Roots? The reasons behind the design have all fallen by the wayside.
The need to keep weight over the rear tires to increase traction was killed off long ago by increases in tire performance and the development of limited-slip differentials. Design and market changes have rendered the once functional shape purely aesthetic. Today's cars are neither fuel-efficient nor speed daemons. And the engines are water-cooled. So the aerodynamic shape has lost it's function. If it is holding true to its mechanical roots, those roots are long dead.
So what's left? From a mechanical point of view it is a rear-engine car fighting to become mid-engined without admitting the change. The shape's only function is aesthetic. Anyone claiming its shape or design layout is mechanically relevant comes off like those poodle owners who insist the silly haircuts are to keep the dog warm while swimming. If you like the look then you like the look. Don't try to justify your taste with engineering gobbledygook.
The need to keep weight over the rear tires to increase traction was killed off long ago by increases in tire performance and the development of limited-slip differentials. Design and market changes have rendered the once functional shape purely aesthetic. Today's cars are neither fuel-efficient nor speed daemons. And the engines are water-cooled. So the aerodynamic shape has lost it's function. If it is holding true to its mechanical roots, those roots are long dead.
So what's left? From a mechanical point of view it is a rear-engine car fighting to become mid-engined without admitting the change. The shape's only function is aesthetic. Anyone claiming its shape or design layout is mechanically relevant comes off like those poodle owners who insist the silly haircuts are to keep the dog warm while swimming. If you like the look then you like the look. Don't try to justify your taste with engineering gobbledygook.