Thanks for the kind words!
I'll try answer the questions.
Stem is a point1 (flipped) and bar is a blacklabel.
Head angle as pictured is 62* flat (measured), with frame set at low + slack, with fork at 229mm exposed stanchion. With this setup, wheelbase is 47.7" and BB is 13.8". There's plenty of adjustment range to make it steeper, shorter, and lower / higher if you so choose (with a lot of independence in those adjustments) however I like it slack. Using the full range of a 40 will let you achieve HA numbers in the 61.x* region (with no aftermarket parts) which will be nice for a few tracks I can think of.
Shock is an RC4 for a few reasons. Having owned two CCDB's and two BOS Stoys I prefer the RC4 because it's more reliable (seals), easier to service, and far easier to setup. It's also a good baseline to see what the frame can do, and matches well with the 40. Small adjustments in the BO setting make a significant difference, and the shock is reasonably linear with the adjuster fully open so excessive progression is not a big concern. The frame's early stroke progression also diminishes any air preload induced stiction at the start of the RC4's stroke so it eliminates the only real disadvantage compared to the other two shocks. That said, I'm sure both of those shocks will make their way into the frame to test at some stage in the future.
L/R curve has been discussed in detail here before regarding other frames, but see this old post for more detail.
I'll try answer the questions.
Stem is a point1 (flipped) and bar is a blacklabel.
Head angle as pictured is 62* flat (measured), with frame set at low + slack, with fork at 229mm exposed stanchion. With this setup, wheelbase is 47.7" and BB is 13.8". There's plenty of adjustment range to make it steeper, shorter, and lower / higher if you so choose (with a lot of independence in those adjustments) however I like it slack. Using the full range of a 40 will let you achieve HA numbers in the 61.x* region (with no aftermarket parts) which will be nice for a few tracks I can think of.
Shock is an RC4 for a few reasons. Having owned two CCDB's and two BOS Stoys I prefer the RC4 because it's more reliable (seals), easier to service, and far easier to setup. It's also a good baseline to see what the frame can do, and matches well with the 40. Small adjustments in the BO setting make a significant difference, and the shock is reasonably linear with the adjuster fully open so excessive progression is not a big concern. The frame's early stroke progression also diminishes any air preload induced stiction at the start of the RC4's stroke so it eliminates the only real disadvantage compared to the other two shocks. That said, I'm sure both of those shocks will make their way into the frame to test at some stage in the future.
L/R curve has been discussed in detail here before regarding other frames, but see this old post for more detail.
No and no. It has nothing to do with pedaling (which is, or should be a function of anti-squat), and "initially stiff and ramping up" doesn't really make sense. For something to ramp up it would generally be softer initially, which is exactly what the beginning stroke of a progressive bike is (whether single, dual, whatever). Obviously the degree and shape can vary as much as the designer wants them to. Norbar is on the right track.
