Ferrari, a name synonymous with passion, speed, and legendary status in the world of Formula 1, appears to be facing a severe internal challenge even before the 2025 season truly enters its decisive phase.

The events at the Azerbaijan Grand Prix were not just a simple tactical error but a “starting gun” for potential fractures between its two star drivers: Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc, under the leadership of team principal Fred Vasseur. Is this the beginning of an internal war that will shatter all long-awaited championship hopes?

It all began in a race that didn’t seem to promise many significant changes. Leclerc was running in eighth position, with Hamilton close behind. From the team’s perspective, the situation seemed manageable.

Hamilton, with fresher tires and better pace on the long straights, theoretically had a better chance of attacking the leading group.

The decision to issue a team order seemed logical: Leclerc had to let Hamilton pass. But in Formula 1, logic is often a luxury that teams cannot afford.

The problem lay in the timing of the order. According to subsequent statements, the message was delivered too late. Hamilton was already 100% committed to his move, with almost no margin for reaction. What should have been a simple and strategic maneuver turned into a clumsy, frustrating, and, above all, unnecessarily painful move for both parties.

For Charles Leclerc, receiving that order was not just a matter of strategy. It was a silent affront. After all, he has been the face of the Ferrari project in recent years, the driver who endured countless erratic decisions and aimless seasons. Being asked to step aside for a newcomer, even if that newcomer is a seven-time world champion, touched deep wounds. His angry silence after the race spoke volumes more than resignation ever could.

Meanwhile, Lewis Hamilton’s problem was with the execution. The British driver did not question the order itself but its delivery. He admitted that the message came too late and that at that moment, he was completely focused on attempting an overtake, even if the chances were minimal. Through his words, Hamilton implicitly suggested that Ferrari’s communication structure remains poor, and in a sport where every second counts, that is inadmissible.

What should have been a simple strategic exchange ended up exposing a fracture that already existed. It was not just a tactical trial and error; it was an error in emotional reading, ego management, and understanding the moment. Vasseur, in his attempt to make a decision based on data and performance, forgot that he was managing not just machines, but human beings with history, ambitions, and pride. This conflict, though seemingly minor, has the potential to escalate if not managed properly, because in Formula 1, everything is magnified. A poor decision in Baku can become a dangerous trend in the championship.

The relationship between Hamilton and Leclerc, already tense by nature, has received its first serious blow. And the most worrying thing is not that it happened, but that it was orchestrated by the team’s own leadership. Fred Vasseur, by publicly acknowledging the error, took a brave step. But it also made it clear that Ferrari still does not have all the fronts required for a championship fight under control. Driver management is as critical as aerodynamic development, and if one of those pillars fails, the rest will soon collapse. This was Ferrari’s first great emotional test in 2025. And although they left with their cars intact, the real damage could be in the human relationships inside the garage. Because when a team does not speak the same language under pressure, not even the best car in the world can save them.

When a strategic error is observed from the outside, it is easy to fall into the simplistic conclusion that someone made a bad decision. But in modern Formula 1, every tactical move is built on a maze of data, telemetry, and simulations. That makes errors, even if they seem absurd, actually symptoms of a system that is failing on much deeper layers than what is visible. This was the case for Ferrari in Baku.

Fred Vasseur did not hide. He went out to explain why the decision was made to ask Leclerc to let Hamilton pass. His argument relied on a combination of technical elements: the difference in tire status, the charge level of the hybrid system, and the problems Leclerc was experiencing with the energy recovery of the SF-25. According to the Frenchman, Hamilton had better tools to attack the group ahead. And on paper, he was right. But mathematical logic rarely fits the human flow of a live race.

The SF-25 is a highly technical car, which on paper promised aerodynamic efficiency and a more aggressive hybrid recovery, but that promise is proving difficult to fulfill in practice. One of the biggest problems faced during the Azerbaijan Grand Prix was precisely the erratic behavior of the ERS system. The battery did not regenerate with the same efficiency in each lap, and the linked curves of Baku, combined with long straights, demanded surgical energy management. Ferrari knew it and still bet on a strategy that put their driver at a disadvantage.

