Miami GP conclusions: Antonelli insecurity, Verstappen impatience, F1’s TV fail

The brilliance of teenage sensation Kimi Antonelli was the shining beacon of the Miami Grand Prix, helping smooth over the muddied execution of the weekend.

It was the great relaunch of F1 2026, a race after a long break and the promise of (another) bright new future. And it very nearly didn’t happen.

Kimi Antonelli shines as Miami Grand Prix exposes F1 flaws

Want more PlanetF1.com coverage? Add us as a preferred source on Google for news you can trust.

Miami showed cleaner racing and tighter competition, but exposed persistent systemic issues in governance, broadcast execution, and regulatory uncertainty, as Antonelli’s standout performance masked wider problems.

That the Miami GP did happen is something we should be thankful for because things didn’t look great on Sunday morning in Miami when rain lashed down, giving rise to concern that the forecast thunderstorms might arrive earlier than expected. The sport pivoted well over the weekend, bringing forward the start time by three hours and, while not strictly necessary, it was a decision that afforded wiggle room the initial schedule didn’t.

It was curious to see how that played out as misinformation was rampant across the weekend. From Thursday meetings to decisions on Sunday morning, even after the decisive meeting on Saturday evening there were reports in Spain that the race would start at 10am on Sunday. Ultimately, it was a joint announcement between the FIA and FOM that confirmed it would be a 1pm start, a time that arguably works better for much of the world (sorry Australia) and perhaps should be considered as a better option than the original 4pm start time going forward.

Red Bull exposed FIA weaknesses

The earlier start was good for television audiences globally, but it also gave stewards more time to deliberate post-race. It remains one of motorsport’s great weaknesses that, for all the investment and technology and global interest, it remains commonplace that we don’t know the outcome of a race for several hours after crossing the line.

Elements of it are unavoidable, it’s difficult to check the legality of cars when they’re racing, but the propensity of in-race incidents to be delayed until post-race isn’t helpful. In football, the score doesn’t change after the final whistle, players don’t get red cards once they’ve left the field. And yet that is the way motorsport is and always has been. It’s a systemic issue, not a reflection or criticism of the stewards in Miami or at any other race meeting and an area in which motorsport does itself no favours.

The effort to enforce the rules fairly and accurately is also commendable, but there needs to be a line in the sand somewhere. If there’s no immediate conclusive evidence of a breach, is it necessary to delay it until post-race in the hope something can be found, as happened with Verstappen crossing the blend line at pit exit? There needs to be a balance, and if the tools provided can’t do the job the question is therefore whether delaying to find others is warranted, or if it can be enforced fairly in the first place.

Scrutineering also warrants attention in the wake of Isack Hadjar’s disqualification from qualifying. The floor on Hadjar’s Red Bull was found to be 2mm too wide when it was checked by officials during qualifying itself, a point revealed in FIA technical delegate Jo Bauer’s own report. Yet it was only referred to the stewards post-session and the exclusion confirmed the following morning. And why wasn’t Verstappen’s car checked?

It seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that, if the floor on one car was outside of the regulations, there’s a chance the same issue exists on the team’s other car. Following qualifying, Verstappen’s car was not selected for targeted scrutineering, and no official checks were completed. The same happened after the race, when Bauer’s post-race scrutineering report shows the Dutchman’s car was only weighed.

Red Bull boss Laurent Mekies said the FIA didn’t have any issue with Verstappen’s car, but that’s not to say there wasn’t an issue. In Formula 1, a car running outside of the regulations is legal until it is caught, it’s a principle that has been tried and tested countless times through the history of the sport. And yet here is a very simple means of addressing at least one aspect of that issue through a standard operating procedure that ensures legality when questions have been raised. We’ve seen it at the United States Grand Prix when cars have failed on plank wear, and arguably again in Miami. It’s a question that could so easily be answered. Not that in Miami it proved especially important in the context of the race, but it’s an opportunity to improve if not eliminate an area of criticism levied at those policing the sport.

More from the Miami Grand Prix on PlanetF1.com

Charles Leclerc hit with 20-second penalty after FIA investigation

Max Verstappen lands five-second penalty after FIA investigation

F1 2026 rule change uncertainty remains

Miami was also billed as something of a season reset, a new start to a year that began in underwhelming fashion with an alien style of racing. With revised rules, upgraded cars, and an extended break feeding the anticipation and lifting expectations, on the surface the racing was better. It was entertaining, at times a little bit chaotic, and arguably less ridiculous than we’ve seen to date this season.

There was also consistency which suggested there hasn’t been an overreach, one of the great concerns during the rule change discussion. Mercedes came out on top, Antonelli extended his title advantage, McLaren and Ferrari proved close challengers, and Red Bull’s misery continued (though there are suggestions it has made progress). But it was more nuanced than that, there was greater subtlety and context that gave the weekend a different flavour.

Did changes to the harvesting rates and deployment characteristics unbalance teams and compress the field, or is it convergence through development? Norris should have won, with a better strategy he might well have, but is that new evidence? Piastri was in a commanding position in Japan before a Safety Car handed the lead to Antonelli.

It’s reasonable to suggest the problem hasn’t been entirely solved. The yo-yo effect remains, such that Norris’ engineer, Will Joseph, suggested last year’s world champion use it to his advantage in the early stages when in battle with Antonelli and Leclerc. Passing into Turn 11 was too easy, as was Turn 17, while the ability for drivers to immediately counter into Turn 1 suggested the problem remains.

