While the Las Vegas Grand Prix has cemented itself as a commercial juggernaut and a global spectacle for Formula 1, the drivers tell a different story. Led by veteran Fernando Alonso, the grid is calling for urgent revisions to two critical aspects of the event: the track surface and the punishing schedule.
The Surface Debate: “Not F1 Standard” Alonso has flagged the circuit’s asphalt as a primary concern, describing it as hovering on the edge of safety due to severe bumps and a lack of grip.
“The circuit layout itself is fun because it’s high speed,” Alonso conceded. “But honestly, the type of asphalt used is simply not up to Formula 1 standards.”
He elaborated on the technical struggles: “It is far too slippery, making it impossible to get the tyres into the correct operating window. There is no grip, and the bumpiness puts it at the limit of being safe to race. We need to have a serious discussion with the FIA to determine if this is acceptable for future years.”
Drawing comparisons to other premier street circuits like Monaco and Singapore, which regularly undergo resurfacing works, Alonso insisted there is no excuse for Las Vegas not to follow suit.
He was supported by Haas rookie Oliver Bearman, who highlighted the compounded danger of the surface conditions. “Especially in these cold temperatures, the lack of grip is amplified,” Bearman noted. “With the walls so close and the sheer number of high-speed corners, the risk level is incredibly high. Given the resources available, they can certainly afford to resurface the track. It wouldn’t be a bad idea.”
The Logistical Nightmare Beyond the tarmac, Alonso has the event’s scheduling firmly in his crosshairs. The race currently kicks off a brutal season-ending triple-header, a logistical feat that Alonso argues exacts too heavy a toll on personnel due to extreme travel distances and time zone shifts.
“To be totally honest, the logistics of coming here—the time difference and the distance from Europe and Brazil just two weeks prior—are difficult,” Alonso explained. “We now head straight to Qatar: a 17-hour flight with a 13-hour time shift. I don’t think any other sport in the world would accept conditions like that.”
While acknowledging the track layout is acceptable, Alonso was firm: “The asphalt and the slot in the calendar are not.”
Addressing the rationale that the race is held late in the year to boost tourism during a quiet week for Las Vegas, Alonso was dismissive. “I heard that reasoning, but we cannot make decisions based on that alone. If we did, we’d be racing in Monaco in February because it’s quiet there too. We need to prioritize the sport.”
GPDA Backs the Call for Change Carlos Sainz, director of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association (GPDA), fully endorsed Alonso’s stance. He revealed that the grid has been “quite vocal” in expressing these concerns to F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali.
Sainz proposed a logical restructuring: “Ideally, this should run back-to-back with Brazil. That way, you avoid flying back to Europe to reacclimatize, only to fly out here again.”
He outlined a better flow: “Fly straight to Vegas, race, take a week break, and then finish with the Middle East double-header. What reason is there not to do this? I couldn’t agree more that a Vegas-Qatar-Abu Dhabi triple-header, for the second year running, does no good for anyone.”
Despite these strong objections, the provisional 2026 calendar currently retains the controversial Vegas-Qatar-Abu Dhabi triple-header configuration.
