Why a 4-Time F1 World Champ Says Motion Racing Simulators Suck

I understand exactly why; I am the co-founder of a motion simulation technology company – SimCraft.

Max Verstappen, a four-time Formula 1 world champion and one of the most dominant drivers of this era, recently stated that motion is not needed in racing simulation. OK, so he didn’t say motion racing simulators “suck”, but he did say they were “slow” and he dismissed the sense of “feel”, one third of the available human senses to activate in a sim as not that important.  Given his impressive credentials, his opinion as a professional racing driver carries weight—but such a summary conclusion deserves more examination.

Max’s experience with motion simulators is limited to those he has driven and what he believes is accessible to the general public. While forming an opinion based on personal experience is understandable, it’s critically important to recognize that not all motion simulators are created equal – in fact, most motion racing simulators are inaccurate! The reality is, all real-life cars move according to the same laws of physics, yet nearly every motion simulator today, from consumer-grade to multi-million-dollar systems, fails to replicate that motion correctly.

So, what does it mean to replicate motion correctly?

Before the racing world takes Max’s statement as definitive, we need to examine the reality of vehicle motion and more importantly define:

What is the objective of motion in a simulator?

The answer isn’t simply to “move around” and call it a motion simulator. Reasonably speaking, motion is only valuable if it helps a driver believe the simulation. The key to believing the simulation lies in understanding how the cockpit should move.

How should motion racing cockpits move?

There are many ways you can move a racing cockpit.  Most motion simulators you see rely on brute force lifting, where multiple actuators push the entire cockpit from the ground up, generally from the 4 corners of the assembly.  This could be as simple as the DBOX or SFX systems, or as complex as a Stewart platform. This brute force method introduces critical latency with mechanical dependence between degrees of freedom—meaning all of the directions the system claims to be able to move, such as roll, pitch, and heave, are incorrectly linked to one another rather than behaving independently as they do in a real car.  This type of simplified approach uses “synchronized” motion cues, where actuators attempt to move in unison to create a sensation of motion. However, that is not how cars actually move.  Any system with artificially linked degrees of freedom creates a confusion of motion, something the brain keenly identifies as incorrect and even fatiguing – according to Dr. David Ferguson.  A driver in a brute force type of motion system is more likely to feel uncoordinated, or simply wear out and start lapping slower within minutes.  Approaching the hour mark, they simply want out of the simulator. The cognitive load of interpreting inauthentic cues can wear out even the most accomplished champions.  But don’t take my word for it, listen to 12-time champ Scott Pruett discuss his own insights on driver development and the essentials of an accurate racing simulator.

The science of driver development in motion simulation has been studied by Dr. David Ferguson, PHD FACSM CEP.  Dr. Ferguson is an Associate Professor of Kinesiology at Michigan State University, where he leads the Spartan Motorsport Performance Laboratory. With over 15 years of research experience in professional auto racing, Dr. Ferguson focuses on enhancing driver performance and safety. Not only has Dr. Ferguson collaborated with SimCraft, he has collaborated with top teams in NASCAR, IndyCar, Formula 1, and IMSA, contributing to multiple championship victories. He is also the author and editor of “The Science of Motorsport,” a comprehensive book on motorsport human performance.

What is one of the biggest flaws in most motion racing simulators?

Monitors that don’t move with the cockpit! One of the most glaring flaws in almost all motion racing simulators is stationary monitors.  The cockpit moves, but the screens remain fixed. This creates a fundamental disconnect between what the body feels and what the eyes see. In real life, when a car moves, the driver’s perspective shifts with it.  The brain naturally expects the visuals to move with the cockpit—and when they don’t, the entire experience becomes unnatural and misleading.

Why should I care about monitors that move with the cockpit?

Let’s take an example that F1 Champion Max Verstappen knows well: Eau Rouge at Spa-Francorchamps.

As an F1 car climbs the steep uphill section of Eau Rouge, the car pitches upward and experiences sudden upward momentum, and the driver’s perspective of the track remains steady. In real life, Max doesn’t need to tilt his head or move his eyes to compensate—his view remains natural because his cockpit, his seat, and his visual reference move as a single unit.

Now, imagine a motion sim racing cockpit where it pitches and heaves up, but the screen stays stationary. Suddenly, the driver must physically adjust their head and eyes just to keep their viewpoint aligned with the track. This is not what actually happens in a real car. Instead of creating immersion, this disconnected movement breaks the sense of realism, forcing the driver to compensate for a motion cue without the correct corresponding visual cue.

This is the reality of the motion racing simulators Max has experienced—they don’t move the way cars move and this is a huge disconnect for a real racing driver. Instead of reinforcing the connection between driver, car, and track, they introduce distractions that force the driver to override natural instincts.  Not only do most of these “brute force” simulators introduce mechanical latency, they introduce cognitive latency!

