"c,mm,n" Open-source Car
 

Yes, an Open-source Car was debuted at the AutoRAI car show in Amsterdam.

From the comments, it appears that most people find it quite ugly. As it seems that perceived "ugliness" is directly proportional to a low .cd it probably does pretty well in the aero department. Looks like a good front end and it has rear skirts, but it's still probably backwards...

And Hydrogen? Make it diesel-electric.

The "c,mm,n" looks ugly but the concept is good. It gives a potential base for people to attempt to build their own vehicles without fumbling around in the dark as to how to design what.

Attachment 312

Yeah, I'd say it looks pretty gross. What's with the weirdo body paneling on the door? Cars don't have to be ugly to have a very low Cd (I wouldn't mind a car that looks like my avatar).

oh holy hell! that thing is quite fugly...good hting it prolly has no chance of ever being street legal in the US unless it had some radical changes to it...

i don't think the thing looks that odd at all. not if you compare it to other mini MPV's like the Toyota Yaris Verso , citroen berlingo, or opel combo and it's even smaller brother the agila... those are just a few that come to mind, and i'm not sure of there are many equivalent cars in the US.

anyway, my point is that these cars are not exactly contest winners in the design department but they are designed to be practical...unfortunately these designs are difficult to marry with good aero....

sadly a recent study over here revealed (not surprisingly) that the design of a car was the major reason for buying it for most people... economy wasn't even considdered.

anyway if i could get one with a blue paintjob i'd have no problem driving it.;)

lol its not sad, its just the way its going to be and always going to be. would you buy a house that looked like crap and you couldnt even stand up straight in it just because it was economical/energy saving? doubt it...

it has some really smooth lines which is great for air flow . . . not too crazy about the wheels however.

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". ;)

I'd love to re-design it into a stylish midsize car akin to the GM Precept, with exceptionally low drag, and shove a 4-cylinder diesel of about 150 horsepower into it. We could potentially have a sub $15,000 midsize car that goes from 0-60 in under 8 seconds, gets 60+ mpg, and could be run on B100.