Hence the drivers’ reticence ahead of the weekend. Almost to a man they agreed the rules were a step in the right direction, but it remained to be seen how that played out. They were cautious, sceptical, one or two even dismissive and pointing to the underlying issues that remain.

An ‘energy rich’ circuit, top line concerns like super clipping were never expected to be a significant factor; the FIA didn’t even bother to reduce the recharge limit per lap. Was the reduction in overtake power therefore sufficient, and what factor did car upgrades play in the shape of the racing? That was, to an extent, the aim. All involved set about to evolve the sport, not throw the baby out with the bathwater after three events.

But if these regulations aren’t right, a second round of tweaks does seem harder to justify unless we see another significant crash like Oliver Bearman suffered in Japan. When that happens, the FIA will have the licence it needs to push through the changes it deems necessary, but until then self-interest will likely dictate that the regulations remain unchanged for now.

Kimi Antonelli dominance and Max Verstappen humanity emerge

Promisingly, on Sunday afternoon, Antonelli was made to work for the win. Strategy played a key role in his success, and for that the Mercedes pit wall must take its share of the credit, but the job still had to be done on track. And that’s where the Italian’s youth showed just a little more than it has before.

Though leading, he was never truly comfortable. Norris was never within striking distance, but at the same time he was far too close for comfort, and the pressure showed. There was an air of panic in his voice over race radio with complaints about the ‘paddle’; whether that concern was real or imagined (it’s amazing the noises racing drivers hear when leading) doesn’t ultimately matter. It was not what he was saying so much as how he was saying it. His words were rushed, urgent, almost pleading. Contrast to more established rivals in similar positions and the tone reveals an uncertainty and lack of confidence.

It’s a strange thought given the scale of his achievements. Still a teenager, he’s dominated F1 so far this season, winning three times and taken pole three times. From China to Miami, his run of success is unparalleled in the world championship’s almost eight-decade history, and yet the man in question still harbours an insecurity revealed under pressure. It’s an endearing quality.

The same could arguably be said of Verstappen, who showed for once that he is human with an uncharacteristic spin and aggressive recovery drive. There too was an underlying message, an insight into the mindset of a four-time world champion during a season that hasn’t (thus far) panned out the way he’d hoped.

As it stands, neither Verstappen nor Red Bull are contenders. Though the Dutchman muscled his car to second on the grid, it is no match for the leading three. The key difference in Verstappen is his unwillingness, or perhaps it’s an inability, to accept defeat. It is why he’s a champion; that hunger, his pathological need to compete.

Without the machinery capable of victory arguably pushed him over the limit in Miami. His spin on the opening lap was out of character, and it was as much luck as skill that his race didn’t end there. But it also changed his mindset for the remainder of the race, and he chased in vain to make amends for the early faux pas.

Aggressive at the best of times, there was an edge of desperation and frustration has he launched attack after attack. He made big, bold moves, in keeping with his character but without the surgical precision he’s famous for. He ran wide and made contact. It was scrappy. But when presented with a rare opportunity for success in a year that has not been what was hoped for, it’s easy to imagine ourselves tensing up in the same situation. It suggests that, despite his seemingly otherworldly skills, Verstappen is indeed human.

It’s almost certain that, at some point this season, he will have his time in the sun. Miami teased that the convergence teams have spoken about will manifest itself throughout the season. Antonelli won, but it was close. McLaren beat Ferrari, but it too was close. The pointy end of the field has compressed, and Verstappen’s presence on the front row suggests Red Bull cannot be entirely ignored in that conversation.

Formula 1 global feed misses key Miami GP incidents

Unquestionably, there was less harvesting, fewer Mario Kart mushrooms being consumed, even if one or two of the front runners did experience the dreaded blue shell – Charles Leclerc among them as he spun out of fourth on the final lap. Not that we really saw it, television pictures followed Piastri who was pulling away in third. As tyre smoke engulfed the spinning Ferrari behind it was only after the fact that we had confirmation he’d hit the wall. While hardly the decisive moment of the race, it was one of several blatant failings of the global feed’s director.

As Hadjar found himself in the wall and Pierre Gasly found himself perched on a tyre bundle, it took a lap before we learned why either incident had happened. A delay in showing crashes is perfectly understandable if there’s uncertainty surrounding the driver’s condition, but in both instances, it was clear neither Hadjar nor Gasly were injured. They were two spectacular moments that had their impact blunted by tardy replays.

We also missed out on the battle between Piastri and George Russell as coverage instead cut away to Norris pursuing Antonelli. There was no obvious challenge for the lead that the time, the pair were circulating a couple of seconds apart, but that was deemed more relevant than a battle than an active scrap for position. A cynic might suggest it was a ploy to hide the yo-yo element that remains, but you’d probably need to be wearing a tin foil hat at the same time.

The racing in Miami was more familiar and perhaps more comfortable, devoid of the jarring yo-yoing that blighted the early races. Is it a step in the right direction? Possibly, but if nothing else it has highlighted areas where we can make progress, even aside from the regulations.

Want to be the first to know exclusive information from the F1 paddock? Join our broadcast channel on WhatsApp to get the scoop on the latest developments from our team of accredited journalists.

You can also subscribe to the PlanetF1 YouTube channel for exclusive features, hear from our paddock journalists with stories from the heart of Formula 1 and much more!

Read Next: F1 2026: Head-to-head race statistics between teammates