Carlos Sainz Jnr has called on Formula 1 to ease its tight restrictions on track testing by limiting how much teams can use their simulators.
F1’s rules permit teams a single, three-day pre-season test session using their current cars. They are allowed to run older chassis under the Testing of Previous Cars (TPC) regulations, but this is also subject to mileage limits for the first time this year.Sainz, who has joined Williams from Ferrari this year, said his day-and-a-half’s running in the FW47 was insufficient.
“It feels weird that I got a day and a half and now I need to go racing,” he said. “It feels not enough, it feels very little. Ridiculously little, the amount of time that we get into our cars before going to a race.”
He said the limits on testing are particularly tough on F1’s rookies. Six drivers will start their first full seasons in Melbourne later this month.
“I’m just obviously wishing them all the best and understanding a bit their frustration with testing, because even though I’m obviously no rookie, that day-and-a-half of testing I think is frustrating for me too but I cannot imagine [how it is] for a rookie. I understand how difficult that makes things and how tricky the start of the season will be for some of these guys.
“If you could get that TPC car [running] also, that is relevant and that can still help a lot, but experience is experience and you only gain that on-track with a real car that you are going to drive that the year.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
While track testing is strictly limited, teams can run their simulators as much as they like, and often use them during grand prix weekends to conduct simultaneous tests using live track data. But Sainz, who became a director of the Grand Prix Drivers Association last month, believes simulators are less useful than real-world testing and teams should have the choice between how much of the two they can do.
“I think F1, if I’m honest, could do a bit of an effort in trying to do a better job in how we go testing,” he said. “You have a lot of teams spending infinite amounts of money in simulators, to have drivers flying to the UK from Monaco to go to the simulator, and I don’t understand why we get three days of testing when all that money could be invested into – I don’t know – eight days of testing.
“I’m not asking for too much. Eight, 10 days where every team picks their places to test. It’s nice to have a collective test, I think it should stay, but my proposal would be to put in the budget cap the number of [test] days, put in the budget cap the simulator also, and see where the teams want to spend their money, if it’s in the sim or if it’s in 10 testing days.
“Rookies would benefit and I think F1 teams would benefit because even though the simulators are good, they are not as good as some of the engineers or people tend to believe they are. So I would always choose testing and for [the rookies] also than to go into a simulator.”
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Formula 1
- McLaren’s rivals “just one upgrade away from being the lead car” – Brown
- Cadillac to use own F1 power units from 2029, FIA confirms
- Russell told race control what he thought of Verstappen’s first lap corner cut
- Ben Sulayem nominates Wilson as new FIA deputy president for sport
- Doohan’s final corner pass on Bortoleto was F1’s closest fight for last place in seven years
An Sionnach
3rd March 2025, 9:27
Well said. You can only simulate what you already understand. As we have seen from this formula, that isn’t even guaranteed, with everyone flailing about not understanding why their cars don’t work as expected at some stage.
I wonder how the restrictions on testing are affecting how we see the current drivers? You could pick out a number from the past who did a lot of hard work testing – Lauda, Piquet, Prost, Schumacher. What would their careers have been with almost no testing?
How would it have affected technological development? It took quite a while to get active suspension right. Piquet did a lot of work on that when at Williams. We don’t understand everything and to better simulate something, we must first do.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
3rd March 2025, 11:31
Well we know with Schumacher as by the time he came back to F1 endless testing was over and that didnt end well.
David
3rd March 2025, 13:24
He was also over 40 and hadn’t been racing at all which would have had a bigger impact on his performance than a lack of in-season testing.
El Pollo Loco
4th March 2025, 3:40
He also had suffered a major injury which definitely hampered his performance. A rival publication recently published an article detailing just how serious it was and how it isn’t just a speculative theory.
Señor Sjon
3rd March 2025, 9:44
Testing limit in the budget cap era is a bit idiotic. Testing was limited due to costs, but they are managed now.
Rhys Lloyd (@justrhysism)
4th March 2025, 23:15
Along with many other rules in place to reduce costs.
Scrap all the rules introduced to reduce costs and let the teams figure out the most efficient and effective way to find performance.
Adrian Hancox (@ahxshades)
3rd March 2025, 9:48
Fully Agree. We have a cost cap in place – we should relax what the teams can spend that capped money on. If they want to test more and can afford to without breaching the cap, then let them. With the cap there should be a relaxation of a lot of the rules in place now to encourage innovation. The only rules that should not be relaxed are those around safety – everything else should be fair game.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
3rd March 2025, 9:50
I agree in principle, although there should be some “nominal” testing cost to be deducted from the cap, to avoid disadvantaging the teams who don’t have access to their own private test tracks and would therefore have to spend more.
