Leclerc’s Patience Runs Out as Ferrari Fumbles Yet Another Race – Is the Scuderia Unfixable?

Leclerc’s Patience Runs Out as Ferrari Fumbles Yet Another Race – Is the Scuderia Unfixable?

Ferrari’s latest strategic mishap unfolded in plain sight during the Canadian Grand Prix, when Charles Leclerc and the Maranello pit wall found themselves in a rare—and telling—public disagreement. Mid-race, Leclerc made it clear he believed a one-stop strategy (“Plan C”) would play to his strengths. Ferrari, however, stuck with the conventional two-stop “Plan B”, despite initially agreeing with Leclerc—then flipping their choice without explanation.

Leclerc vs Ferrari: The Strategy Breakdown

  • Leclerc began eighth on hard tyres, banking on a long first stint and a single stop for slicks.

  • Around Lap 28, Ferrari called him in for mediums—discarding the one-stop route he had advocated for.

  • Over the radio, a frustrated Leclerc said: “I don’t understand this choice.”

  • Ferrari responded, “We are on B.”

  • Leclerc replied, “The mediums for me are a good tyre.” He favored what would have been Plan C.

  • Despite the disagreement, Ferrari delayed the medium tyre change until Lap 53—effectively doubling down on their two-stop gamble.

Leclerc admitted after the race they had initially been aligned, but Ferrari had shifted on strategy. He acknowledged the team had more data, yet insisted he still believed in the one-stop:

“I was pretty sure of what I felt… that one-stop was the right call.” formulanerds.com+6racingnews365.com+6planetf1.com+6planetf1.com

The Result: A Fifth-Place Trap

Instead of battling for the podium, Leclerc finished P5. The extended stint on slicks when the track was still damp cost him time and positions. Ferrari’s Plan B failed to compensate for his early grid position, and Leclerc paid the price—showing excellent pace that wasn’t capitalized on by the flawed strategy.

A Pattern of Pit Wall Paralysis

This isn’t an isolated error. Ferrari has made strategic missteps in multiple races in 2025—Miami, Imola, Spain, and now Canada. Relative to 2024, where two wins and consistent top performances were the norm, Ferrari has regressed, currently sitting outside the top three in the constructors’ standings.

Whether it’s reacting too slowly to changing conditions or ignoring driver insight, Ferrari’s pit wall is now their Achilles’ heel.

Why This Matters

  1. Driver Trust Is Eroding
    Leclerc is not merely asking questions—he’s challenging the decisions on pace and feel. And Ferrari is responding with silence.

  2. Lost Points Compound
    Fifth place for a driver capable of podium finishes is a waste. In a tight championship, every point counts.

  3. Public Accountability—or It Will Get Ugly
    The world heard the miscommunication live. That’s embarrassing for a team built on mystique and precision.

A History of Poor Race Management

This is not Xavi’s first strategic misfire. Throughout the past two seasons, Ferrari’s radio exchanges with Leclerc have been riddled with indecisiveness:

  • Austria 2022: Leclerc was left out too long while leading.

  • Silverstone 2022: A pit call cost him the win after leading most of the race.

  • Monaco 2023: A double-stack miscommunication ruined Leclerc’s home podium.

  • Canada 2025: Plan misalignment and poor adaptation left Leclerc P5 with a car capable of much more.

There is a consistent lack of clarity and slow reaction to changing race dynamics. While Leclerc remains respectful on the radio, fans and analysts alike have begun pointing out that Xavi often feeds him incomplete, delayed, or conflicting information.

It’s not about personality—it’s about performance. And right now, the communication link between car and strategy desk is one of the weakest on the grid.

Ferrari 2025: Underachieving With World-Class Talent

With both Leclerc and Hamilton on the roster, Ferrari arguably boasts the strongest driver line-up in F1. And yet, their 2025 campaign is floundering due to:

  • Poor pit wall communication

  • Slow strategic responses

  • Inflexible mid-race thinking

  • A clear mistrust between driver feedback and engineer execution

In contrast, look at teams like McLaren and Mercedes. Their drivers receive firm, data-backed responses. Adjustments are made proactively, not reactively. Race engineers like Peter Bonnington (Hamilton’s former engineer) offer authority and adaptability—qualities sorely lacking at Ferrari.

Leclerc Deserves Better—or Ferrari Risks Losing Him

Leclerc has always been loyal, even through failures. But each time Ferrari dismisses his calls, then later acts on them when it’s too late, it erodes trust—and patience.

Ferrari acknowledged post-race that they had initially agreed with Leclerc’s push for Plan C, before flipping to Plan B and pitting late for mediums. The final result?
A compromised tyre stint, delayed execution, and a finish far below what his pace warranted

Our Take at 99 Bends

Ferrari doesn’t need a faster car.
They need a team that can keep up with it.

Charles Leclerc is one of the best drivers on the grid. But if his strategy team continues to ignore, delay, or reject real-time feedback from the one person experiencing the race in the cockpit—they’ll keep losing.

And if Xavi Marcos cannot rise to the pressure of championship-level calls, then Ferrari must ask the hard question: is it time to change engineers before they lose their driver?

What Do You Think?

  • Should Leclerc be given more control over his strategy mid-race?

  • Is Xavi Marcos still the right race engineer to guide a title campaign?

  • Can Ferrari afford another season of “almosts” and “ifs”?

Join the debate on Instagram @99bends or drop your thoughts in person. Because strategy isn’t just about tyres. It’s about trust.

– Keith
Director, 99 Bends Trackside Singapore
“Because when one voice in your headset can derail a race—you’d better make sure it’s the right one.”

Back to blog

Leave a comment