What technical ethos is that? You really have to ask?
Come on mate, one that does not depend on aerodynamics! This is what the discussion is about no?
And "little innovation left" in the engineering side? Thats just plain ridiculous I'm afraid.
There is more engineering to come from oily bits, battery and recuperative technologies that it would seem it is Aerodynamics that has run its course in terms of reaching its innovative zenith.
Want an example?
Whats the total spend now to get a few points extra downforce? 10s of Millions And How similar do all the cars look nowadays.
Back when aero meant less, you had all sorts of different looking cars. Now its paint jobs that define a car, very GP2 if you ask me.
So as I said before, Bring real world problems to F1 for eg, give a team 100 litre of fuel to run a GP, and to qualify with only 1 litre(or such like).
Reduce the crazy over reliance of aero, which can be redressed through tyres.
Aero is locked because the rules preclude such things as proper active surfaces. Wings that change shape to suit the needs of the cars at that moment for example.
And do you really think the MP4-26 and the RB7 look alike? Really?!!
I'd be happy for the engineers to be allowed to develop the engines further but you'd see them spending 10 of millions to extract another 50bhp at 18k revs or maybe shave 10% from the fuel consumption (ooh, 3.3miles per gallon instead of 3 miles per gallon. How exciting! That'll fill the grandstands!) The irony is that to do this sort of thing requires the teams to aero model the inlet, cylinder and exhaust tracts to ensure the most efficient use of the air entering and the exhaust leaving the engine. And they would spend millions doing it for a few tenths of a percent improvement. No different to bodywork aero really.
I'd also be happy for the KERS system to be "free use" so that the car's ECU could deploy the energy out of every corner if the team so wished. We'd lose it as a race strategy differentiator though so the racing would be reduced but it would still mean the teams spending money on something other than the dreaded aero. Bttery technology might be moved forward a little but, in reality, the laws of nature are the restricting issue there, not the amount the teams spend. There is only so much energy you can get battery chemicals to take and give. That's why petrol is so good!!
And no, tyres alone could not make the cars go around corners at 4g or stop at 5g peak. That requires, um, downforce.
So, in summary, if you said to the teams "you are free to spend what you want where you want but you only get 100 litres of fuel for the race" do you think they would stop spending on aero and spend it all on engines? No way. They'd spend a lot of time and money developing a car that had high downforce but lowish drag in the corners and little if any of either on the straights and they'd save buckets full of fuel in the process. And the cars would be faster than they are today. And then they'd spend money on getting the engine to pick up whatever was left between the 100 litre limit and whatever the car was still using.
F1 cars use lots of fuel because they are draggy because they have to drag big wings down the straights. Let them dump that drag on the straights and you'd save way more fuel than you could ever save by working on engine efficiency alone.
I'd like to see hub mounted generator/motor units on each wheel linked to batteries/flywheels/whatever too, but I don't think the team would or should spend their budgets on making the next MGU 10 grams lighter. Which is what happens when a technology matures. Oh, and most of them would probably just buy off-the-shelf units anyway...
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see F1 develop interesting oily bits but it must not be at the expense of the spectacle because if F1 stops being brash, noisy, glamorous and above all fast around circuits, then it will die.
F1's USP is the blend of acceleration, cornering and braking that nothing else can compete with. That requires aerodynamic downforce; take that away and you lose F1. Be careful what you wish for...