This is my biggest complaint so far. Two, three, four laps into a race and a little bump from AI and the race is over for me. The difficulty even on the easiest level does not allow recovery from this and that's frustrating.
Also is there no button to reset to the track? I get it's a simulation, but some non-simulation factors just make a good game.
Simulation state reset function is also part of simulation, resetting a car to the track is not a non-simulation factor. Do you know what happens when a pilot fails to land in a pilot training simulator ? They reset the whole thing to different state before the failure happens and try again. It's part of the program so user can repeat or redo the process again. It's also part of design choices ( allowing such reset or not ), depending on the goal/purpose of the simulation.
There's certainly a difference between a game and a sim, though each person's interpretations vary. Need for Speed is a racing game and it has very little in common with the likes of AC or rF2 or iRacing, they both have cars on tracks but that's where the similarities end.
They are all classified as video game simulation software. I have been playing flight simulation software ( they are sold as game software ) since early 90's, I didn't meet these kind of differentiation, calling the Novalogic F22, MIG29, F16, Comanche or EF2000s and Total War by DID games as flight games, while Jane's Longbow or Eagle Dynamics Flanker 2.0 are flight sims. They are all still computer/pc gaming simulation software. Ace Combat series on console are still considered flight sim as it simulate controlling airplane or helicopter, albeit in simplified form or lesser fidelity than other flight sim game.
The presence of console games do not change anything, the first NFS was on PC and PSX, and deemed as simulation in it's day, while later NFS games are lesser in simulation aspects / details, they are all have the basics of car simulation ( driving it ). They are racing game of course as it describe that player are racing in the game, either against time or against others ( AI or other players ). I can also call them driving game, because they simulate driving. When someone calls certain titles like AC or Rfactor as sim, it should mean nothing more than descriptive word for it's genre, simulation of reality.
Not sure when it started the arcade vs sim, maybe after better fidelity simulation games starts cropping up, the lesser ones gets "arcade" label while the better ones "sim" label and the middle ones "simcade" label. It's just misleading IMO.
Its a sub-genre that makes life a lot easier for people to understand, following your example JRPG should just be RPG, Call of duty, Galaga and uncharted would all be called Shoot them up. Its still a racing games but its on the simulation side which is why its called a sub-genre, it makes life a lot easier for people. Imagine going into a supermarket and the signs just say food everywhere.
You aren't wrong by saying its a sim is a racing game but there is a reason why that sim branding exists, it would be anti-consumer if it didnt exist because no one would know off the box as to whether it has realistic physics or if its built for ease of use.
Lets put it another way, you want as much information as possible on a product before you take the dive and buy it. Removing sim only makes it harder.
I wouldn't use the word sub genre, it's different world today, back when Formula 1 simulation was simple ( non 3D ) from the late 80's to early 90's, people don't call them as arcade when 3D based like GP 2 and GP 3 or GPL came out being called sim.
This also bring another aspect, 3D form increases simulation fidelity and becomes minimum these days, which also means graphics do matter to an extent.
How ? PS4 only managed 16. If my 10 years old single core Intel M with 2 GB RAM, 128MB VRAM could only manage 1 or 2 AI, struggling too at 20fps or less, in LFS, I wonder how heavy will be LFS or AC with 50 cars 
