Why Hamilton shouldn't regret his Ferrari radio rant - but why he was right to apologise

“Great waste of time there, guys.”

“Are you using me as a guinea pig?”

The language, and most importantly the tone - rather sarcastic - was perhaps indeed over the top, and it’s no surprise Lewis Hamilton didn’t really like it when he listened back to these messages after Zandvoort.

He apologised, saying he’s better than this - but he wasn't the only one who had reason for some reflection after the Dutch Grand Prix. Ferrari finished fourth and fifth, behind both Mercedes cars, on a weekend when its race pace appeared to be better than that of its main rival. Fred Vasseur acknowledged as much afterwards, while also admitting Ferrari's execution hadn't been good enough.

That doesn’t necessarily mean the team did anything outrageously wrong.

The running joke about Ferrari strategy doesn't always reflect reality. There are plenty of examples of the Scuderia getting things right, including Hamilton's Barcelona victory earlier this year - and Zandvoort wasn’t exactly about missing out on opportunities, either. The outcome of the race was largely a consequence of a bad - relative to its main rivals - qualifying. Starting both cars on the third row at one of the most challenging tracks for overtaking isn’t a recipe for a win.

That probably contributed to Hamilton’s frustration - as being stuck behind slower cars is perhaps as annoying as trying to carry a bag without a handle in one hand and a fish bowl in the other. But it seems that it wasn’t purely a disagreement with what the Ferrari pit wall was trying to do that led Lewis to feel like a guinea pig, but a complete lack of clarity in communication.

Frederic Vasseur, Ferrari

Photo by: Bryn Lennon / Formula 1 via Getty Images

Vasseur offered a reasonable explanation afterwards for why Ferrari wasn't giving Hamilton the information he wanted. The plan, before the late virtual safety car, was to potentially take his tyres to the end - but Ferrari deliberately didn't want to disclose that over the radio and give its rivals useful information.

Fair enough.

But Ferrari didn't necessarily have to tell Hamilton exactly what it was doing. It needed to make him believe it knew what it was doing.

And that’s the difference.

Perhaps not all his questions could’ve been answered. But a clear and firm response might have been enough to prevent him from reaching the conclusion that the race was getting away from him while the pit wall was still unsure about what to do.

It would obviously be an enormous exaggeration to attribute Max Verstappen's success in Formula 1 simply to how well he works with Red Bull and Gianpiero Lambiase. But listen to enough conversations between Verstappen and GP and the difference compared to many other driver-engineer pairings is obvious.

Verstappen can be angry. He can be sarcastic. He can disagree. He can be all of these things at once. But Lambiase isn't afraid to disagree back and neither of them would even feel the need to apologise for something afterwards. The level of trust between the two is at the stage where they don’t even need to explain anything to each other after the race. Max simply knows GP isn’t going to back down if there’s a clear reason not to.

That kind of trust takes time.

Peter Bonnington and Lewis Hamilton won together a lot of races

Photo by: Steven Tee / Motorsport Images

Hamilton had something similar with Peter Bonnington at Mercedes. He would still say his tyres were “gone” - yet he also knew Bono would know better whether that was actually the case. He wasn't simply there to agree with Lewis either.

And that is perhaps where Ferrari and Hamilton are still lacking something.

His second Ferrari season has been considerably better than his first, and the relationship with the team has clearly developed. He has even referred to Carlo Santi as his "Italian Bono". But calling someone Bono doesn't recreate a relationship that took more than a decade to build. And there’s another element, too: Santi isn't working with the Hamilton Bonnington first met at Mercedes in 2013. He is working with a seven-time world champion, the most successful driver of his generation and someone who spent years operating inside a team that won eight consecutive constructors' championships.

Imagine being the person who now has to tell him he's wrong - or, at the very least, "we know better".

That is why this relationship cannot develop only through Ferrari learning how Hamilton wants to be managed. Hamilton also has to make it possible for Ferrari - and particularly his race engineer - to challenge him.

And that is where his apology matters.

Hamilton didn't need to apologise for wanting more from Ferrari. His explanation immediately after the race was simple: "I'm here to win." Nor should Ferrari want that part of him to disappear. A driver who has won seven world championships and is still furious about losing seconds while fighting for third place is probably preferable to one who accepts it with a shrug.

Carlo Santi, Lewis Hamilton's new race engineer at Ferrari

Photo by: Sam Bloxham / LAT Images via Getty Images

That doesn't mean he's always going to be right. The team on the pit wall will always have more information available during the race - and what it needs is to make sure he knows it’s going to make good use of it.

What Zandvoort suggested is that they aren't completely there yet.

Even with the benefit of Vasseur's explanations afterwards, there are questions over Ferrari's execution. He himself admitted the team missed a chance for Charles Leclerc to undercut George Russell - and then it also failed to at least try to extend his stint to create a big enough delta to come back into the fight. It didn’t tell Charles to let Hamilton through, either.

Whether any individual call actually cost Ferrari the podium is debatable. What isn't is that, from Hamilton's cockpit, it did indeed look like a complete lack of action. Paired with a lack of communication, it just boiled over. Even despite the fact that from the pit wall there was actually a decent plan - and, knowing it, he probably wouldn’t have needed all that sarcasm.

That's why both what happened on Sunday and what happened afterwards were important.

Hamilton's frustration sent Ferrari a clear message about the standard he expects. If he’s here to win, his team needs to be satisfied with nothing else, either. His apology sent another one: that demanding that standard doesn't have to mean turning every disagreement into a confrontation.

He won’t stop being demanding. Nor does Ferrari need him to.

And even if some of the messages in Zandvoort were misplaced - or based on wrong assumptions - it was a good reminder that he’s still as hungry and as motivated as ever. And also a hint at what Ferrari needs to improve itself. Because Hamilton doesn't merely need Ferrari to listen to him.

He needs Ferrari to become comfortable telling a seven-time world champion that he's wrong, too.