Is Formula 1 in a Golden Age?

"LuczOr" (LuczOr) 09/06/2013 at 16:41 • Filed to: None

0

4

Coming out this month is a little flick called RUSH. Ron Howard is putting Nikki Lauda and James Hunt on the silver screen in his depiction of the Golden Age of Formula 1. So I wondered what made it the Golden Age. Was it the rivalry? Maybe the pureness of the cars? Maybe it's even the near death risk of driving formula cars of that era? Let's say it's all of these things. If that's the case, then that era was just a Golden Age as opposed to the Golden Age.

I would say that a Golden Age comes and goes. It comes and goes more than once in a sport that is so smothered in glamour as is Formula 1. Just off the top of my head I can think of several Golden Ages. Lauda and Hunt, and Senna and Prost with their intense rivalries, but what about the Golden Age of Juan Miguel Fangio? Also, the Golden Age of Ferrari and Schumacher? I think these are Golden Ages in the sport as well, but for different reasons. I would say that every era of Formula 1 can be called a "Golden Age of _______." Like the turbo 4 cylinder era and the v10 era.

We talk about these Golden Ages in the rapture of our nostalgia. Formula 1 is a wonderful, ever evolving platform on which we can ruminate. So the real question is not whether or not we are in a Golden Age, but what will this era of Formula 1 be remembered by.

Fred Smith > LuczOr 09/06/2013 at 16:54

2

The on-track product is terrible, so no.

The golden age of Formula 1 was the turbo era, the silver age the sweet spot between the mid-engined revolution and the birth of aerodynamics, and the bronze age the V10 era. The era we're in now has enjoyable parity compared to that seen recently, but the racing is entirely ruined by gimmicks, the field as a whole is incredibly weak (the top of the field is perhaps the healthiest it's ever been, but the remaining two-thirds is just awful), there is no competent feeder series to speak of (Max Chilton was almost a GP2 champion last year, what more can be said?) and the cars are no longer revolutionary. It's far from a great era for the sport.

Raphael Orlove > Fred Smith 09/06/2013 at 17:21

0

my thoughts indeed

King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider > LuczOr 09/06/2013 at 21:50

0

The top drivers are great, the storylines/personalities are there, the parity among those teams is only slightly slanted towards one car or another, the technology of the cars is amazing, the technology of the media allows "the show" be available to anyone with and HD tv better than if you were there live, and generally it is much safer than it ever has been.

That being said, F1 should be the top formula in racing. The cars should not be limited by technology (maybe budget to encourage other manufacturers) and the tracks, oy, the new tracks are boring. Couple that with restrictive practices in the very media that it SHOULD be embracing and you are left with room for improvement.

Bronze Age, maybe an arguable Silver Age...but not Golden. Frankly, the top tier of motor-racing hasn't seen a Golden Age because the next step should always be better...when it isn't, it is just enjoyable to witness.

GhostZ > LuczOr 09/07/2013 at 01:18

0

No.

The drivers are great, but the tracks, cars, and lack of danger present in previous years will make it less memorable. It's a better sport now, that's for sure, but its definitely less 'golden' or 'amazing' than it was in previous years.