The look of that bike has nothing to do with BS *or* efficiency, its a result of a design based around passive suspension. Something thats been used on bikes for decades to provide a comfortable ride without needing restrictive, overweight maintenance hogs like suspension bikes, something which only becomes a necessity when you need improved wheel contact and is a waste up until that point. I guess as you deal in motors and not bikes though, that might not be as important to you.
Drivetrain efficiency on an e-bike doesn't rely on downward force and is instead applied directly at the wheel. For all purposes, suspension makes no difference in energy loss caused by flex and in this case you would be correct. For human powered applications though, passive suspension is more about dampening vibrations whereas suspension is about providing a pivot point once the load on the bicycle exceeds the preload on the shock.
However, this means that as soon as you want to sprint, stand, or climb, suspension loses energy big time, particularily rear shocks. This is the reason that rear suspension designs are always in flux while the DF has remained fairly stable over the years: the search for efficient full suspension geometry.
However, as you're always sporting words on how much lighter the bb drive is, i'll also remind you that there's more than an extra 10lbs of weight on your bike compared to some of these Softride models. You should also know that while the bb drive looks more efficient on paper, you're relying on the chain drive of a bicycle which sports an energy loss of its own - about 98% counting the best and finest parts in the world, and less once you're down to the average stuff (let alone a huffy) in the end, bb frame drives are better performers than hub motors, but they aren't much more efficient in energy use at all.
Mind you, the softride is an unorthodox rendition, it would end up being slightly less efficient than a solid diamond frame due to the increased flex, but a little bit of that might be regained by having very little aerodynamic profile between the rider's legs and behind the rider. Personally, i'll just take a steel frame with a mid wheelbase, some nice cork/gel tape, and a brooks saddle. Not as fast, but much less tacky and just as comfy. Plus, you can carry a rack, and 50lbs of junk.
If you want to talk about silly design, i'd ask why you're criticizing an unorthodox tri bike instead of questioning why you're claiming to build one of the world's finest systems and then slapping it onto a huffy, losing huge amounts of reliability, practicality, and efficiency?