Suggestions needed in my tricky PhD situation I am a PhD student and I hate my supervisors. they are bossy, do not allow me to explore my ideas because they have their own agenda and vision. Force me to publish in mediocre conference. Force me to cite all their friends and other students even if their work is irrelevant. They do research to further their academic careers rather than the love for science. 

I have followed them and have finished 2/3 of my PhD life successfully. They have given me good feedback in recent yearly reports.

But I suddenly realise that this is not for what I started my PhD. I started my PhD to learn and explore Science. Gave up a top position in a company as a scientist to educate myself more and see myself stuck doing nonsense. 

Now I am considering leaving my supervisors and alter my direction of study with someone else. Which implies I might have to work doubly harder and spend more time and probably eat up all my savings. 

Should I live the hateful life and just get done with my PhD or should I take a bold step and do what I am passionate about. I have no interest in academia. I want to work in industry. I have come here to learn.
I'm addressing your particular goal of "I wish to change the direction slightly and explore more relevant techniques to solve the same problem I am dealing with".

One particular suggestion is to use a kind of "red herring" strategy: Work on two directions in parallel. The one direction is the boring/phony stuff that your supervisors want you to do, and that you will mainly discuss in meetings, thus giving them the impression that you buy into their game. The other direction is the direction you actually want to follow. The time to first mention this direction is when you have made some substantial results - you may then calmly announce that you plan to submit them to a specific conference.