Alpine A526

[F1NAC]

I also just read that the rear wing folds down instead of opening

That's innovative if true.

There is a video from F1 official channel where they introduce new regulations for this season. In it they use a rear wing that also folds down. So I guess it’s not that big of discovery.

[michl420]

I also just read that the rear wing folds down instead of opening

That's innovative if true.

C3.11.6 b.
Adjustment of RW Flap is about a fixed axis of rotation, which must be aligned with the Y-Axis.
Furthermore, in Corner Mode, the axis of rotation must:
i. lie within RV-RW-PROFILES.
ii. at Y = 50, lie between the rearmost point and the mid-point of RW Flap, measured in the
X-direction.
iii. between Y = 50 and Y = 530, when viewed from below, be fully obscured by RW Flap.

[De Wet]

[AR3-GP]

[organic]

https://i.postimg.cc/nhWG81wP/image.png

What's going on in the bargeboard area?

[Theeoo]

https://i.postimg.cc/nhWG81wP/image.png

What's going on in the bargeboard area?

indeed very complicated bargeboard design !

but I'm a bit surprised that Alpine has published such a detailed photo of the car

[chlebekf1]

https://i.postimg.cc/nhWG81wP/image.png

What's going on in the bargeboard area?

indeed very complicated bargeboard design !

but I'm a bit surprised that Alpine has published such a detailed photo of the car

rivals have more detailed photos after testing, so don't worry

[AR3-GP]

[Andi76]

I found this simulation on Alpine innovation and this interesting analysis.

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 thar 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.

[Stu]

https://postimg.cc/gx01BZBD

I found this simulation on Alpine innovation and this interesting analysis.

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 thar 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.

Did you see it on LinkedIn? The author gave a great response to my question regarding how the chord length of multiple planes affects the results.

[wiktor977]

RW actuator

[wiktor977]

Cooling gills on top of the sidepods, it doesn't look like an ideal place to disrupt the airflow

[roadie]

Really looks like very pronounced upwash from the bargeboards.

[Gridlock]

Alpine's approach appears to prioritize:

• Improved rear stability when DRS is closed late

Can we call it the Doohan Wing then

[michl420]

It is misleading to say the flaps of the rear wing go down. The pivot point must be in the rear half of the 2 flaps and now with better pictures it is clearly to see to.