It seems the sport still hasn't quite gotten over Senna's death in 1994. That's when pretty much everyone stopped exploring the boundaries of possibility, and it's a damn shame, too.
We can talk about a history of close racing or dynamic personalities or technological achievement as reasons for F1's allure, but I think we'd only be partially correct. The reality is actually a lot simpler.
Formula One's mystique was born from a willingness and ability to completely shatter expectations. It wasn't just quicker than everything else on four wheels; it was quicker than everything else on fours wheels by a
wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide margin. Sadly, that facet died with Senna (and things are only getting worse).
None of this is to say F1 should be more dangerous for the sake of added danger, because there's no reason in the world to ignore advances in safety as they come about. But, I do think the sport should be more willing to accept risk if doing so can restore its indisputable claim to motorsport's throne.
For instance, I'd rather see cars race around circuits that feature acres and acres of runoff area, and are lined with hundreds of tons of cotton, if it meant they could handle corners like Raidillon/Eau Rouge at jaw-dropping speeds...
F1 will never be safe, and we all know that. The question is: for what would you rather die?