BasCB (@bascb)
3rd March 2025, 9:55
Good point about that there Red Andy, I think that would make sense. Give teams more leeway to decide how they spend their money (simulation, track testing, CFD work, windtunnel) possibly within a scope. And off course these still fall under aero testing, I guess, which puts another limit on how much any team can do?
rprp
3rd March 2025, 12:36
The problem here is that it bakes in an advantage for teams that already have the best simulators, the best CFD, their own track and their own windtunnel. If you allow unlimited CFD, the teams that don’t have that ready to go have to invest huge amounts to catch up, which means they can’t spend elsewhere. Setting a limit to that makes sense.
If everybody was starting from zero, then yeah, I’d agree that allowing the teams to just choose where they want to spend the money is fine.
El Pollo Loco
4th March 2025, 3:42
You could make this excuse for about any technical regulation or rule change though.
slowmo (@slowmo)
3rd March 2025, 9:59
This was my only concern is that teams who have to pay for the tracks have a higher cost than those who own their own tracks but the answer there is possibly to exclude the track hire cost but have a nominal fee per test day similar to how I believe engines have a nominal fee for a replacement to ensure everyone is on the same level playing field.
I do think if we have a fully functioning budget cap it does mean we should be looking to remove some of the rules that were added around the enforcement of waste in F1 such as parts limits.
Coventry Climax
3rd March 2025, 11:01
?? So owning a track costs nothing? Why don’t all teams own a track then? Heck, where can I get one?
The issue here is indeed what part of what costs fall under the budget, and/or to what extent.
But hey, this is F1. It’s only taken them 75 years plus to not get it right sofar.
Which makes me assume that for F1, not getting it right is the norm?
spoutnik (@spoutnik)
3rd March 2025, 19:13
Can’t see it happening on a private track though. Better would be for F1 to offer 2×5 days of testing somewhere, up to the teams to show up in a controlled environment.
Jere (@jerejj)
3rd March 2025, 9:55
I quite like his idea of placing caps on both on-track test days & simulator usage, & I wouldn’t mind either if the pre-season test day amount increased a bit as a regular change, be that two or even three four-day tests as used to be the case or whatever, but these are unlikely to happen in the end, given FIA’s stance.
Carlos himself was, of course, a rookie ten years ago, but at least he had the benefit of more test days because the amount was indeed twelve at the time (four in Jerez & eight in Montmelo), so his equivalent situation is therefore somewhat incomparable to the current rookies.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
3rd March 2025, 12:51
no, don’t cap simulators, or simulation tools.
yes, cap real testing, give guys at the back of the field 10x more testing, use a gradient to find the standard unit @ last year’s championship team/champion.
for instance, Sauber would have 30 days of testing, and McLaren 3.
Coventry Climax
3rd March 2025, 11:30
This is not the case, but: If simulating is only -say- 80% as good as real testing, and CFD is only 90, then shouldn’t those percentages should be incorporated into the testing allocation and the calculated costs of it?
And then also, the efficiency percentages for which year car is being used ofcourse.
But there’s more to it than that even, so this gets very, very complicated very, very quickly.
That in itself, should not be a reason to not do it. And certainly not for the FiA, who seem to really love, embrace and favour complexity.
The real aspects are, that it is the combination of types of testing that is most valuable (on track, to confirming what’s simulated etc.), and that even that is combined with a mix of reasons for the ‘testing’ being done: A certain percentage of it being for car development, another percentage of it for driver (or even rookie) training, etc.
Can’t see it happen like this, which means they’ll never get it right in terms of a ‘level playground’.
Most level probably is no rules at all, because that is the same for every team too.
What comes close I guess, is have everything -no exceptions- fall under the budget cap, and let teams sort out the rest of it for themselves.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
3rd March 2025, 11:33
This may be Sainz basically saying that the Outrun ‘simulator’ in the William canteen isn’t up to the job anymore
Dex
3rd March 2025, 12:37
Meh… It’s the same for everyone. Also cheaper and more unpredictable. This is better for us viewers, probably not as great for the drivers. But again, it’s the same for everyone, thus fair.
