This is your attempt to set the record straight; by revealing the complete depths of your ignorance? At first I thought Rockville was maybe being a little harsh on you, but you clearly are ignorant on this subject matter.
Yes, they use wishbone suspension on Formula 1 cars, but if you have any understanding of suspension geometry at all (let alone the other vehicle systems that work in unison with a F1 car's suspension) then it should be painfully obvious that they the statements you are quoted are hyperbole.
Wishbone suspension designs are not exclusive to F1, they pre date anything that remotely resembles a modern (even by 1980's standards) F1 car, and are not a simple "one size fits all" application by any stretch of the imagination. To say that a car has wishbone suspension is like saying that a car has an internal combustion engine. There are still a million variations upon variations. And just the same way that if Honda was to put a V10 into a production car, that would be vaguely similar to the v10 that they used in F1, but only to the extent that it has the same basic arrangement; everything about the engine (the size of the pistons, the material of the pistons, the material of the block, the valvetrain assembly, the oiling system, everything) would be entirely dissimilar between the F1 version and the road going version, yet Honda would clearly capitalize on the relationship.
What wishbone suspension means in practical terms is that you have an upper control arm "system" (I say system because the control arms do not actually have to look like a wishbone shape at all in order to still be a wishbone suspension) and a lower control arm system which each produce their own arcs independent of one another and have a collective resultant arc that is formed from their combined arcs which, in conjunction with a symmetrical system on the other side of the car and in relation to certain relative dimensions of the vehicle, create a geometric anomaly about which the vehicle's mass rolls.
There are an infinite number of variables such that any significant departure from the basic layout of one design relative to another will result in two entirely different systems that are only alike in that they are both technically wishbone setups. For instance, if you take the rear subframe from a Corvette (which has a wishbone suspension setup), cut it in half, and put the left and right side suspension assemblies on chassis two different chassis of different width, you have effectively changed the suspension geometry! So even though each side still has the exact same camber curves, etc., the fact that the track width relative to the suspension arcs is different will have considerable impact on how the suspension geometry works in each of the two vehicles, and that is just from changing a single variable. In doing so, all of the setup data that you have about the first car is different from that of the second car. In other words, even when the suspension links are the same length, the pickup points identical, the camber curves the same, the caster the same, the uprights identical, etc. you still end up with what is, geometrically speaking, two dissimilar systems that are, again, only similar in that they are both wishbone setups.
Now imagine the degree of dissimilarity when you start talking about different length wishbones (control arms) different camber curves, so on an so forth.
Then you have to consider the considerable differences between the intended use of a road car or an F1 car. The F1 car (particularly one of the 80's) will have suspension that is really undermined in almost every appreciable way such that it favors a stable and consistent aerodynamic setup. For instance, these cars employ spring frequencies in the 1000 hz range (which means that the suspension is practically incompressible), an inch or less of suspension travel, etc.
In other words, any data obtained from F1 racing in terms of wishbone suspension design would be 100% non-applicable to any road car. However, and this is a big however, those who master the multitude of adjustments within such a narrow window of operation and in a field where a 10th of a second improvement in lap times is an eternity (read: in the competitive field of F1 racing) will certainly be well qualified to design a wishbone suspension setup for a sporty road car. There is a trickle down of expertise and of creative engineering, much the same way that a NAVY seal would make a good SWAT team officer. Better yet, it's analogous to the way that a defense manufacturer who builds fighter jets would have the skills to "effortlessly" make great single-seater airplanes, but just like Honda, the defense contractor may allude to the fact that their expertise and technology in building top of the line machinery may provide them a competitive edge in designing lower end equipment (the halo car effect, if you will), but also like Honda, the defense contractor is not going to actually
use fighter plane technology or parts in their single-seater, just as Honda did not literally adapt formula technology or equipment into the NSX.
I am a huge fan of the NSX and it is a great car; maybe even my favorite. But to believe the hyperbolic ramblings of a Honda spokesperson and to ignore the wealth of knowledge that is available regarding the history, application, and theoretical elements of wishbone suspension design simply illustrates that you've got your blinders on or are just willfully ignorant on the subject, and therefore, are not qualified to make any "see, I told you so" type of posts.