Jersey Tom wrote:F1 engineers must be very familiar with it as well given that the chassis' themselves have been designed without symmetry.
It is true that a vehicle with an offset c.g. might benefit from an asymmetrical suspension set-up, but the easier (& arguably better) solution is to minimize the c.g. offset. I have yet to see an F1 vehicle, or any other open wheeler outside the US, with an offset c.g, built-in "wedge", or any other observable intentional asymmetry.
I have seen road course set-ups with deliberate asymmetry in US open wheelers, but that tends to be a fall-out from other decisions (e.g. spring selections that can't be "balanced" with bars). The result is rarely a quick vehicle (quicker, perhaps, but not quick).
The primary reasons for maintaining vehicle symmetry are to decouple vertical & lateral responses (a "coupled" vehicle will, for example, change lateral balance when it is subjected to symmetrical inputs), & to maintain a consistent balance through both left & right-handed corners. It is not easy to maintain decoupled response when the vehicle &/or its suspension set-up are asymmetrical.
p.s. Marcus: How, precisely, do you modify vehicle set-up to improve the FL tyre life at Hockenheim?
). 
