How We Test & Score Sim Racing Equipment

Our Core Principles

Hands-On Only

No product on SimraceBeast receives a score based on spec sheets, press releases, or secondhand accounts. If it hasn't spent real seat time in our rig, it doesn't get rated — it may be referenced as "per manufacturer data," but it earns no score. Minimum testing threshold: 4 weeks of active use, across at least 3 sim titles (iRacing, Assetto Corsa Competizione, and one of rFactor 2 / Automobilista 2 / Gran Turismo 7), with a minimum of 20 hours of actual driving time.

Editorial Independence

Advertising and affiliate relationships with manufacturers have zero influence on scores. If Fanatec is an advertiser and their product underperforms, that is documented in the review. The scoring system below is fully transparent precisely because it is formula-based — every score can be reproduced from its component criteria. There is no "overall feel" override.

Honest Negatives Are Mandatory

Any review without real criticism is marketing, not journalism. Every product review includes a "What I'd Change" section and explicit "Not for you if…" points. Products from advertising partners receive the same critical scrutiny as any other.

Dates and Freshness

Sim racing hardware moves fast — new firmware, new competitors, price drops. Every review carries a published date and a "Last Tested" date. When a meaningful update occurs (firmware change, price revision, new competing product), the article is updated with a visible changelog at the top. Score recalculations only happen when the product itself is re-tested, not on price or news changes alone.

Part 1 — Wheel Bases

The wheel base is the most consequential purchase in any sim racing setup and, accordingly, carries the most rigorous evaluation process.

Scoring Criteria

Force Feedback Quality — How We Test

FFB is the most subjective criterion, which is why the test protocol is the most structured.

• Baseline test: 10 laps of Nordschleife in ACC using the BMW M4 GT3, identical setup across all tested bases. This gives a controlled environment to compare FFB character.
• Detail test: We evaluate how clearly the base transmits: track edge, surface transitions (asphalt to kerb), grip loss on the limit, and the return of grip after oversteer correction.
• Clipping test: FFB gain is raised incrementally until clipping begins. A quality base should offer a wide usable range before the signal flattens. We document the in-game gain percentage at which clipping starts.
• Open-wheel check: Formula Renault at Suzuka in iRacing. Open-wheel cars are the most demanding FFB test — low-speed mechanical grip and high-speed aerodynamic load changes are unforgiving of imprecise signal transmission.

FFB Quality scale

Torque & Power Delivery — How We Test

Peak torque figures are taken from official manufacturer documentation, always linked in the review. Subjective testing involves a long fast right-hander in wet conditions at Spa-Francorchamps — an honest test of how hard you have to fight the wheel under combined load. An endurance check (1 continuous hour) monitors heat buildup and whether torque delivery degrades over time.

Software & Ecosystem — How We Test

• Fresh install from scratch: time and complexity are documented
• Number of independently adjustable FFB parameters
• App usability: intuitiveness, quality of presets, changelog frequency
• SimHub and third-party software compatibility
• Support test: a real question is submitted to manufacturer support; response time and quality are recorded

Part 2 — Pedals

Pedals are the most underrated upgrade in sim racing for actual lap time improvement. A quality brake pedal does more for consistency than any wheel base upgrade.

Scoring Criteria

Brake Feel & Progression — How We Test

• Consistency test: 20 braking events into the same reference point (Monza chicane). We measure the spread in braking points. Quality pedals produce repeatable braking from any position in the travel range.
• Trail braking test: Progressively bleeding brake pressure on corner entry. The pedal must communicate load reduction through changing resistance — a binary pedal makes trail braking guesswork.
• Threshold test: Deliberate lock-up testing. Quality load cell pedals should provide a tactile signal — a change in resistance character — as the braking threshold is crossed.
• Long-session consistency: The pedal feel is checked at the start, midpoint, and end of a 1-hour session. Rubber bumpstop pedals in particular can shift feel as material warms.

Brake Feel scale

Additional Pedal Testing

• Installation: mounting to rig, angle adjustment range, cockpit compatibility
• Noise: no squeaking, rattling, or creaking under load
• Maintenance: ease of disassembly and cleaning
• Long-term notes: for pedals used continuously for 6+ months, a dedicated long-term section documents any changes in feel, material wear, or reliability issues

Part 3 — Steering Wheels (Rims)

Wheels are evaluated independently from bases, as most manufacturers sell them separately and they are frequently mixed across ecosystems.

Scoring Criteria

Clutch paddles, magnetic shifters, and LED rev indicators are evaluated on functional quality, not merely on presence.

Part 4 — Cockpits & Rigs

A poor cockpit undermines even the best hardware. Flex in the frame turns FFB into vibration noise and makes pedal feedback imprecise.

Scoring Criteria

Rigidity — How We Test

The wheel base is run at full torque and a Formula Car driven in iRacing — the most aggressive chassis-loading scenario available. A hand placed on the rig frame during driving reveals felt vibration and flex. A slow-motion video check of the pedal mounting point during maximum brake application documents any visible movement.

Part 5 — Monitors & Displays

Single Monitor Scoring

Triple Monitor Scoring

Triple screen setups introduce additional variables: bezel compensation, angle alignment, and combined FoV. All triple screen evaluations include a correct FoV calculation for the tested configuration. You can calculate the correct FoV for your own setup using our FOV Calculator.

VR Headset Scoring

A correct FoV setup is equally critical in VR. For a starting point on virtual camera distance, use our FOV Calculator before configuring any VR title.

Part 6 — Accessories (Shifters, Handbrakes, Button Boxes)

Accessories use a streamlined three-criterion model:

Part 7 — How the Final Score Is Calculated

Each criterion receives a score from 1.0 to 10.0 in increments of 0.5. The final score is a weighted sum:

Final Score = Σ (Criterion Score × Weight)

Example — wheel base calculation

Score Definitions

Important: all scores are relative to the price segment. A Moza R5 at $350 is not evaluated against a Simucube 2 Pro at $2,200. Every score reflects the best available option within that price range.

Part 8 — Price Segments

A "Best in Segment" designation means best in that price bracket, not best overall.

Part 9 — What We Do Not Do

• No X vs Y comparisons without hands-on experience with both products. Publishing a comparison based on one tested unit and one spec sheet is not a comparison — it's speculation with a misleading format.
• No review loans without disclosure. If a manufacturer provided a unit for review at no cost, this is stated clearly at the top of the review. It does not change the score methodology.
• No score updates without re-testing. A firmware improvement or price drop is logged in the changelog with a note — but the numeric score only changes when the product is physically re-tested.
• No stock photography. Every image in a review is an original photo of the actual tested hardware.
• No reviews published before 4 weeks of use — no matter how good or bad the first impressions are.