Guenther Steiner compares Madring backlash to Las Vegas debut with 2027 warning

When Guenther Steiner speaks, the paddock usually listens. The former Haas team principal is no longer on the pit wall, but he still owns one of the sharpest perspectives in F1. After the first race at Madring, the new Madrid circuit, Steiner told The Red Flags Podcast: “There cannot be a second year like this.” That sentence is not a passing complaint. It is a milestone, a test, and a reminder that F1 has just signed a 10-year contract with a venue that has not yet proven it can produce a race. Steiner compared Madring to Las Vegas. Las Vegas was an embarrassment in its debut: failed drain covers, a cancelled practice session, fans sent home in the middle of the night. Yet after one season, people now say Las Vegas “seems like it has been there forever.” Steiner uses that story to ask for patience with Madring. But there is one detail he did not say: Las Vegas’s problem was operational, while Madring’s problem is design. Operations can be fixed overnight. Design cannot. The Madring race had virtually no overtaking. Race winner Andrea Kimi Antonelli took the lead after a pit stop timed perfectly under a Virtual Safety Car, not through an on-track pass. That is worse than a dull race. When even the winning move requires a neutralisation, the circuit is not creating passing opportunities. The drivers were not lacking talent. Verstappen, Norris, Hamilton and Russell were all helpless. They could only chase lap times, wait for strategy, and accept a result decided by the timing of a button. Technically, Madring has a geometry problem. A circuit needs a magic triangle: a long enough straight, a slow enough corner, and a wide enough surface for experimentation. Madring appears to lack one of those elements. The result is cars forming DRS trains, following within one second but never close enough to attack. This is classic dirty air, and it turns a would-be festival into a speed parade. It is important not to blame the cars. The original article offers no sector times, no GPS traps, no tyre degradation data. We cannot conclude that Mercedes is faster because of aerodynamics, or that Ferrari is slower because of downforce. All we have is a race without overtaking and a victory decided by VSC. That is enough to diagnose the circuit, but not enough to diagnose the teams. Mercedes’s strategy was close to perfect. They reacted to the VSC window, brought Antonelli in, and released him into the lead. On a track with no overtaking, that decision is the win. But for Lando Norris, it was a different shock: he started from pole, was not passed on track, and still lost the race because of a neutralisation window. Pole position was devalued. That is the measure of an unfair circuit. Steiner understands this. He does not blame the teams, because no team is wrong. He is criticising, indirectly, a system that allows a 10-year contract to coexist with a racing product that lacks quality. The F1 calendar is expanding rapidly. New venues grow like mushrooms, each promising a revolution. But promises and reality are different things. Madring is where they meet and crack. In the standings, Antonelli leads with eight wins after 15 rounds, 81 points ahead of teammate George Russell. This is a dominating season. Hamilton at Ferrari trails by 101 points – a gap that cannot be considered normal. It suggests Ferrari has not found the key, or Hamilton has not adapted to the car. Either way, the title race is almost over. That makes Madring even more important: when the championship is not interesting, the race must create its own interest. Madring failed to do that. The contrarian view is this: are we overreacting to a single sample? Every new circuit needs time. New surface, new kerbs, new paint, even the drivers’ memory of braking points – all can change after a year. Maybe Madring will be better in 2027. But will a few extra overtakes be enough to make it a great circuit? Las Vegas succeeded because it had an incomparable entertainment ecosystem. Madrid can create a party atmosphere, but a party atmosphere cannot replace a full-throttle corner. The beauty of a street circuit does not save the boredom of the track. The key issue is whether the venue can be fixed in 12 months. If Madring needs a layout change, such as re-profiling a corner to create a heavier braking point, the organiser must seek approval, redesign, construct, homologate, and integrate the change into the calendar. That process usually takes more than a year, especially in an urban area where every square metre has an owner. Even changing kerbs or run-off areas can cause controversy. Steiner has set a 2027 deadline, but that deadline only matters if someone starts working now. History is full of circuits that were criticised at launch and later became classics. Abu Dhabi was called bland. Bahrain was compared to a car park. Baku was dismissed as dangerous. All found their place through spectacular races. Madring’s problem is not scenery – Madrid is beautiful. The problem is the ability to create drama. A circuit can be beautiful but produce no drama, like a theatre with a magnificent stage but actors who are not allowed to move. Fans will come once, then never return. Looking at Madring from a sociological angle, there is a class conflict. The commercial class wants a grand prix in the financial centre so sponsors can walk from hotels to hospitality. The fan class, especially those loyal to Barcelona for decades, sees this as a betrayal. The technical class – engineers and drivers – simply wants a track where they can fight. When these three classes clash, the quality of the race becomes the biggest loser. Steiner, with the instinct of someone born in South Tyrol, saw this. He did not talk about commerce or architecture. He talked about something simple: the second race must be better. That is the voice of someone who lived in the harsh reality of the pit lane. When a man like Steiner speaks, people should listen. He does not need a ticket. He has the key. There is a phrase I like: “The outsider does not need a ticket; they open the door with their own feet.” Steiner is that outsider. Antonelli is another story. At 20 years old, he is proving that the talk of a new generation is real. I used to bet on outsiders – unranked young drivers – and I lost many times to understand that I was winning. With Antonelli, the bet is no longer too risky. Eight wins, 81 points ahead of his teammate, and the championship lead say it all. A generational shift is happening before our eyes, while we argue about a corner in Madrid. I once believed in the numbers, until the numbers were torn apart by a counter-attack. Madring is a reminder that data cannot replace emotion. And here is the point: the whole world is talking about Madring, while the title race is almost settled. That shows F1 is not just a speed race. It is a power game where 10-year contracts, urban districts and podcasts create an ecosystem more complex than the car technology. Madring is a mirror of that ecosystem. The face in the mirror is grimacing. From years of watching, I have noticed a rule: circuit controversies often fade after one or two dramatic races. Baku was criticised, then became a favourite. So Madring should not be permanently convicted. But it should not receive unconditional forgiveness either. 2027 must be a year of action, not promises. Otherwise, all we have is another Las Vegas, but without the glitter to hide the emptiness. Ahead of the next round in Baku, from September 24 to 26, 2026, we will get more data on the championship. But for Madring, the real data will only appear when the organiser announces a layout change. If no announcement comes in the next six months, if no circuit engineer is hired, if no consultation with drivers takes place, then Madring is choosing to ignore the problem. When that happens, Steiner’s warning will become a curse for 2027. For now, standing at the threshold of a challenging year, remember that sport is a story of correction. Las Vegas corrected itself. Madring can too. But to fix a mistake, one must first admit the mistake. Steiner said it politely, but clearly: the second year must be different. If not, Madring’s place on the calendar will be questioned, despite a 10-year contract sitting in a safe. Finally, the Madring story is a marriage between ambition and reality. The ambition is a modern city circuit, beside skyscrapers and shining squares. The reality is cars lined up, unable to pass, on a Sunday afternoon that should have been a celebration. For the marriage to work, one side must change. Since the buildings cannot move, only the circuit – and the way it is organised – must change. Steiner has sounded the bell. 2027 will tell us who was really listening.