Furthermore, the car was not exploiting its full engine potential. In Vasseur’s own words, the engine was not used at maximum capacity to avoid compromising reliability, a measure that also had to do with data collected during free practices, where fluctuations in temperature and pressure were detected that could put the entire hybrid package at risk. The message is clear: Ferrari was not only betting on performance; they were racing with fear. And that fear resulted in conservative decisions, which collided head-on with the situation on the track. Hamilton, with cooler tires, could go faster. But Leclerc, although technically diminished, did not have the emotional context to accept the order without resentment. And this is where the real problem enters: the team’s inability to anticipate the human effect of a purely technical decision.

The SF-25 also showed another of its great weaknesses that weekend: its extreme sensitivity to changes on the track. During practices, the car responded well to simulations. But as the track rubbered in and the temperatures rose, the balance became unstable. Small changes in tire pressure or aerodynamic load generated significant differences in the car’s behavior, making each lap unpredictable. In that context, asking a driver to be put aside without clear guarantees of immediate improvement is not only risky; it is destabilizing.

Vasseur knows it. His speech after the Azerbaijan Grand Prix was not just a technical explanation; it was a damage control maneuver. He tried to present the decision as a based tactical move but was unable to hide his discomfort with the situation. He admitted it was a mistake, and with that, he put his leadership on the table.

What is at stake is not just victory in a Grand Prix. It is the stability of a project that depends on many simultaneous factors. The relationship between Leclerc and Hamilton must be managed as a strategic alliance, not as an undercover power struggle. The technical team needs to recover confidence in their own decision-making processes. And Vasseur must show that he can guide this ship without repeating the pattern of emotional and technical collapse that has characterized Ferrari for more than a decade.

Because if he fails, the consequences will be deep. Not only for him as team leader but for the entire sporting plan that Ferrari has been building for two years. If trust erodes now, it will be very difficult to recover it before the championship reaches its decisive stages. And with McLaren capitalizing on every opportunity and Red Bull still threatening with a technical masterstroke at any moment, Ferrari needs unity, clarity, and direction more than ever. What happened in Baku was a small earthquake. But if it is not contained, it can become a permanent crack. And cracks in Formula 1 are not forgiven. They are amplified. They filter through. They become ungovernable. Vasseur now faces his greatest challenge since he assumed the position: to demonstrate that the Ferrari project is not built on intentions, but on well-executed decisions, and that begins precisely by preventing incidents like Baku from happening again. Because the time for mistakes is over. Now, every race is a trial. Every order is a leadership test. And every silence is a lost opportunity to prevent Ferrari from collapsing from within.

There is something that differentiates champion teams from those who simply participate: the ability to learn from their mistakes before they become patterns. And that is what defines Ferrari’s state right now. The Scuderia is not being judged only by what happened in Baku. It is being measured by how it will respond to what happened. Because in Formula 1, errors are not forgotten. They are studied. They are amplified. They are used as a precedent to anticipate what will come.

The episode between Hamilton and Ferrari’s technical dome was, above all, a wake-up call. It was not the loss of two positions that hurts. What hurts is the loss of coherence, the loss of trust, the fragility of the decision-making system in a team that aspires to dethrone the best in the world. And when those cracks appear so early in the season, the rest of the grid takes note.

Today, Ferrari is under the magnifying glass, not only from the media, not only from its fans. It is being watched closely by its rivals: by McLaren, which has demonstrated coldness and tactical precision at decisive moments; by Mercedes, who has returned to relevance with a project based on consistency and emotional management; and by Red Bull, which, although living through turbulent moments, never ceases to be a threat when organized internally.

In that context, Ferrari cannot afford more mistakes of this caliber. The 2025 season is still open, but every Grand Prix from now on becomes an exam. Each radio message, each pit stop, each pit wall decision has the power to consolidate the team as a serious contender or to bury it under the label it has feared most for the last decade: to be a sleeping giant who wakes up only to stumble over his own feet. Hamilton and Leclerc are perhaps the best driver pairing that Ferrari has had in 20 years: pure talent, overflowing ambition, experience, youth, speed. But that guarantees nothing, because if the team does not find a way to align its processes with the demands of those two drivers, what is a strength today can become the origin of a definitive break. And you, who are watching this video until the end, let me know: Do you think Ferrari will learn in time, or are we watching the beginning of the end of the Vasseur project?