How simulators reduce budget cap pressure and allow F1 teams to reinvest in engineers

In an era where on-track testing is increasingly limited, simulators have become a central tool in a Formula 1 team’s development strategy. Despite the high initial investment, they offer a way to ease the pressure of the budget cap, particularly now that maintenance is outsourced, freeing up resources to hire additional engineers in other critical areas.

The evolution of simulators in modern Formula 1

One of the most significant innovations in Formula 1 over the past twenty years has been the rise of simulators. Far more complex and technical than they may appear, these tools not only help prepare for race weekends but also play a key role in developing new cars. The challenge in simulator design is twofold: hardware and software.

Years ago, simulators were basic. They provided useful data but were limited by slow platforms and high latency. Today, however, the story is very different. Technology has leapt forward, aided by specialized companies like Dynisma, which have developed new methods to replicate motion and systems capable of delivering high-frequency variations with almost imperceptible latency.

Dynisma now supplies simulators to numerous Formula 1 teams, including Ferrari, as well as Formula 2, Formula 3, and Formula E teams. This underscores how essential simulators have become, not only for top-level motorsport but also for nurturing the next generation of racing talent. The evolution has been further enabled by new companies making advanced simulator technologies commercially accessible.

Hardware costs decrease thanks to commercial solutions

Regarding hardware, while it’s impossible to perfectly replicate G-forces, this isn’t a major drawback for teams, as such forces provide limited actionable data to drivers. Instead, targeted motion can recreate sensations that drivers actually experience on track, such as wheel lock-ups.

Simon Hollway, Commercial Director at Dynisma, explained that “the technology we offer is commercially available. In the past, a top Formula 1 team would build its own simulator in-house to achieve maximum performance, because no equivalent technology existed on the market. Today, teams can purchase our solutions directly, and we are at the forefront of this sector.”

Simon Hollway added that the motion platform is consistent across products, but clients’ choices depend on their budget, the system type, and sometimes the size of the facility where it will be installed. Customization then comes into play for elements such as the mock-up chassis. Many teams also prefer to use a real chassis to complete the simulator experience.

Software drives the real advantage

While hardware is essential, the real differentiator is now software. A reliable platform allows teams to focus on improving vehicle models, which ultimately determine the success of car development. On track, performance comparisons rely heavily on these models, and their accuracy significantly influences competitiveness. This was illustrated in a dedicated analysis of how 2026 cars were developed from scratch using simulators.

Simon Hollway explained that “this has shifted team focus to what they can achieve within the vehicle model: improving it, refining tire modeling, and everything necessary to create a true digital twin of the car, with a closer correlation to real-world behavior.”

One often overlooked aspect of modern simulators is cost efficiency. While on-track testing provides invaluable real-world data, it is extremely expensive, particularly if the frequency of testing is matched to simulator use by main and reserve drivers. Beyond fuel costs, hybrid-era regulations, safety permits, and logistics add further financial burden, which heavily impacts the budget cap.

Reinvesting savings into engineering talent

The significant advantage is that resources saved by using simulators can be reinvested in other engineers and development areas. Purchasing a simulator effectively provides teams with a dedicated technical team focused on software modeling and ongoing support. Consistent on-track testing would be valuable, but within the constraints of the budget cap, having a stable group of external specialists substantially reduces operating costs.

Simon Hollway noted, “There’s the matter of the circuits where clients want to run: we provide simulation, visualization software, and integrate the vehicle modeling software that the teams already prefer. We are fully agnostic regarding both visualization and vehicle modeling software, and our team integrates what the client already uses.”

For these types of investments, teams don’t have to use budget cap funds, as they would for physical track tests, but can access a separate section for upgrading facilities: the CapEx. This allows teams to enhance tools without directly impacting the cost cap. New regulatory changes also make it easier to amortize expenses over a longer period.

Simon Hollway highlighted, “The key point is that teams achieve huge reductions in costs associated with on-track use. There are also significant environmental benefits. Another crucial element is that by purchasing our technology commercially, teams no longer need to maintain a large internal simulator team.”

Previously, teams had to recruit personnel for both hardware and software maintenance, which had a substantial financial impact. Now, with simulator management handled by the supplier, these resources can be redirected to engineers who contribute directly to car development—an investment highly valued by teams. Hollway concluded, “We provide support: software updates, component availability, and ensure the system is always operational. Teams no longer need ten engineers just to run an in-house simulator—they can dedicate those resources to advancing car performance. It’s a significant saving within the budget cap and a real advantage for the future. While the initial investment is several million pounds, the returns are clear.”