How useful are RAD and that Front:Rear ratio you got in that spreadsheet, ocnLogan?
I felt that RAD was a way to sell those RipRow machines, ensuring that trained range of motion works on a bike. I habitually upsize since I almost always find that larges feel naturally easier at carrying higher speed through corners and in the air than size mediums and smalls (very few exceptions, like SB150 and 2018 Jekyll 27.5 in med). I never have ridden a small that I liked better; smalls seem to lock me into slower-speed riding, sessioning, and stunt stuff as opposed to the kind of mtb exploratory trail sampling experience I wanted. Lee and Alex seem to have gone quiet after that Revel bikes experiment, where they chose size smalls... yikes.
I saw that F:R ratio thing in a vorsprung video, but found that it didn't correlate well with actual measured weight distro, using a scale under each wheel and doing a ratio on the weight readings. It'd work as a comparison between bikes with very similar wheelbase, but then it'd be just easier to just do what I currently do: find the magic CS-WB combos that correlate with real world weight distro measurements.
I credit the weight distro balance for the magic, where I can ride gnarly stuff with far less work besides simply carrying speed. My natural standing pedaling position is in the right place for this stuff. For 90+% of normal stuff, there's no need to move/hold my body forward to weight the front for blazing a corner super fast, nor any need to move/hold my body rearward to unweight the front to prevent an OTB or weight the rear to climb out-of-the-saddle. Only need to shift weight for actual techniques.
Just saying, they both stink of even more oversimplification. I'd rather have the original numbers, which you have, and am struggling to find any use for those composites. Something with longer wheelbase will naturally have a bigger F:R ratio, but it doesn't mean that since a 1.83 ratio works well for a 1230mm WB 29er that it should also work for a 1150mm WB bike, 1300mm WB bike, nor even a 1230mm WB 27.5 bike. From my set of measurements, I find that heavier riders want even lower ratios than lightweights. I also find that smaller wheeled bikes do better with higher ratios.
I feel that the perceived benefits of mullet have a lot to do with BB drop. People have mentioned a feeling that a well designed mullet can corner like a centrifuge. Check out the old Foes Mixer reviews. People think it has to do with the traits of different wheel sizes. They're not wrong, but I'd technically credit the BB drop. I bet that you can get a 29er to feel more like a 27.5 if the BB drop was reduced to a similar level.
The other mullet difference is how the BB drop to front axle is more the BB drop to the rear axle. I feel this synergizes with my preferred riding style of heavy-feet and light-hands. The front will be more stable, to require less from me to hold the front, but the agile rear will be more responsive to movements that originate from my hips/core. A well-designed mullet wouldn't be a conversion, but one that tunes the rear kinematics to work with this trait, to maintain a balanced suspension feel.
Sorry for the ramble, but I prefer a bigger picture discussion, touching on the many things that you have to juggle to create a well-rounded bike.
