As I have mentioned previous, I don't think the FIA or Bernie have any interest in the quality of the racing, they only care about the P&L sheet. Bernie can't be bothered to worry about whether actual racing takes place so long as he can siphon enough money off the sport that his daughters can afford to give Lamborghini Aventadors to their boyfriends.
One reason the changes ExtremeNinja and I support are so unpalatable to the powers that be is the trickle-down that would follow. F1 cars are so fast precisely because of this over-dependence on wing-generated downforce, so stepping away from so much aero undoubtedly will make the cars slower, at least initially. And this change must needs cascade down through the ranks, lest F1's brand prestige be damaged because its feeder series' cars are faster than its own. But imagine the gnashing of teeth among GP2 and GP3 teams, who aren't growing so fat off satellite TV revenues, over the prospect of having to spend so much money to create totally new cars because F1 want so go slower.
The easiest point to address to increase close racing, IMHO, would be the potential for catastrophic damage from light contact. Narrower and less fragile front wings are a good start. At the very least, teams should be prohibited using a front wing that can cause punctures to cars that weren't party to the collision. If that proves unsolvable while continuing to use carbonfibre, so be it.
There also needs to be renewed research into ground effects because it largely is unaffected by turbulence. It was outlawed out of safety concerns, not the least of which was its sensitivity to ride height. Ayrton Senna died because his car bottomed out and lost all ground effect downforce at the entry to a corner. That isn't an easy thing to get past but it is time for the sport to turn the page. But the teams need to know they can invest in the research to that end without the fear that the FIA will dismiss it out of hand.
The EBD was a step in the right direction but the FIA spit the mickey and banned it because they weren't clever enough to devise a means to regulate use of exhaust overrun. And they couldn't tolerate exhaust overrun because that was prima facie evidence the teams had out-clevered their ban on movable aerodynamic devices (which at best was a tortured interpretation of the TR). So they threw the baby out with the bathwater, despite EBDs having been in use since 1989.
There is no material reason movable aero should be limited. DRS was the camel's nose under the tent, the FIA's admission that it can be implemented safely in F1 (as if every aeroplane, helicopter, gyrocopter and airship on earth wasn't already proof of concept). And the adoption of DRS drove a stake through the heart of claims there was something un-sporting about it. A combination of smaller, simpler (single element, constant cross-section) but movable (at will) wings #1) would be cheaper to implement, and #2) could be at least a partial answer to the overtaking dilemma because a car's draught would be less turbulent when in low drag/ low downforce mode, hence it would be more over-takeable on straightaways. Then kick up the wing to a high angle of attack for cornering. Chaparral were building successful race cars in the 1960s using this same scheme of manoeuver. Fifty years on, I fail to see why it could not be adapted to F1.
That job falls within the remit of the Overtaking Working Group, or whatever they're called. There's at least some skill to making your tyres last, as opposed to opening a flap which allows you to blast past the car in front without him being able to retaliate.
And the 'close battles' were DRS passing and re-passing, not staying behind looking for an opportunity.