Peter707
3rd March 2025, 13:23
It’s time to get used to it, Carlos. Being able to adapt quickly to the car is an important driver quality nowadays and talented rookies have no particular issue with F1 cars. And yes, the start of a season is often tricky.
Jim from US (@jimfromus)
3rd March 2025, 15:14
I completely agree with SAI. But I’m annoyed that drivers and teams don’t care unless it directly affects them. SAI is bringing this up this year because he is in a new car. He didn’t say anything last year. Rookie drivers face this issue in their rookie year and with sprint weekends there is even less time.
chimaera2003 (@chimaera2003)
3rd March 2025, 15:43
@jimfromus The cynical side of me is that yes he has lived to a different team so he is somewhat disadvantaged relative to the last off-season.
However, if I was to give him some leeway here I would say that a) he is now a GPDA director so it may be somewhat incumbent on him to be mkre vocal and represent other drivers’ views and b) there are six rookies (though maybe not in the truiest sense of the word for all of them) so this point is more pertinent this off-seaosn.
Coventry Climax
3rd March 2025, 16:15
Plus, with the teams he’s raced with before, and now Williams, he may not have realised there was such a difference.
Other than that, not speaking out before is quite logical when you don’t want to give up your advantages, but are keen to catch up where your weaknesses are concerned. It’s not unique to motorsports or F1 actually.
Other than that, yes, it would have been ‘chique’ had he brought it up earlier and no, you’re not supposed to just shut up because you’re a bit late addressing an issue.
Carl Parker (@mysticarl)
3rd March 2025, 16:07
It’s one of a number of rules that should be deemed unnecessary now with the budget cap, along with banning T-cars. If teams want to spend the cash in that way they should be able to. There may need to be a unified cost of running agreed for those with their own track, for example, but nothing that should be unsolvable.
S
3rd March 2025, 19:40
Another driver in F1 rightfully saying that the teams have made the wrong decisions in influencing the rules.
Cutting back real-world testing and replacing it with simulation tools was great for the teams’ finances and development lead times, but was always going to negatively affect the drivers’ confidence and ability to fine-tune their car to their liking.
Coventry Climax
3rd March 2025, 21:56
I distinctly remember you advocating a total dismissal of testing on the claim that everything was already covered by simulation.
What’s changed for you?
S
4th March 2025, 0:30
Nothing, and I didn’t ever support the complete elimination of real-world tests.
The teams (collectively) were compelled to strike a balance between real-world testing and virtual simulation – the teams wanted more virtual testing because it’s much cheaper, faster and more efficient than real-world testing.
Drivers, on the other hand, want it the other way – but they don’t get to influence the rules the way the teams do.
Does virtual development and simulation handle the vast majority of what the teams need to achieve? Yes, it does.
Will the drivers always want the option of more seat time in the real thing? Yes, they will.
Coventry Climax
4th March 2025, 13:41
We had quite the argument about it though.
And the question was regarding you, not what the teams and driver perspectives are.
I change my mind sometimes, with new insights I learned about. That’s human.
As is, for some, refusing to admit it.
SteveP
4th March 2025, 15:57
and, as both Mercedes and Red Bull have openly said – the computer data doesn’t always match reality.
Cheaper, faster and wrong isn’t a good result.
I’m sure someone round here has been pointing out that getting it right and accurate is the first step, automating it is something that comes later, because being able to repeat wrong really quickly never works out well.
El Pollo Loco
4th March 2025, 3:43
I like the idea of bringing back a bit of magic where teams can approach the same problem from different angles. If it ends up all the teams still end up doing the same thing, then there’s no loss, but at least the option was there.
Speedfan
5th March 2025, 8:57
Carlos Sainz makes a great point about the limitations of F1 simulators. While technology has come a long way, nothing can fully replicate the real-world variables drivers experience on track—tire wear, wind changes, track evolution, and pure seat-of-the-pants feel. Simulators are excellent tools, but relying on them too much could lead to misleading data and unexpected issues on race weekends. More real-world testing would definitely help drivers adapt better and improve overall car development. Do you think the FIA should reconsider the testing restrictions, or is simulator reliance just part of modern F1?
AlanD
5th March 2025, 20:12
I would love to see more testing and less computerised analysis. There was a time when a game-changing skill for a driver was the ability to explain to the engineers how the car was handling and where their was room for improvement. These days I get the feeling that drivers are told”you can have any wing angle you like, as long as it is between 12.7 and 12.75. We don’t get enough driver input any more.