My guess is Renault like they did for the Ferrari wing last year. However from what I remember the Ferrari flexi-wing was much less obvious, this one is ridiculously obvious so perhaps a lot more teams will have a problem with it.
I don't think a flexible wing is a good thing: I think it would introduce unpredictability into it. With a stiff wing, you always know how it's going to handle, with a flexible one, how do you predict its' reaction in traffic, turbulence, heavy air, light air, etc. ?
Speed tv was just showing it again in quali and they seem to think its ilegal. The thing is that Ferrari without such a wing still took pole from Alonso on his favourite track. If the wing is ilegal then the Macs are in real trouble when they remove it. If it is deemed legal then Ferrari may adapt it to their nose seeing as they have lots of understeer. Either way the Macs are in trouble.
Perhaps it will conveniently be someone that just happens to receive Ferrari engines (Wink, Wink) , since they have nothing to lose.
I kinda think that Ron Dennis has this figured out. I would bet that the flex in this case does have some sort of positive effect, otherwise it would not be there.
I have not analyzed the wing or its location, but it could be little things such as straighten flow to the rear wing in the straights and during braking when the wing may sag, it directs slightly more air to the radiators, brake ducts, driver, etc... Remember they are not gaining seconds, but rather 10s, 100s or 1000s of seconds. In qualifying and over a race distance this may make a big difference. Like I said I have not really looked at it, just what I have been reading on fchat.
Same thing is happening as happened to Ferrari's flaps last year. Because the secondary wing is attached to the main wing end plates, when these move down because of aero loads on the main wing (this movement is tested for) they bring with them the secondary wing. Hard to tell if the secondary wing, because it's not restrained in the middle, also twists to reduce angle of attack at high speed. On last year's Ferrari, this resulted in a small gap opening up where the flap meets with nose. As one leading engineer said last year (don't remember who), the resulting gap was insignificant and "people who should know better are making a fuss about nothing". But nonetheless, the rule against "moveable aero devices" was used to force them to make changes. What has always puzzled me was why nobody complained about the secondary flaps on the Renault, which very obviously (when seen on the on-board) flattened out at speed - a much more serious transgression of the spirit of the rules. I guess, if anything, the FIA may (should) ask McLaren to add a vertical support between nose and secondary wing, like a slot gap separator on the rear wing. This should also ensure that the wing does not twist.
To think that they wouldn't know exactly what the wing will do is a bit absurd. Teams spend millions of dollars on wind tunnels and testing and computer simulations, so I'm sure they know exactly how much the wing will flex and the affects it will have on the car depending on the conditions.
Normally I'd be on your side for the spoiler argument, but I think you have to make a little bit of effort and stay out of the racing section all together until you watch it.
So now that the race is over... what's going to happen. Hard to imagine there won't be a protest. My prediction... McLaren is forced to put a center brace or completely redesign the "bridge wing". But they won't lose the points. Thoughts...
Agreed, I doubt they'll lose the points, but I'm sure they're going to have to change it just as Ferrari had to last season.
That is DEFINITELY illegal. I would think that FIA is all over this, and they should ban this A.S.A.P. Also, I would love to see McLaren lose the points.
I keep thinking that MMB must've known about the flex when they where testing it in the wind tunel. It must of been very obvious to them at that time. So they must have found one hell of a loop hole in the regulations. I mean who would risk getting DQ in your #1's home race?
We are talking small amounts of deflection, but these were the same small amounts Ferrari were being crucified for last year. In a classic example of "my **** doesn't stink" and with typically condescending pseudo-technical Ron-speak, it's really funny to read Dennis trying to justify that his flexible wing is not illegal because it only moves a small amount: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58771
I think we need to go back to 1980-82 rules, full ground effects, air tunnels, sliding skirts, huge rear wings....
Looking at the pics on Speed durring the race it appears the differance in height is actually an optical illusion caused by the off-center mounting of the camera. Any rule that states "No flexing" is unrealistic as all surfaces move. Better yet a set of tolerances should be more realistic.
