i appologise if i dindn't express myself clear enough.
Perhaps "design" was not the most appropriate word, but what i meant was that most people according to this survay, base their choice of (new)vehicle on it's superficial looks, regardless of wether these design features had any real function or benefit. The FE of a car was not even considdered at all by most. That implies car makers would not hesitate to sacrifies a little FE for lets say a big stylish grill if that's what people like. wich is quite sad from an FE loving point of view.
I wouldn't buy a house i couldn't stand up in,it wouldn't be efficient design.
i WOULD buy or build a house that's energy efficient even if that means it has to have a certain shape wich would not be conventional .IF that shape would be practical and effective i'd have no problem with it. I believe good design will often result in a certain estheatic value as well.
i'm not trying to convince anyone the c'mm'n is a beautifull car ... i don't know enough about it to say anything about the function of it's shape. But if such a shape is the best way to make a practical car as efficient as possible, than that's what i'd drive. From the few pictures i can find on the web this car appears to be the size of todays small mpv's and it roughly has the same shape. the only superficial difference is it lacks everything on these cars that defines their character but causes drag. no visible grill, headlights, mirrors, doorhandles and vents, and it has a boattail (a lot of the things most gassavers are so eager to delete or add). i'd like to see some date on the thing though because perhaps it's all looks too....
anyway, as they say over here "you can't argue about taste".
Linear Mode
