Ferrari's Mexico meltdown needs rules, not scoldings

What good is a pole position if your own garage hands the win to a Red Bull? That is the question Ferrari should be asking itself after Mexico City, where a car that Hamilton says had the pace to win finished second and fourth while Max Verstappen collected the trophy.

The short version: Lewis Hamilton started from pole, Charles Leclerc passed him early and made the move stick by running off track at Turn 4, and Verstappen slipped through. According to Crash.net, Leclerc got a five-second penalty, while Hamilton was upset that the position was not given back and that he had been handed 10 seconds for a similar move last year. Hamilton ended up second after passing Leclerc at the restart that followed a red flag. Leclerc was fourth after a big lock-up. Vasseur then said he struggled to accept a "lack of respect" toward the people who work for the drivers, as Eurosport Italia reports.

The problem was decided before the start, not after the flag

Hamilton said the drivers' briefing had been clear: go off at Turn 1 and you give the position back. Maybe so. But the Adnkronos report says the Ferrari pit wall told Leclerc to stay in front, that the position would have to be handed back to Hamilton, and that Verstappen was now between them. If that is accurate, the team gave an instruction mid-race that sat awkwardly with what Hamilton says was agreed, and then he was left stewing on the radio. We cannot know exactly what was said in each room. That is precisely the point: a team with two drivers fighting at the front should not be reconstructing its own rules from memory on Sunday night.

Our view is that a first-lap fight between teammates is not a scandal. It is a predictable event. Ferrari had a pole-sitter and a driver starting third, both fast. The only question was what the policy would be. Leave that vague and you get what we saw: a collision of interpretations, a stewards' ruling, and a Verstappen win that, by his own account to Crash.net, Ferrari made easier by making things "difficult for themselves."

Vasseur's public scolding is too little and too late

Formularace notes this is the first time Vasseur has publicly complained about his drivers' behavior. That is a signal, and it cuts both ways. It shows how serious the damage was. It also suggests that the private levers were not enough, or were not pulled early enough.

We think the "lack of respect" framing is also slightly off target. Two competitive drivers fighting for a lead is not disrespect for the factory. Disrespect would be ignoring a rule everyone had signed up to. If the rule was fuzzy, the scolding lands on the wrong people. And a public rebuke tends to harden positions. Hamilton had asked for what he called "serious talks behind the scenes." Vasseur's comments on TV did the opposite of keeping this behind closed doors.

What Ferrari should do now

Write it down. Who yields after an off-track pass, how fast, and who makes the call: the driver, the pit wall, or a fixed protocol? Make it identical for both cars. Then enforce it the same way whether the driver is a seven-time champion or his teammate. A public argument over who was right is the wrong forum for any of that. It should be settled in private, with a clear outcome.

The silver lining is real. Hamilton said the car has improved a lot, that Ferrari raced on the old engine specification, and that the pace to win was there. Teams do not often get that kind of evidence for free. Ferrari has a car that, in Hamilton's words, could win, two drivers who want to win, and a management problem that costs more than any penalty.

Our verdict: stop the public scolding and publish the internal rulebook, at least to the drivers. A pole, a quick car and a lost win is a story Ferrari cannot afford to repeat. Next time, the argument should be settled before the first corner, not on the radio.