Isn't this is always an issue though? The more money and more advanced anything becomes, the less accessible and the more boring it normally becomes. This has always been the case. Tech goes up, teams fall out.
The problem is that a racing teams objective is counter-intuitive to a marketing/crowd objective. A racing team would like precision, better tech than the opposition and a drama-less clockwork progression toward the checkered flag, rinse repeat. This is how you win things and get sponsorship and build prestige. It may not be what a driver likes, but it's the goal. A manufacturer wants mostly the same thing.
A sport which is branding itself wants: safer, faster, more efficient, more proceeds. Generally speaking cars lapping 1-3 seconds slower than a previous formula or year is considered awful - because "progress". You want faster, you go with more tech. More tech means more cost. More cost means less teams and far less interest - because the sell is much harder for a manufacturer.
All of the above is really about bottom lines. While many team members and drivers and folks with the manufacturer enjoy close racing as much as we do, really, behind the scenes the goal is to win - and convincingly.
None of that (short of internet forums and cool tech discussions) makes racing more fun to watch. Perhaps some techno-geeks enjoy the tech going into the racing, but a parade of cars spaced evenly just ticking off laps does not make good entertainment - particularly for those masses watching the race live.
I think it's safe to say that the general motorsport fan wants things like: close finishes, daring passes, the occasional slide, a good bump or two, cars going a bit off track trying desperately to hold off pursuers, the strategy of tires and fuel, and ideally a handful of good rivalries in a series - be it drivers or teams. However all of the above normally flies in the face of everything else I mentioned above. There is a reason that a lot of folks harken back to older eras --- when tech was less precise and you had a bit more of the driver's involvement. Sure cars blew up 40% of the time, but less grip, less aero, and less reliability does simply produce more entertainment.
Personally I enjoyed Aussie V8 supercars more maybe 5-6 years ago before the latest iteration. Loved how much they leaned and slid (more than they seem to now). But I also enjoy CTSCC and other GT4-esque racing series more than I enjoy F1. Some of the very best racing I've seen comes from lower series with less tech, less grip, etc. I love LeMans etc. because I think that endurance racing is one of the few things we haven't beaten into submission technologically yet --- and things always go wrong over 24 hours.
I just feel the two goals: 1) More interest/excitement/viewership, and 2) More speed, safer, more tech --- are at serious odds with eachother.
