The original Mass Damper's employed in 05/06 were rumored to give a lap time advantage of around 3 tenths but 8 years on and re-designed who can guess what it would be worth? (Last time around we were in the middle of a tyre war with the Michelin runners gleaning a larger advantage than their Bridgestone counterparts)
I therefore propose that in the case of Red Bull the Stay acts like the spring in the Mass Damper whilst the Splitter is the weight required to make the spring act. How about the Splitter's deflection test? I hear you say. Well the stay in itself is rigid and impervious to the 2000NM or 200KG's of force placed upon it on the rig and must not deflect more than 5mm. What you will see in the following video though is that the stay whilst in motion however is resonating at a frequency that allows it to move beyond that 5mm. (Be warned you may have to watch the video several times to see the Stay buckling, also pay close attention to the fact that the stay buckles even though the plank/splitter doesn't impact with the track. Moreover it seems to deflect in opposition to the tyre oscillation)
As always I have tried to be as expansive as I can with the resources available to me. Perhaps if I had access to some of the footage used by the likes of the BBC/Sky I could make an even more compelling case. I await your call guys.... and as always I invite your comments.
EDIT 08/11/13 - 16.37pm
After the piece being live for several hours now I have the following bits to add that may also aid in any questions:
@Germyl barring Hungary Vettel has won 8 of the last 9 races, a coincidence?
EDIT: 09/11/13 10.00am
Those who have asked me why Red Bull would entertain doing such a thing when teams already utilise a legal form of this in the case of J-Dampers/Inerters:
You would be quite correct in your assessment that teams have since the banning of Mass Dampers utilized a legal version which allows Mass Damping in the form of J-Dampers/Inerters. On this basis I'd conclude that although these do a job of damping the deflection/oscillation of the tyres, can it be improved? We have all seen from slow motion replays of cars riding the kerbs just how much deflection/oscillation the tyre under goes. Perhaps Red Bull felt they could make gains with additional damping and thus this method was born.
EDIT: 09/11/13 17.44PM
After further analysis of the footage from Hungary both drivers (Seb & Mark) had broken stays at that GP for the race. Mark's stay actually broke much earlier in the race resulting in the upper surface of the Splitter dissipating most of the black paint by the end of the race, through heat being transferred from the skids below. Perhaps this is what led to the FIA placing the thermal camera on the RB9 in subsequent races.... (I have also checked the post race technical report of which post race checks were only made to cars 5 and 16 which include the Skid Block thickness. This means even with broken Stays and more than likely at least in the case of Webber beyond the 1mm wear rate the cars were deemed legal)
Additional photo's based on the comments below:
During Mark Webber's pitstop at the Circuit of America's I noted that the Stay showed the pre buckle from the onboard footage as the car was dropped off the jacks the stay flexed/deformed further
Mark Webber's pit stop in full, including some scenes showing the wheels that are and aren't painted with Polysil
Splitter Stay watch in Brazil turned up a little more video footage where we see at the end of the images below the stay is at full length and diagonally reaching to the front left of the car. We must remember that the car was setup with wet weather in mind for Interlagos too and so perhaps the team had to make amendments to length and droop of the stay (Inters have a 10mm additional radius than the dry tyre, raising the ride height)