should have been cheaper  

"Desgin" ?
A typo ?

.
Not a fan? I think in solid it would have an attractive de Stijl quality... Reitveld before he got all colourful.

Panton's OK
I guess. Not as rigorous geometrically as Rietveld, to my eye. But for chairs to be comfortable, the "usual" angles (divisions of 60 or 90 degrees) won't usually give the best results. I expect this Panton chair would be at least as comfortable as the Zig-zag chair, with its dead level seat . . .
I see no reason to make the above chair in solid wood, when the parts lend themselves perfectly to sheet goods. "Truth to material," anyone ?
Really -- is "desgin" a word in any language ?

.
komfort?
I think structurally the Panton is an improvment on the zigzag with the attractive pinwheeling effect, slipping forward on a seet like that would be a problem that a degree or two would fix, I see no reason not to execute it in solid 🙂 I doubt I'd bother but its fun to think about, angled sliding dovetails, is that possible? Could it fold?
Anyway, what thinkest anyone about the fact that it was 3 times the price of more complex chairs etc etc, does anyone know why?

Ikea was trying to profit on his name
Of course IKEA was trying to achieve maximum profit on his name. To get the highest "gross profit margin" or "what the market will bear" is the entire driving force behind capitalism. I once visited an IKEA and thought it was good for college students and those of lesser means. Those people who do not like the pricing of any line item may and should always "vote with their feet".

I think it's an attractive design
especially from the side.
And the side view also shows the two quadrilateral pieces under the seat that make it possible to use those right-angle camlock fasteners to hold it all together.

Yes -- fair enough.
A nicely-thought-out minimalist design. The colors are fun, though maybe a room-full of these (for a college classroom ?) might want to be monochromatic ?
A comfort improvement -- still flat-packable -- would be a little concave shape to the seat and the back.

And yes --
it should have been cheaper.

Thanks fastfwd, perhaps thoug...
Thanks fastfwd, perhaps though it would be even better sans the quad support that holds it all together? Cross dowels? Something else?...with cnc it would be a breeze.
Hans Sandgren Jacobsen did somthing a while ago with a curved seat that while not entirely similar I think is good.
SDR who said wood moofs? This stuff I'm working on isn't so much moving as dancing a wild drunken jig when my back is turned. Its dry and I laminated an 8 ft long, 3 inch lthick length, about 12 inches wide and within 10 minutes of planing it flat its severely bowed. I give up, chopping blocks anyone?

I'm not sure you could do it without the quad pieces.
If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the chair could be held together by fasteners at the edge of each board, so the four-sided space under the seat could be left empty.
Doesn't it seem necessary to have something to fill, or at least triangulate, that four-sided space? If the space were left empty, you'd be relying on the rigidity of the edge-to-face butt joints to keep that space -- and the chair -- from simply collapsing. I don't know much about wood, but it seems to me that those joints would be way too weak, even if they were reinforced with dowels.
The quad pieces prevent the collapse of the four-sided space and also enable what looks to me like MUCH stronger joinery: four fasteners through the face of each board, rather than two through the edge.

.
this + this = possible?