Another race weekend has come and gone, and yet again we’re talking about drama at Ferrari – both off and on the track.

During the Grand Prix, we saw yet another instance of Charles Leclerc voicing his frustration over the team’s strategy, which he believed should have been handled differently. But was Leclerc right? And could Ferrari really have done more in Canada? The telemetry data helps us find the answers.

Ferrari’s strategy woes continue

It was undoubtedly a difficult weekend for the Scuderia. Leclerc’s crash in FP1 ruled him out of most of Friday’s running, Saturday’s qualifying session left much to be desired, and on race day, Hamilton’s damaged car further complicated things for Ferrari.

But even considering the misfortune, it felt like the team could have salvaged more—especially from a strategic standpoint. A telling moment came over the radio, when Leclerc suggested a different plan, only for Ferrari to stubbornly stick to their original strategy. They were adamant it was the right call—but was it?

Leclerc’s, and in general Ferrari’s, race pace in Montreal wasn’t particularly strong—Charles was around 0.25s per lap slower than the McLarens, and 0.3s off the pace of the Mercedes duo. Not fast enough to fight for victory, but certainly competitive enough to aim for a stronger result with the right strategy.

Leclerc and Norris were the only two drivers in the top 10 to start the race on the hard tyres. It seems Ferrari’s plan was to keep Charles out as long as possible and adjust their strategy based on how the race unfolded—or, in this case, not adjust at all.

What the data shows is that Leclerc struggled for grip in the opening laps—something he also reported on the radio around lap 11. But as the race progressed and the tyres came up to temperature, his pace improved. From lap 15 onwards, he was matching or even beating Norris—his main rival at this point in the race.

Then came the crucial moment: a discussion with his engineer in which Leclerc pushed for “Plan C”—which, as we later found out, was a one-stop strategy.

Ferrari, however, stuck to their guns and called Leclerc in on lap 28 for another set of new hard tyres—a move that backfired for several reasons.

Up to that point, Leclerc’s pace had stabilised, and he likely could have stayed out longer. Moreover, by boxing early, Ferrari essentially revealed their hand, allowing McLaren to respond accordingly. They now knew Leclerc would need to stop again and would switch to mediums in the final stint.

The bigger issue is that Ferrari had nothing to lose. Leclerc was effectively guaranteed P6 (later P5 after Norris’ crash), with Hamilton struggling behind and no serious threat from further back.

Switching to another set of hards likely encouraged McLaren to pit Norris just two laps later for mediums—an aggressive move that gave the Briton significantly more pace. Norris was able to stretch out a five-second gap over Leclerc by the time he boxed again on lap 47.

Then came yet another questionable decision from Ferrari.

More Canadian GP reaction from PlanetF1.com

👉 Canadian GP conclusions: Lando’s silver lining, Ferrari sack fears, key Russell change

👉 Canadian GP driver ratings: George Russell isn’t the only perfect racer

By lap 50, Norris had already been on his fresh tyres for three laps and was lapping around half a second quicker per lap than Leclerc, who was visibly struggling.

When Leclerc asked about the plan, he was told the team didn’t want him to spend “too many laps on the mediums.” A few laps later, he finally pitted—but by the time he rejoined, he was 10 seconds down on Norris. That means Ferrari’s hesitation cost them around five seconds in total against their main rival.

Worse still, Leclerc rejoined behind two backmarkers, losing even more time. At that point, any hope of a better finish was gone, and it was clear the chosen strategy had failed to deliver.

So why ignore the driver?

The key mystery remains: why didn’t Ferrari trust their driver’s feel for the tyres—especially when they had nothing to lose?

It’s not as though a one-stop strategy wasn’t viable. Both Ocon and Sainz managed to finish ninth and tenth respectively using it, despite starting from P14 and P16. That suggests it was a strategy worth trying—especially given the circumstances.

Ferrari’s decision to ignore Leclerc’s instincts cost them valuable time and a potential gain in positions. And just like so many times before, the story ends the same way: with strategy questions and opportunities missed.

Read next: Lando Norris telemetry data sheds further light as McLarens collide at Canada GP