while they may fiddle for balance (for example as the fuel burns off, and the weight comes down, or as the tyres wear etc), I'm not sure they change it for each corner.
Actually, the setup of the car is not active at all, except for brake bias (which is set via a mechanical lever on the cockpit wall). There is no way to change ride height, stiffness, etc., dynamically.
About 20 years ago there was a period in which everything about the cars were dynamic (culminating in the Williams FW-14B [1]). The ride height and other suspension settings, etc., were all under electronic control, so that the setup could be altered for every corner. And thanks to bidirectional telemetry, these settings were actually controlled remotely from the pits without the driver needing to intervene. However, the arms race of complexity and cost led teams to agree to a ban on this technology. It's a bit of a shame, because the engineering had become every bit as interesting as the racing itself.
This is typically the case in most types of auto racing. In some cases (the WRC comes to mind), it was pushing manufacturers out of the sport because they couldn't keep up with the costs.
In some cases (the WRC comes to mind), it was pushing manufacturers out of the sport because they couldn't keep up with the costs.
Not that I disagree with your point, but there's another factor in WRC: Sebastian Loeb.
If sponsors want to be associated with winning teams, then there's really no point in sponsoring any team besides Citroen. There's very little chance of anyone other than Loeb winning the championship, and good luck waiting for a podium that he's not standing on.
I think you can see this (albeit less clearly) after late 80s F1. A McLaren team-up of Senna and Prost delivered the best two drivers, plus Honda and McLaren's engineering skill; there was little opportunity for anyone else to compete. The result was a decade of competitive wasteland as the sport recovered (giving such lame drivers as, imho, Damon Hill, an opportunity to win a World Driving Championship). It wasn't until a combination of Schumacher's skill and Ferrari resurgence that things got at all interesting again.
Sort of, but I'm not sure I'd quite agree with your history.
Prost and Senna were alone toe-to-toe for 3 years, 1988-90. Senna wasn't a realistic threat before then (neither was Prost in '87), while '86-87 the dominant battle was between Mansell and Piquet at Williams. But, yes, 1988-90, Senna and Prost carved things up between them. After that...
1991, Ferrari (Prost's team) were nowhere, there was a late season challenge to Senna from Mansell's Williams but they'd had too much early season unreliability
1992, Ferrari were worse than nowhere, McLaren were comprehensively trounced too. Mansell walked it for Williams
1993, Prost wins relatively comfortably from Senna with a major car advantage.
1994, Prost retires and Senna dies.
There were then:
* 2 years of Benetton & Schumacher
* 2 years of Williams, Hill then Villeneuve
* 2 years of McLaren & Hakkinen
and we're now a) out of the 10 year window and b) into the Schumacher & Ferrari juggernaut.
Now, I've heard a number of expert commentators suggest that Schumacher's record is flattered by the opposition he faced, I wouldn't disagree that Hakkinen, Hill and in particular Villeneuve are perhaps not the strongest champions F1 ever saw and I'm not sure this period of F1 was necessarily the most competitive. BUT - I definitely don't agree with your characterisation of F1 history there.
Actually, the setup of the car is not active at all, except for brake bias (which is set via a mechanical lever on the cockpit wall). There is no way to change ride height, stiffness, etc., dynamically.
About 20 years ago there was a period in which everything about the cars were dynamic (culminating in the Williams FW-14B [1]). The ride height and other suspension settings, etc., were all under electronic control, so that the setup could be altered for every corner. And thanks to bidirectional telemetry, these settings were actually controlled remotely from the pits without the driver needing to intervene. However, the arms race of complexity and cost led teams to agree to a ban on this technology. It's a bit of a shame, because the engineering had become every bit as interesting as the racing itself.
[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Williams_FW14