I'm not so sure about the reducing unsprung weight part. The op-rod and approx 1/2 of the rocker's weight count as unsprung. I don't think you can take enough out of the lower arms to offset the weight of the rod and 1/2 of the rocker.
Then again, I don't think that should be the reason for going in this direction. Look to F1 cars, they all employ some kind of rocker design. Most have gone to a pull-rod arrangement, something I think will be difficult to do in this venue. We're likely stuck with push rods. If the damper has less total travel, by default it weighs less. They have gotten the total shaft movement down to such a small range that they are now running thru-shaft dampers because even with a reservoir the difference in oil volume btwn each side of the piston was introducing a tuning variable they couldn't easily control.
You can achieve all sorts of rising or falling piston speeds depending on the design of the total damper actuating system. Say you want the first 10% of travel from full droop to be falling piston rate and the remaining travel to have 9% piston rate rise. That's something you can't always easily do when mounted direct to the housing/linkage/spindle.
Asked to forecast the future of TT's, Class 1's, etc. I expect that, as Dylan pointed out, Polar Moment and CG location are going to become more and more important. I also expect to see the total weight of these racers start falling. Picture what something even a little behind the times as the Herbst Truggy could do if it weighed 2000 lbs. That's fantasy from where we stand now. In ten years it could be reality.
It also wouldn't surprise me to see industrial rodless cylinder technology become used in off road dampers. Most likely first would appear on the lighter vehicles and progress towards the heavier. I'm surprised it hasn't already been done. Maybe on a Paris-Dakar Rally car.....
TS
I used swerve around my halucinations, now I drive right thru them.
