All true, but as I said earlier, F1 is declining to the NASCAR level of "creative rule intreperation" (ie cheating). The rules are clear and most teams were designing to meet the intent of the rules. A few teams found a loophole in the testing procedure and exploited it. I feel like the spectator is cheated when something like this happens, because we don't get to see a fair race or championship. As with the infamous Ferrari Floor, it cheapens the sport to have somebody win because they specifically did something that was found later to not be within the rules, and aren't penalized for it. Face it, the stakes are high and the reward for finding some way to circumvent the rules is huge, and there is little or no downside in getting caught, so the designers will do what they have to do to win. F1 hasn't had as much experience with this as NASCAR since the rules for F1 were less restrictive in the first place. Now that they have created more rules and are trying to limit downforce, expect that the designers will look for every area (both legal and illegal) to get more downforce and hence more speed.
When the 79 came out there was no rule against using the chassis as downforce it worked and the reward for the design innovaton was a championship for Lotus and Andretti, as it should have been. The 88 had the undertray mounted to the suspension and was never allowed to race since the ground effects were moving with the suspension and it violated the rules as written. Chapman was innovative but I don't know of any cases where he specifically cheated. If you win because you are innovative good for you. If you are circumventing the rules you are nothing but a cheater.
If you really think that "creative rule interpretation" is new to F1 you haven't been paying attention.
When I first heard about it, I simply considered it a "clever" approach to getting additional downforce on the front end. Then I reconsidered, and IMHO yes it is cheating. The rules clearly state that the wing isn't supposed to be mounted in a manner that would allow it to deflect like these wings do. Whether they meet the test or not, the wings are clearly mounted so that they can droop down and increase downforce. If you specifically look at the front wing rule or the rule on "moveable aerodynamic devices", these wings fail on either count. So my opinion is that they are't legal and never were. The test wasn't sufficient to prevent the designer from designing a wing that, while meeting the test clearly did not meet the rule. If the FIA thought this was within the rules why are they changing the test? The rule is the same, but the test will now be different to preclude the use of such a wing.
I've followed F1 for over 40 years. Cheating has been around since the second organized car race, where the guys who got beaten in the first race wanted to "get competitive". But to a certain extent I'd like to think that F1 was a bit better than NASCAR or TransAm. F1 has always held itself to be a more "honorable" sport, but that's long gone over the last 15 years. Go back 40 years and the rules were a lot more simple and easy to enforce. You could tear down the engine, weigh the car and catch the person cheating. Also, you didn't have to cheat, if you were smart you could go faster than the next guy. Now the knowledge is there and everybody has it, so if you want to go faster you have to find a way around the rules. It's just a different world now. Expect more of it too, the more restricted the rules, the bigger the competitive advantage you get from bending the them.
I used to think the No Body Movement rule was bad. Of course there is movement, there has to be, thus all teams are cheating. But your post make sense in that the Spirit of the rule allows for no flex. Then comes the practical tests and limits within these tests that define compliance. So the rule itself allows for the FIA to make adjustments and decisions based upon their discretion to "nudge" the competitiveness of cars.
I'm sure that's true too, once this became a big money sport, the incentive to bend the rules surely did increase.
