[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by NYG

The quoted rules of Article 3.8 are not applicable to flexible wings. (Sorry if I'm repeating what someone else may have stated already - I didn't go through every page)

"Rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car" and "remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car" means:

1. Wing to Column connection point should not rotate or translate in any direction.
2. Wing Column should have enough axial stiffness to not shorten or elongate under load.
3. Wing Column to Car connection point should not rotate or translate in any direction relative to the car.

If the rules do not explicitly dictate minimum flexural stiffness requirements or maximum deflection requirements then there is no violation of Article 3.8. Red Bull engineers are just smarter than the FIA rule book.

Infinite stiffness is required for ZERO deformation - it can only be theoretically assumed but never applied realistically.

<- Structural Engineer

Read my post above with respect to clause 2.7. The rules are written in clear language and the test are used to CHECK compliance. The simple fact of a part passing a compliance test doesn't mean the car complies with the rules.

Flexible bodywork is illegal in Formula One. Moveable aerodynamic surfaces are illegal in Formula One.

If any of the above exist in bodywork on a car presented for the championship, then said car is highly likely, illegal or at least minimally non-compliant.