Hadjar Says Verstappen Would Win Bigger in a Ferrari — Leclerc Fires Back
GOATIFYIsack Hadjar has handed Formula 1 a provocative question just as the paddock arrives in Austin: was Max Verstappen's Singapore Grand Prix victory proof that Red Bull had the best car, or proof that Verstappen was making the difference? Hadjar believes the latter. He argued that Ferrari had the stronger machine in Singapore and that his Red Bull team-mate could have won by an even larger margin in red. Charles Leclerc, the Ferrari driver who finished second, was distinctly unimpressed.
The exchange is more than a piece of pre-race theatre. Verstappen beat Leclerc by 7.335 seconds at Marina Bay, while Hadjar came home 10th after a weekend of mechanical trouble. Those results invite easy conclusions about which team has the quickest package, but the drivers' comments reveal a much messier picture: qualifying engine modes, cornering performance, straight-line losses and the extraordinary influence of one driver can all distort the competitive order. With the United States Grand Prix starting on October 23, the argument now has an immediate on-track test.
Hadjar's Ferrari Claim Turns a Technical Debate Personal
Hadjar's argument starts with an uncomfortable distinction for Red Bull's rivals. Verstappen won in Singapore and had also won the previous race in Malaysia, yet his team-mate was unwilling to declare the RB22 the outright fastest car. The Frenchman considered Red Bull dominant in Malaysia, but said Singapore was different: Ferrari, in his view, had the best underlying performance, even if Verstappen ultimately beat its drivers.
That was an unusually pointed assessment because it implied the margin at the front was partly a measure of Verstappen's driving rather than the superiority of his equipment. Hadjar went further, suggesting Verstappen would have extended his winning advantage had he been driving Leclerc's Ferrari. For a driver sitting opposite that hypothetical, the suggestion was bound to sting. Leclerc dismissed the comparison as nonsense, noting that neither driver knows the precise characteristics of the other's car from the cockpit.
The numbers are straightforward, but their meaning is not. Verstappen took the Singapore chequered flag 7.335 seconds ahead of Leclerc. Kimi Antonelli was third, with Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri fourth and fifth. Hadjar recovered to 10th after Red Bull's reliability problems had left him starting from the pit lane. A finish order can establish who was fastest across the race distance; it cannot, by itself, separate driver execution, car potential, strategy, track position and mechanical constraints.
Leclerc's objection therefore has a technical foundation as well as an emotional one. The Ferrari driver knows which corners demanded compromise, how much traction he had and where the car could not respond to his inputs. Hadjar knows the Red Bull's own weaknesses, but not Ferrari's exact operating window. Both are speaking from genuine experience, yet neither has enough information to run a reliable alternate-history simulation in which Verstappen changes teams for a single Sunday.
The argument also exposes Hadjar's unusual position. He is defending the reputation of his team-mate while challenging the idea that their car is automatically the benchmark. It can be a fair distinction: the best driver can win in the second-best package. But it also puts more attention on why the two Red Bulls produced such different results in Singapore, even after allowing for Hadjar's compromised weekend.
Verstappen Won Singapore — But Which Car Was Really Fastest?
Singapore supplied evidence for both sides. Verstappen took pole, but Leclerc was within striking distance in qualifying, and Ferrari's pace through the circuit's corners repeatedly drew attention. In the Grand Prix, Verstappen protected the lead at the start, built a gap and managed his tyres without surrendering control. His first victory at Marina Bay was not a lucky result: he drove a clean, convincing race at a circuit where precision and confidence matter enormously.
Yet dominance on Sunday is not identical to an unambiguous car advantage. Starting first removes the turbulent air and strategic exposure that can make a similarly quick car look ordinary in traffic. Once Verstappen established control, he could choose when to push and when to protect his tyres. Leclerc, by contrast, needed both enough speed to close the gap and an opportunity to make that speed useful. His Ferrari could have been very quick in isolated sections without possessing the straight-line performance or tyre life required to complete an overtake.
