A few pages ago I asked for people's ideas the meaning of Charlie Whitings comment as reported in Autosport. I received an interpretation by Mr.G (which I didn't like much, although it may be true) and a comment by JT who said, "How Silly" (which I agree with).
So I would summarise the position on F1 Suspension design as follows:
The vehicle attitude (ride height & rake) can be tailored to match aerodynamic requirements by "shaping" front & rear spring & bump rubber characteristics. This is perfectly legal and has happened (with varying success) since the introduction of ground effect aerodynamics.
The result was suspension set-ups that were increasingly hard on tyres (particularly after "active" suspension was banned). This led to short tyre life and reduced "grip" though low/medium speed corners. This was the problem faced by Pirelli when the became sole supplier to F1. A problem that they have yet to master, apparently.
F1 engineers at some Teams discovered that they could contribute by changing the static ride height of the suspension as a function of speed more or less legally, which implied that the aero. requirements could be met with a less extreme spring stiffnesses. This made the tyres perform better, and improve life.
As with any innovation, the "inventor" had a head start, and competing teams frequently attempt to ban the invention (the fear factor), particularly since track testing is currently limited to race weekends. The excuse, in this case, was "it affected aerodynamics", which was translated to become Charlie Whiting's "silly" statement.
In my view, it should not be difficult to devise a set of rules that both regulators and competitors are content with - and stick with that (getting Charlie Whiting off the hook), reviewing them only occasionally. Innovations will happen and should be tolerated (all teams have grown up engineers to call upon). Incidentally, why do Mercedes require three pitot tubes?