F1 2026 might be flawed, but Miami showed why it's also enjoyable

For all of the threats of thunder, lightning, and heavy rain, the expected inclement weather never touched down in Miami. Nor did the Miami Grand Prix need it - it was exciting enough on its own. There was a bit of a lull in the middle of the race, granted, as the Kimi Antonelli-Lando Norris battle reached a stalemate and the pieces were still in transit ahead of the final battle over third. But it was a fun 57 laps, and I was very happy with the way I spent two hours watching it.

The sprint did worry me, however. After all of the regulatory tweaks were made ahead of Miami to iron out the most conspicuous creases with the new rules, the turgidity of the 19-lap affair on Saturday led this writer to elicit the reaction "well, F1's back to normal". Thankfully, Sunday's events delivered something to get the pulse up. 

Even though we were sans precipitation on the brought-forward grand prix (is preponed a word?), the original three-way scrap over the lead was enjoyable. Race strategy meant something, too, and the scatter of hard-tyre switch times in a one-stop affair produced an array of outcomes. And, of course, the drivers could fight with each other - and moves were not limited to one-and-done DRS overtakes. 

Furthermore, we weren't talking about super clipping in qualifying, nor lift-and-coast. We weren't talking about overspeed. We weren't talking about drivers moaning. We were talking about drivers duelling, and being able to make the difference in the car with the tools at their disposal. Energy deployment variable still made a difference, but it had a different sheen this time around; it was a much more natural and controlled variable in Miami, versus the chaotic flashes of randomness that permeated through the opening three rounds of the calendar. Allow me to explain.

For all of the pre-season testing afforded to the drivers, there were two scenarios that could not be accurately replicated: how races would unfold with a field at different states of charge in the battery, and how the extremes of recharge-and-deploy affected qualifying. The latter point was not explored as very few drivers actually indulged in a full-tilt qualifying simulation on the softest tyres, and the former could not be looked at as F1 does not encourage teams to engage in test races. A new variable with considerable potential impact was not properly defined.

This explains why the Australia opener was so unruly. Despite all of the controls set out by the FIA to manage states like rampdown (the decline of allowable deployment from the MGU-K at speeds beyond 180mph), deployment at given throttle position and speeds, and various other mechanisms, it felt like these guidelines were akin to putting fences around your garden to enclose the sheep next door.

While applicable in theory, it didn't account for situations where drivers would accidentally override the rampdown phase with a slight twitch in throttle position. It didn't account for teams shutting down the MGU-K to avoid triggering rampdown at the of qualifying laps either. And nor did it account for such wild variance in deployment.

Watch: 2026 Miami GP: Antonelli Triumphs in Miami

It took the first three races to understand the parameters at play. Removing the issues above was paramount, but it was also necessary to cap the power output in certain areas of the track to stop the vast differences in closing speeds. By more tightly restricting when the boost button could be used (only above 150kW) and by reducing the power cap outside of the 'straight mode' zones on-track, it controls the level of automatic deployment that was catching the drivers out.

Take Albert Park, for example; the drivers had no real idea of what to do with the boost and overtake buttons, and the automatic deployment aspect was far too under-tuned. This is why you had that 'yo-yo' racing between the Mercedes pair and the Ferraris; the battery energy usage was effectively binary, and the drivers were effectively either running at 1000bhp, or 540bhp. There was no middle ground to smooth out the energy spend through the lap, creating those wild swings in performance. And when a driver's out of energy, there's not much that they can control.

Miami was enjoyable precisely because the drivers had more within their control. Although it helped that Miami is a circuit that allows pretty regular energy harvesting at inconspicuous locations around the track, the addition of the 250kW ceiling at certain parts and the energy allowance over the lap reframed the boost button. It was like having KERS back, just in a slightly more potent form compared to the 60kW (80hp) unit used between 2009 and 2013. And this offered the driver a variable in their employ, where any mistakes emerging from it were consequences of their decision, not of a decision made by someone else - or by an algorithm.

Australia was unruly; despite all of the controls set out by the FIA to manage the powertrains, these guidelines were akin to putting fences around your garden to enclose the sheep next door

Antonelli, race winner and championship leader, demonstrated that. When attacking Charles Leclerc for the lead early-doors, he used up too much of his battery in the process; although Antonelli got the lead, he soon found himself behind both Leclerc and Norris after overexerting himself.

 This wasn't like it was back in Australia, where nobody knew how to use the deployment properly and just ran out of ground at the end of straights; Antonelli chose to use his deployment in that scenario to make a short-term gain, profited from it for a time, but then paid the price a bit later. That's how racing should be.

Now, I won't pretend that we've reached perfection; I will continue to advocate for universal 250kW power with 350kW push to pass, as has been my suggestion in other columns. But we're surprisingly close to being there without actually reaching that point, and the two-tier power system achieves some of this while remaining somewhat true to F1's "50-50" power unit split (which, again for consistency, one must point out that it isn't). 

Antonelli found himself behind Norris when risks taken versus then-leader Leclerc didn't pay off

Photo by: Steven Tee / LAT Images via Getty Images

There are still problems with qualifying. It remains incredibly deployment-heavy, and it is still sometimes more beneficial to back off in some areas to get the recharge for later. The most obvious lift-and-coast bits were gone from Miami's qualifying spectacle, but it's a bit early to say if this would necessarily be the case for faster, more 'energy-poor' circuits like Silverstone. It's better than it was in March, sure, but it's still in need of a rethink.

Yet, I think Sunday's race was not only much stronger than the previous three, but more enjoyable than most of the races seen over the past five years. Versus the previous 2026 races, this was a more controlled spectacle from the powertrain side, but still provided opportunities for cars close on pace to battle each other for a series of laps.

The initial Antonelli-Norris-Leclerc battle demonstrated the value of being smart with deployment, and the subsequent Antonelli-Norris battle demonstrated that the regs don't simply create wantonly artificial back-and-forth pass-fests; Norris had to work increasingly hard to try to provoke Antonelli into an error, and Antonelli exerted similar effort to be inch-perfect under heavy pressure.

Miami had the balance right; overtakes were not cheap, commodified statistics spewed onto a social media template - but nor were they intangible concepts. Drivers could demonstrate their wheel-to-wheel skills beyond lap one and could proactively make the difference themselves - albeit with a cost if they got their sums wrong.

And if there's even the tiniest iota that could be deemed artificial, then so be it: I enjoyed the fights, and I want the two hours I spend watching a race on a Sunday afternoon to be enjoyable, rather than be spent discussing the nebulous concept of racing purity. I'm not a monk; I want to be entertained. 

Qualifying still needs work, but F1's races in 2026 provide entertainment

Photo by: Andy Hone/ LAT Images via Getty Images