2026 car comparisons

[AR3-GP]

In this point of view, it seems obvious that Alpine is on to something. I think that 1 of 2 effects could be going on here.

(1) lowering the flaps could stall the mainplane.
(2) Lowering the flaps directly into the wake of the mainplane could cause a greater drag reduction effect than raising the flaps up into clean air at the same angle of attack.

I anticipate that most teams will transition to this approach during the season.

[vorticism]

Good point, makes sense. Lowering it obstructs the path of air beneath the main plane.

[AR3-GP]

I've been thinking about why Red Bull has no curvature on their mainplane. Maybe they want to keep the element close to the ground. Red Bull also has a very shallow upper control arm, and presumably not as much anti-dive as the others. Is it possible that the purpose of this concept is to lower the front wing and forward floor and gain more front end under braking? It would promote more rake in the brake zones.

[lh13]

In this point of view, it seems obvious that Alpine is on to something. I think that 1 of 2 effects could be going on here.

(1) lowering the flaps could stall the mainplane.
(2) Lowering the flaps directly into the wake of the mainplane could cause a greater drag reduction effect than raising the flaps up into clean air at the same angle of attack.

I anticipate that most teams will transition to this approach during the season.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HAF4gQjWoAA ... name=large

Was this not possible with the previous DRS regulations?

[AR3-GP]

In this point of view, it seems obvious that Alpine is on to something. I think that 1 of 2 effects could be going on here.

(1) lowering the flaps could stall the mainplane.
(2) Lowering the flaps directly into the wake of the mainplane could cause a greater drag reduction effect than raising the flaps up into clean air at the same angle of attack.

I anticipate that most teams will transition to this approach during the season.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HAF4gQjWoAA ... name=large

Was this not possible with the previous DRS regulations?

It was not previously possible due to Article 3.10.10b of the previous regulations:

The axis of rotation of the RW Flap must be fixed and located no more than 20mm
below the upper extremity and no more than 20mm forward of the rear extremity of
RV-RW-PROFILES at all times.

Axis of rotation had to be inside of a 20x20mm rectangular section set at the trailing edge of the rearmost flap.

[AR3-GP]

edit: wrong.

[AR3-GP]

Audi's wing gives an extreme case of this "loophole". The rear flap is almost inverted in the open position. I believe what Audi is doing here is using the rear flap to create downwash when the wing is open. The downwash fills in the wake at the back of the car. So they would not only reduce the drag of the wing, but also reduce the chassis drag when the wing is open. Very clever.

[JonoNic]

Audi's wing gives an extreme case of this "loophole". The rear flap is almost inverted in the open position. I believe what Audi is doing here is using the rear flap to create downwash when the wing is open. The downwash fills in the wake at the back of the car. So they would not only reduce the drag of the wing, but also reduce the chassis drag when the wing is open. Very clever.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HAExWfbXgAA ... name=large

So, would this not affect the car following the Audi as well? The following car will no longer benefit as much from the hole punched by the Audi in front of it.

[AR3-GP]

James Allison says that the drag is virtually unchanged when the front flaps drop down. According to him, the active front flap is primarily used to maintain the aero balance when the rear wing opens. If this applies to all teams, then the differences in mobile flap choice could reflect the amount of balance shift that is required when the rear wing opens. However the caveat is applying this conclusion of Mercedes to cars with different aero philosophy.

[GrizzleBoy]

Probably moves COP to the floor leading edge/T tray area.

We also saw on the RB slow motion in the wet shots that the front suspension unloads and the front pops up a bit.

But that should weaken the floor/diffusers suction power as air can access the underside of the diffuser easier and lessens drag. Unless hes saying the effect is negligible.

If that's the case, im not sure what the front aero is really for as it will only be in use on straights

[AR3-GP]

If that's the case, im not sure what the front aero is really for as it will only be in use on straights

Yes the strange thing is that in damp conditions they have the ability to permit partial straight line mode. Only front flap would go down. What would be the purpose in the case of Mercedes if the front flap is not reducing any drag?

I think it might be a car-concept specific detail.

[Emag]

If that's the case, im not sure what the front aero is really for as it will only be in use on straights

Yes the strange thing is that in damp conditions they have the ability to permit partial straight line mode. Only front flap would go down. What would be the purpose in the case of Mercedes if the front flap is not reducing any drag?

I think it might be a car-concept specific detail.

I think this could be in relation to that wake analysis b sport did on RedBull with the wet track.

It seems like the teams which have a loaded outboard section use the upwash for wake management. When that goes away, the wake goes further in potentially stalling part of the rear wing.
Mercedes (and Aston actually) don’t have front wings that generate as much upwash as the rest. McLaren for example is in the completely opposite extreme.

[karana]

I suspect that Audi and Alpine are also working around the more restrictive slot gap test for 2026. Slot gap can't exceed 65mm. It was 85mm last year.

https://i.postimg.cc/mDjVPFMF/image.png

If the wing rotation axis is at the rear, then the amount that you can back off the flaps is constrained by the 65mm slot gap limit. When the rotation axis is relocated to the front (Alpine) or middle (Audi), then you can reduce the angle of attack by a greater amount because the slot gap size has a weak dependence on the angle of attack.

https://i.postimg.cc/nhn4DLFB/image.png

There is no slot gap test in 2026 anymore. The article you posted is from an older version of the regulations.

[AR3-GP]

I suspect that Audi and Alpine are also working around the more restrictive slot gap test for 2026. Slot gap can't exceed 65mm. It was 85mm last year.

https://i.postimg.cc/mDjVPFMF/image.png

If the wing rotation axis is at the rear, then the amount that you can back off the flaps is constrained by the 65mm slot gap limit. When the rotation axis is relocated to the front (Alpine) or middle (Audi), then you can reduce the angle of attack by a greater amount because the slot gap size has a weak dependence on the angle of attack.

https://i.postimg.cc/nhn4DLFB/image.png

There is no slot gap test in 2026 anymore. The article you posted is from an older version of the regulations.

Right thank you. I didn't notice that I was looking at a late 2024 issue. However, the rear flap cannot lie outside of the rear wing volume, so the rear rotation axis teams are still limited by the top of the regulation box and the presence of the DRS pod itself. Alpine and Audi are less constrained by it.

[SiLo]

I suspect that Audi and Alpine are also working around the more restrictive slot gap test for 2026. Slot gap can't exceed 65mm. It was 85mm last year.

https://i.postimg.cc/mDjVPFMF/image.png

If the wing rotation axis is at the rear, then the amount that you can back off the flaps is constrained by the 65mm slot gap limit. When the rotation axis is relocated to the front (Alpine) or middle (Audi), then you can reduce the angle of attack by a greater amount because the slot gap size has a weak dependence on the angle of attack.

https://i.postimg.cc/nhn4DLFB/image.png

There is no slot gap test in 2026 anymore. The article you posted is from an older version of the regulations.

Right thank you. I didn't notice that I was looking at a late 2024 issue. However, the rear flap cannot lie outside of the rear wing volume, so the rear rotation axis teams are still limited by the top of the regulation box and the presence of the DRS pod itself. Alpine and Audi are less constrained by it.

https://i.postimg.cc/HkX7Nfpm/image.png

Seems like the Alpine solution should net greater drag reduction, as the upper planes are then sitting in the wake of the main plane, likely keeping flow attached in that region for longer too, it might spill off that type of layout nicely.