Have a look at this!!!
The rear wing has about 10 degrees of ‘lean’ on it!!! There is precious little anything being generated here! 
, let alone DOWNFORCE!!! 
I am mulling over fitting the 2010 rear wing… at least it bolts solidly at its edges to the clam compared with the centrally mounted version bolted onto the flexible engine cover!!!
Thoughts…
[quote=pete757]Have a look at this!!!
Thoughts… [/quote]
Missing the apex. 
Slightly hijacking your thread Pete, but just to let you know the zorst I bought off you sounds fantastic! I’m sure it’s louder than the one I had on my last Exige. It must have been a stage 1 or 2 on my last car.
Cheers
Dan
[quote=Mr Pesky][quote=pete757]Have a look at this!!!
Thoughts… [/quote]
Missing the apex. [/quote]
TOSSER!!!
It’s a LATE Apex…
(Next year!)
Having had booth cars ('06 and now '10) I can defo say that the newer rear wing setup doesn’t flex. I did some laps at the 'ring with my mate following in his 911 with a dash mounted camera and after watching the footage the rear doesn’t show any movement - then again in most of the footage I’m pulling away from him so it’s hard to see 
I have also commented before that the new styling defo makes the car feel more planted at speed.
But have you ever looked out of the cockpit of a sailplane whilst pulling 4G in a loop ???
The amount of flex is unbelievable !!
I,d say that as your Exige wing is flexing it,s doing a fine job…
If it did,nt provide much aero then it would,nt be able to flex !!
The middle wobbles, unless it’s a 260 I think. I say this but having wobbled one last year at Autosport I’m taking as I find.
Can’t see how the pre 2010 wing produces much downforce at all, given how it’s fixed to the car (even those with beefed up mountings)! It does flex, but for what practical purpose? In fact, it’s a bit of a joke, apart from its pleasing aesthetic value, whereas the 2010 scores in every respect imho.
Having ‘prodded’ the carbon 2010 wing, it does not flex in the middle, wheras the ‘standard’ Glass Fibre one does a bit. As JFK says. nothing wrong with that… my B757 wings flex about 10 feet!
Think I prefer the styling of the 2010 wing too.
Decision made! I’ll fit it and nail the bloody apex next time!
Glad you like it Dan!!! You got a bargain there!
IF I was not into track days, I would have deffo kept it… agreed the sound is FANTASIC! Hope you are getting pops and bangs too!
Having said that, my 2ubular is nice too… quiet but nice! 
Much prefer the 2010 spoiler
http://www.exiges.com/ubbz/ubbz/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=138263&page=10
Although it appears rigid, the blade does flex a lot though when travelling 60mph+
My carbon one doesn’t flex much at all (AFAIK) and neither does the wing !!! 
Not sure how much Lotus charge but I am sure somebody can produce an acceptable replacement - maybe Reverie ?
Based on the amount of 2010 cars and wings that are doing the rounds would be worth someone pursuing ?
That photo just looks like Pete’s buggering around with his rudder and flaps again. I thought I saw he had some extra pedals in that car.
I’ve never understood some people’s sniffy dismissal of the s2’s wing flexing, or the fact that it’s not mounted to the body/chassis. This makes bugger all difference to it’s ability to generate downforce.
I dont know if the wing actually does anything worthwhile, but I at least appreciate that you can’t judge aerodynamic parts in isolation. The average splitter would do naff all on it’s own, but bolted to a car, it changes the airflow around the vehicle, working as part of the overall package. Just look at all the little flaps, barge boards etc that F1 cars use. For that matter, look at the controversy around flexing wings in F1; it can even be a benefit in some cases!
I wonder how many bags of sugar placed on each end of our exige rear wings would make them bend that much? 2-3, far from cfd but I think we can safely assume it does generate some downforce.
I would be interested if anyone has any cad data for the 2010 rear wing for some cfd vs the old wing, I have the full exige data with the old wing so could get the ball rolling.
Spot on Brendan …
Aerodynamics are still in their enfancy.
Largely done by nothing more than trial and error.
Even Dr.Adrian Thomas who is a leader in the field at Oxford university still gets amazed by test results …
And apparently it,s still technically impossible for a bumble bee to fly !!!
Seriously …
Just for info … Lotus were designing and manufacturing parts for a world record breaking aircraft some 20 years ago …
I know because I,ve owned two of em !
I think you guys are in denial. The wing itself may well be effective, but what happens to the bulk of the energy it produces - it isn’t transmitted downwards to the chassis!
PS I reckon Mr Newey knows a thing or two about car aero
Just to clarify guys… Have a closer look at the photo… it is not the wing that is flexing, it is the way it is mounted to the car that has me mulling things over … !
Look carefully at the large ‘gap’ on the RHS of the engine cover compared with the narrow ‘gap’ on the LHS. THe entire engine cover has been twisted, either as a result of aerodynamic downforce from the wing, or even by the weight of the wing and the ‘centrepetal’ cornering force!!!
Flex in the wing itself is indeed not a problem… but for the lift (downforce) to have any meaningful effect it needs to be transferring this directly to the chassis. (ie: aircraft wings indeed flex a lot but (I hope!!!) they are securely bonded to the structure of the aircraft with no movement between that interface!. The problem here seems to me that this is not the case with the way the rear wing is structurally mounted as any downforce created is being lost as it twists the ‘lightweight’ engine cover. This also has rubber bushes on the stop ends that would further absorb, rather than transfer downforce.
Hence the change that Lotus have made to the MY 2010 wing… it is directly mounted to the clam (as per the S1 Exige etc) and as such the downforce is actually loading up (but only 40 lbs!!!) the rear of the chassis. Just seems an all together more logical set-up to me!
Also having a look at the end-plate design… yes they seem a bit ‘clunky’ compared with the post designs BUT, they are flat end-plates (have a look at the end- plate fences design on F1 cars that completly enclose and channel air to the rear wing from about 2 feet forward of it!!!), that that are angled inwards towards the rear of the car. From an aerodynamic point of view would seem to be a good thing as this would channel the relative airflow inwards, increasing it’s velocity and therefore further reducing the static pressure under the wing. This again would increase the (lift) downforce. So that bit of the design also looks logical to me!
Back to my cup of tea!!!
Exactly, Pete, just what I was trying (rather ineptly) to say