The Problem With “Motion”

The problem with “motion” is that the word itself is too vague. Any cockpit that moves qualifies as a “motion simulator,” but that label says nothing about how it moves or whether it moves in a way that contributes to believing the simulation.

Most people—including Max Verstappen—don’t consider the differences in motion execution from one simulator to the next. It’s understandable that most people don’t have the time or the interest to understand how motion should work, but I have. I have studied, innovated, and refined advanced motion systems for over twenty years.  There is only one way all vehicles move because there’s only one set of physical laws governing motion on Earth. These laws have been well understood since the 18th century.

So, what is the goal? Believable motion simulation!

You would think someone long ago would have figured out that the cockpit should move like the vehicle it is simulating. Yet somehow, my late father and I were the first to apply this principle to simulator motion in a way that truly aligns with physics—NASA’s orbital trainer in the early 1960’s being the rare exception.  This is indeed no secret, or perhaps an open secret published in the 18th century?

So how does a car actually move? Rigid Body Dynamics

Rigid Body Dynamics is the study of the motion of solid bodies that do not deform under the influence of forces and torques. In this context, a rigid body is an object that maintains a fixed shape—meaning the distance between any two points within the body remains constant, regardless of applied forces or torques.  Cars and planes are examples of rigid bodies.

In motion simulation, rigid body dynamics is the key that unlocks believability because it dictates how an object must move when subjected to external forces. It ensures that motion is physically accurate and follows the same principles that govern real-world movement.

By applying rigid body dynamics principles to motion simulation, you can ensure that the cockpits movement mirrors real vehicle behavior. This approach is fundamental to creating realism—something that motion simulators fail to do…except SimCraft.

How Should a Cockpit Move?

If rigid body dynamics define how vehicles move, then any simulator attempting to replicate vehicle motion should be believable if it follows the same rules.

The Core Principle

All solid bodies (including race cars) rotate and translate on independent degrees of freedom that intersect at their center of mass.

Therefore, in a center of mass motion simulator:

✔ The cockpit itself must be treated as the rigid body.

✔ The cockpit must rotate and translate at its own center of mass, just like a real car does.

✔ The cockpit must have independent degrees of freedom, meaning roll, pitch, and yaw must not be mechanically linked and must be individually controlled.

✔ The visuals must move with every motion cue, ensuring what the driver sees matches what they feel.

If a motion system fails at any of these, it is not replicating real vehicle motion and therefore will not lead to a believable simulation. It is simply moving for the sake of moving, and should be regarded as nothing more than an arcade experience.

What is the Most Important Degree of Freedom in Sim Racing?

Yaw! If there is one motion cue that is absolutely essential for connecting a driver to a car, it’s YAW—the rotational motion that determines how a vehicle turns, slides, and rotates around its vertical axis.

Yet, shockingly few motion simulators include yaw at all. The majority of motion systems in sim racing today—ranging from consumer-grade four post brute force DBOX/SFX setups to multi-million-dollar professional simulators—fail to provide independent yaw movement which is THE motion cue for a driver to feel what the car is doing beneath them.

Yaw is the defining motion of vehicle dynamics in racing. It is how a car rotates in response to driver inputs, weight transfer, and grip levels. Without yaw, a simulator is fundamentally broken.

Consider these fundamental real-world driving situations:

• Oversteer – When the rear tires lose grip, the car rotates beyond the intended path. A driver feels this immediately through yaw. Without yaw, this must be interpreted visually, creating a delay in reaction time.
• Understeer – When the front tires lose grip, the car refuses to rotate as intended. Again, a driver senses this through (a lack of) yaw before visuals confirm it.

When yaw is missing, a driver has no way to feel these critical dynamics such as the attitude of the car. Instead, they are left to rely on delayed visual cues, which does not contribute to a believable simulation because real drivers use feel more than sight!

The result? A generation of drivers either use arcade-like motion simulators that don’t move like real cars—or assume that motion is unnecessary in driver development because the motion they’ve experienced has done a poor job of meeting the goal of believability.  The first group develops bad habits with false cues, and the second is left to train without the very thing they need to develop-FEEL.

If a motion simulator lacks yaw, it is failing at the most essential function of motion simulation—helping the driver connect with the car.

An Open Invitation to Max

SimCraft is the only simulator built by a constructor that adheres to the laws of rigid body dynamics.  Using believability as our benchmark, aligning cockpit and monitor movements with real car dynamics creates a truly believable simulation.

If the only motion systems I had ever driven weren’t believable, I would dismiss motion as un-useful to a racing simulation as Max has.  So let me extend an invitation.

Miami GP’s exclusive Precision Drive Club has two full motion SimCraft APEX 6 GT racing simulators on-site.  I would relish the opportunity for Max to visit the club or our headquarters outside Atlanta, GA, and experience a racing simulator that satisfies all of the requirements to be believable.

---