SLC wrote:
Just to agree with your point Diesel, if they manufactured the leg as a single piece of carbon then the whole member *would* be considered structural... and the geometry would not be considered to be bodywork.
There is no rule that says you can't "over engineer" something per se. What you are not allowed are redundant suspension legs, and in engineering terms what this means is effectively each suspension arm can have a maximum of two legs. As long as those two legs conform to the other regs for suspension members, you're fine.
No, that's not how it works, there's no such thing as over-engineering as an excuse, structural or not, it's always up to interpretation.
I can't find the quote (Whiting) but the gist of it from memory was that parts of the car had their purpose described in the rules (here McLaren's suspension) anything that goes beyond that ("unnecessarily") for other, aero purposes is illegal, even if it's still part of suspension. In Lotus' case it was hydraulic cylinder, the movement itself was integral part of primary suspension function and device itself was passive (like ducts systems?).
