fire the old man, make Chuck an emphatic #1, get the board out of the F1 team, and let Horner bring the team to a consistently winning condition in his own way, I think they would have a VERY decent shot at a WDC in 3 years—maybe last year of current engine regs or first year of new simpler regs. I think 2027 is already lost due to their PU crap. They have to get rid of the huge distraction and budget that is Lewis, and focus on uniting with one driver, one goal. one effort, from race 1. As long as they are spitting resources between drivers with a lousy team manager who’s in way over his head, with a run by committee methodology, they will continue to fail, and would absolutely deserve it.
They must change radically if they want to lead again.