#f1 #formula1 #aerodynamics #cfd #les #motorsportengineering | Dominik Balasko

Alpine’s Radical DRS Philosophy: Innovation or Compromise? Most teams use DRS to maximize separation or strongly compromise mainplane flow. Alpine appears to use it to manage aerodynamic transitions. I ran a transient LES comparison on a simplified 2-element rear wing: • NACA 4415 mainplane • S1223 flap • WMLES (WALE), identical mesh and motion law Two concepts: • Conventional DRS: rear-hinged flap, opening upward to significantly weaken the mainplane loading • Alpine-style DRS: front-hinged flap, rotating downward while remaining aerodynamically coupled What the simulations show: Drag ➡️ Overall drag reduction is only slightly higher for the conventional concept ➡️ No significant difference between the two Lift (key difference) • Conventional DRS shows lower lift during closing than during opening • Alpine-style DRS shows the opposite behavior ➡️ Higher lift during DRS closing than opening This lift hysteresis is driven by how the flap moves relative to the flow. Closing into the oncoming flow promotes faster pressure recovery and a cleaner force rebuild. Why this matters: Alpine’s approach appears to prioritize: • Reduced aerodynamic hysteresis • Cleaner transient behavior • Improved rear stability when DRS is closed late Rather than chasing maximum separation, it manages attachment and force recovery. The LES velocity-field comparison highlights the transient flow structures behind this behavior. Lift and drag curves are pinned in the comments. Bold innovation — or a necessary compromise? #F1 #Formula1 #Aerodynamics #CFD #LES #MotorsportEngineering