- \n
- Hamilton recovered from more than a minute behind to finish third after Ferrari started on slicks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- He agreed that a different tyre choice could have given him a winning opportunity, while acknowledging the importance of the late Safety Car.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Vasseur admitted Ferrari chose the wrong side of the strategy split, but said the decision remained difficult even with hindsight.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Lewis Hamilton\u2019s recovery at Sepang leaves Ferrari with a question more uncomfortable than whether third place represented a good result: did its starting tyre decision prevent him from fighting for victory?<\/strong> Starting alongside Max Verstappen and recovering from more than a minute behind provided enough evidence to raise that possibility. Establishing that Ferrari actually surrendered a win requires considerably more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hamilton himself entertained the idea. Asked after the Bahrain Grand Prix in Malaysia whether his pace suggested he could have won with a different starting tyre, the seven-time Formula 1<\/a> champion answered affirmatively. His subsequent explanation, however, also identified how much his recovery owed to circumstances Ferrari could not control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The distinction matters. Ferrari compromised Hamilton\u2019s opening phase with its slick tyre gamble. Whether the alternative would have produced victory remains an unresolved counterfactual.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"F1](\"https:\/\/grandepremio.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/f1-2026-bahrein-malasia-corrida-ferrari-lewis-hamilton-2-1024x576.png\")
Lewis Hamilton (Photo: Ferrari)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Ferrari\u2019s gamble removed Hamilton from the early fight<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hamilton started second, with the opportunity to contest the race directly against Verstappen. Instead, Ferrari\u2019s decision to use slicks on the wet surface left him struggling for grip while the drivers on intermediates established an advantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The reasoning depended on the circuit drying quickly enough to reward avoiding an early tyre change. Hamilton\u2019s account made clear that the transition took much longer than expected, turning a potentially useful strategic shortcut into a substantial loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cYeah. Yeah, I mean it\u2019s a mixed emotion. On one side I\u2019m really, really grateful to have got back to the podium. And then on the other side, obviously with the debates that we were having in the background, to then see the covers come off the car ahead and slicks and the one behind, sorry on wets and us on slicks and the track being so tricky and dangerous at that beginning, it was definitely, yeah, my heart sank and I was kind of like that\u2019s the race over,\u201d Hamilton said in his post-race interview with Sky Sports F1<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ferrari subsequently considered reversing the decision. Hamilton opted to continue, accepting the immediate loss rather than making another stop before the surface became suitable for his tyres.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBut then they were like, should we stop? And I was like, no, we\u2019ve already made the decision, we have to live with it and we\u2019ll stay out here until this bloody place dries. And I eventually did. And then I just kept my head down, just kept pushing, just didn\u2019t give up,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That exchange establishes two separate decisions: the initial choice of slicks and the subsequent commitment to stay on them. Hamilton supported continuing with the gamble after its consequences became apparent.<\/strong> His refusal to stop does not establish who originally advocated the starting tyre or how Ferrari divided responsibility for choosing it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The full account of Hamilton\u2019s decision to remain on slicks<\/a> captures that tension: the driver believed the race had slipped away, then committed to finding a route back without immediately abandoning the strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A recovery of more than a minute does not measure the lost winning chance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Hamilton\u2019s comeback demonstrated competitive pace, persistence and Ferrari\u2019s ability to execute the later stages of the race. It did not provide a clean comparison with Verstappen over an uninterrupted Grand Prix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAnd I definitely didn\u2019t expect to get back to P3. It\u2019s crazy to think we were over a minute down. And the track took so long to dry, which was, normally it\u2019s been spitting and it dries straight away because it\u2019s so hot here. But unfortunately that didn\u2019t happen for quite some time. But the team did a good job on the pit stops,\u201d Hamilton explained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAnd yeah, I wish we had longer and more opportunities to get further ahead. But that safety car at the end was a blessing enabling me to get to the podium,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The late Safety Car is central to interpreting the result.<\/strong> Hamilton finished only 4.919 seconds behind Verstappen, but that margin followed a neutralisation that compressed the field. It cannot be treated as proof that Ferrari needed to recover only another five seconds through a better starting decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nor can the minute Hamilton lost simply be deducted from his eventual race time. Starting on intermediates would have changed his position, traffic, pit-stop requirements and tyre usage. Verstappen would also have faced a different opponent and potentially responded with different decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n