Andi76 wrote: ↑10 Feb 2026, 20:27
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.
