Enough is enough. It is time Ferrari too decisive action and replace Fred Vasseur

Lewis Hamilton could not hide yet another Ferrari disappointment. This was after all supposed to be the race where he benefitted from the two down Baku's endless straight during qualifying- a race track were team strategy and co-ordination is as obvious as it comes. So after Ferrari's abject failure to give the Brit a shot at pole in what was ultimately another bungled attempt, it is surely time that the board look at the bigger picture and replace Fred Vasseur.

It was fun at first. The laughs during the honeymoon period with all the photos to show it was was a good time. But this marriage has now run its course. It's time to face up to the bitter reality, this was not the happy ever after Ferrari were hoping for.

In Baku, the seven-time world champion described a car that struggled to bring its tyres into the right window and a late change of run plan that left him without a useful tow. Meanwhile, Charles Leclerc put the other Ferrari on the front row. As GPblog reported after qualifying, Hamilton called it a “perfect storm”.

That description may be fair for a single session. It is less convincing as an explanation for the wider state of Ferrari.

The team has an established champion in Hamilton, a proven front-runner in Leclerc and, in Baku, a car capable of a front-row start. Yet it is once again discussing execution, communication and whether its personnel are in the right places.

Of course, I am not saying that Ferrari should not dismiss Fred Vasseur because Hamilton missed out on a better qualifying result. But it should decide now to replace him at the end of the 2026 season because the accumulating evidence suggests his leadership is not delivering the organisation Ferrari needs.

There is an important distinction. Team principals do not choose every gap in qualifying traffic or set every tyre temperature. Nor can Vasseur turn a difficult car into a championship winner by giving a sharper answer to the media.

But he is ultimately responsible for building a team that anticipates problems, makes sound decisions under pressure and learns when those decisions fall short. Hamilton’s account of Baku raises a legitimate question on that last point: if the run plan changed, had Ferrari adequately considered what track position its driver would inherit?

Leclerc’s result makes the question harder to wave away. His front-row start does not prove Hamilton had the pace to join him, and Hamilton himself acknowledged struggles with the rear tyres.

It does show why Ferrari cannot treat the session as simply a matter of lacking a competitive car. When one side of the garage delivers and the other leaves with questions about preparation and execution, the response must be more searching than “sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t”.

The urgency is not based on Baku alone. In GPblog’s analysis of John Elkann’s 2022 Monza pledge, Ferrari’s chairman said he had faith the team would win both a drivers’ and a constructors’ championship “between now and 2026”.

That promise predates Vasseur’s arrival so it would be unfair to pretend he personally set the deadline or inherited a blank slate. But he did take charge of the attempt to meet it, and 2026 is the year by which that ambition was supposed to have become reality. Ferrari cannot indefinitely defend a leadership project by pointing to how difficult the job was when it began.

Vasseur is understood to have a contract that runs to the end of 2027. However, should not prevent Ferrari from assessing whether the current course is working. The point of acting now is not to create chaos in the garage before the season is over. It is to give the remaining races a clear purpose: assess what can be fixed immediately, decide what kind of leader the team needs next and allow a successor to begin work with as much preparation time as possible.

The reported tensions around Hamilton add to the case for a leadership review, although they must be treated as reports, not established facts. We have seen Corriere della Sera claiming, that Hamilton had asked for changes to key trackside personnel and that his relationship with Vasseur was “no longer what it once was”.

Importantly, Hamilton hit back saying he had not asked for staff to be replaced. But the contradiction to the Italian Press raises its own challenges for Vasseur.

GPblog’s account of journalist Giorgio Terruzzi’s claims reported allegations that some at Maranello call Vasseur “Napoleon” and that his relationship with Ferrari CEO Benedetto Vigna is “practically non-existent”. Again, these are no basis for a dismissal but if senior relationships really have deteriorated, then Ferrari has to establish that internally rather than wait for another season to reveal the consequences.

The strongest argument for keeping Vasseur is stability. Ferrari has too often appeared tempted by a change at the top as though a new name on the office door could cure problems throughout the organisation. GPblog also understands there is no current plan for a successor, despite links with Christian Horner.

But the idea that “there is no easy successor” is a reason to start the search now, not a reason to suspend judgement. Ferrari can respect Vasseur’s work, let him lead the team through the remaining races and still conclude that the next phase requires someone else.

It should define the role before chasing a candidate: authority over trackside operations, alignment with Ferrari’s senior leadership and a plan for turning two drivers’ feedback into better decisions. A change made on those terms would be a strategic decision, not a reaction to a headline.

Of course, Baku did not settle the case against Vasseur by itself. It did, however, bring the central problem back into view again.

Ferrari has enough talent for every missed opportunity to demand an explanation, yet it still looks too vulnerable to avoidable questions about how a weekend is run.

It just feels, this is time for Ferrari to use the rest of the season to make a deliberate transition and relieve Vasseur of the team principal role when it ends.

Waiting until another campaign is compromised before asking whether the leadership is right would be the greater gamble.