Hadjar's experience illustrates why team comparisons need context. Red Bull's second car had suffered repeated technical problems during the Singapore weekend, including a disrupted qualifying effort and power-unit changes. He eventually climbed into the points from the pit lane. Finishing 10th in those circumstances is not equivalent to finishing 10th after a normal grid start with uninterrupted practice and qualifying. His result cannot simply be held against Verstappen's win as a measure of their relative ability.
There is also a distinction between a car's peak lap time and its repeatable race performance. A machine may produce impressive cornering speeds while losing significant time on straights. It may look excellent on a single tyre compound but become harder to balance as the fuel load falls. The way power is deployed, how the battery is managed and how much drag the car carries all shape the final lap time. The team that looks quickest in a handful of corners is not necessarily quickest over a complete stint.
Verstappen's two successive victories do, however, change the stakes. Red Bull had spent much of 2026 trying to recover its competitive edge, and the late-season improvement is visible in results rather than just optimistic engineering statements. If the team can repeat that level in Austin, Hadjar's argument about Ferrari's hidden advantage will be harder to sustain as a general rule. If Ferrari closes the gap on a different circuit, it may strengthen his narrower claim that the balance of power changes dramatically from venue to venue.
Piastri's Data Clue Makes Austin the Next Test
Oscar Piastri supplied the most useful third-party perspective. The McLaren driver said Ferrari was frequently at or near the top of the cornering-speed comparisons in Singapore, but appeared to give time away on the straights. He did not claim to know definitively whether the cause was aerodynamic drag, power delivery or some combination of factors. That uncertainty is important: an observer can identify where a car gains and loses time without being able to isolate the engineering reason.
Piastri also judged both Ferrari and Red Bull stronger than McLaren at that event. It is an unusually revealing admission from a team that began the year expecting to compete at the sharp end. His comments help explain why the Ferrari-versus-Red Bull argument cannot be settled by looking only at the winner's trophy. Different teams are seeing different pieces of the performance puzzle, and the same car can look formidable in one part of a lap and vulnerable in another.
Leclerc has separately pointed to Ferrari's tendency to look more competitive in Friday practice than when qualifying arrives. His explanation is that rivals may have more performance available when engine settings and qualifying preparation change. He has praised Ferrari's simulator correlation and the balance it can achieve early in a weekend, while acknowledging that the SF-26 still lacks some outright potential. Those comments are consistent with Piastri's observation: a car that works well through corners can still fall short when the entire lap is counted.
Austin is a particularly useful comparison because Circuit of the Americas demands more than one kind of speed. Its opening sequence tests high-speed direction changes, the long back straight rewards efficient power and low drag, and the heavy-braking zones put traction and stability under pressure. A car that was flattered by Singapore's layout may be exposed here. A car whose strengths were concealed by Singapore's slow corners may suddenly look stronger. Track conditions, tyre wear and the notorious bumps add further variables.
Watch three things as practice turns into qualifying and the race. First, does Ferrari remain competitive on the straights when the teams begin to show their true pace? Second, can Hadjar run a clean weekend and provide a more meaningful comparison with Verstappen? Third, does McLaren's cornering-versus-straight-line diagnosis survive on a circuit with a very different profile? Those are measurable questions. They are more useful than trying to assign a precise hypothetical victory margin to a driver in a car he never raced.
Verstappen can reinforce his status as the driver making the difference, Leclerc can answer the suggestion that Ferrari squandered the quickest car, and Hadjar can demonstrate what a less disrupted weekend looks like in the same Red Bull machinery. The debate has generated a sharp headline, but the Austin timing screens will offer a more disciplined way to judge it.
Hadjar has made a bold claim, and Leclerc was entitled to challenge it. Singapore proved that Verstappen and Red Bull executed the strongest race; it did not prove how fast Verstappen would have been in a Ferrari. Piastri's observations about Ferrari's cornering speed and straight-line deficit show why both claims can contain a piece of the truth without either being fully established.
The United States Grand Prix will not magically solve the hypothetical, either. It will, however, show whether Ferrari's apparent strengths transfer to a very different circuit, whether Red Bull's recent surge continues and whether Hadjar can get a representative weekend alongside Verstappen. That is the comparison worth watching when the talking stops and the cars leave the garage.
