Ferrari’s radio fault, Hamilton’s call and black-suit claims
A wave of social media posts claims that Ferrari engineered the defeat of Lewis Hamilton at the Singapore Grand Prix to protect a commercial storyline built around Charles Leclerc’s all-black race suit. The allegation is dramatic, widely shared and, on the available evidence, unsupported. This report separates what can be confirmed from what remains speculation, drawing on published race reports and team statements.
The Black Suit: A Confirmed Fact, A Disputed Motive
Ferrari unveiled the all-black suit and matching cap on September 18, 2026, describing it on its official channels as a design inspired by Singapore’s night-time lights. A limited-edition Leclerc cap was listed for release on October 5. Hamilton did not appear in those announcements. GPFans noted the same had happened at Monaco earlier this season, when Leclerc raced in a white suit while Hamilton wore traditional red.
The pattern of one-driver special editions is therefore documented. What is not documented is any link between those choices and a race-day instruction. Special-edition apparel is a merchandising decision made weeks in advance. A suit revealed on September 18 cannot, by its timing alone, explain a pit-wall call made on lap 39 of a race run on October 11.
The Puma Figure Is Unverified
Leclerc signed a personal global ambassador agreement with Puma, which supplies Ferrari’s racewear under a partnership dating back to 2005, according to Black Book Motorsport. The financial terms of that agreement have not been published by Puma, Ferrari or the driver. The figure of between one million and 2.8 million pounds a year circulating online carries no verifiable source, and this report does not treat it as established. Nor have we found any statement confirming that Singapore’s role in Puma’s regional business prompted the suit’s design.
What Happened in the Race
Max Verstappen won the 62-lap race, with Leclerc second and Kimi Antonelli third, according to Formula1.com. Hamilton, who ran third in the first half of the race, finished sixth. He had been the first of the front-runners to stop, pitting around lap 18 for soft tyres, and Ferrari debated internally whether he could reach the finish without a second stop.
When a Virtual Safety Car was deployed on lap 39, Ferrari brought Leclerc in for fresh soft tyres. Hamilton stayed out on older rubber. Leclerc, rejoining roughly ten seconds behind, passed him on lap 46 on fresher tyres, and Hamilton ultimately slipped to sixth.
Who Made the Call
Team principal Frederic Vasseur said Ferrari called both cars into the pits under the VSC and that Hamilton, in his words, missed the pit entry, as reported by RaceFans. Hamilton apologised over the radio after the flag. In a statement issued through Ferrari he said the result was on him, and he later called the episode a painful lesson, ESPN reported.
Accounts differ on one detail. The Race reported that an unusual fault prevented Ferrari’s radio exchanges with Hamilton from being heard during and shortly after the VSC, which created the impression on the broadcast that he had been left out. Ferrari maintains the instruction went to both drivers at the same time. RaceFans observed that Hamilton’s onboard footage shows him pressing his radio button several times in that period, yet the exchange was never aired. These facts point to a communications breakdown and a driver decision, not to a concealed plot, although the content of the unbroadcast messages has not been made public.
Testing the Sabotage Claim
The theory requires three assumptions to hold at once: that Ferrari wanted Leclerc ahead of Hamilton, that it deliberately withheld an instruction, and that Hamilton then took public responsibility anyway. The record cuts against each. Leclerc was not protecting a lead, as the viral account claims. He finished second, about fifteen seconds behind Verstappen at lap 46, and his contest with Hamilton concerned the podium rather than victory. RaceFans reported that Ferrari’s crew was waiting with two sets of tyres, which sits poorly with a plan to strand one car. Leclerc also reported a mid-race brake fault on his own car, which complicates any picture of a favoured run.
RaceFans also noted that Hamilton repeatedly asked Ferrari to let him past Leclerc after a hold-position order. Such orders are routine in team racing and can fuel perceptions of hierarchy, but they are not evidence of a staged result.
What Remains Open
Genuine questions remain. Why did the radio exchange go unheard? Why did Ferrari leave Hamilton on tyres it doubted would last? Does its protocol for VSC calls need revision? No full technical explanation of the radio fault had been published at the time of writing. These are fair lines of inquiry, and they are different from alleging deliberate sabotage.
READ ALSO: Lambiase McLaren Move Redefines F1 Trackside Loyalty
Verdict
The black suit and the pattern of one-driver special editions are confirmed. The Puma valuation is unverified. The claim that Ferrari orchestrated Hamilton’s defeat is unsupported by the public record and is contradicted by statements from both the team principal and Hamilton himself. Readers should treat unattributed claims of insider knowledge, however confidently stated, with caution until documentary evidence emerges. This report will be updated if Ferrari releases its post-race analysis.
Follow us
Never Miss an F1 Update!
Join the AutodromeF1 Formula 1 community for real-time race commentary, paddock news, and 2026 calendar updates across your favorite platforms: