R-M-R

There isn't a single "good" value for pedaling anti-squat - if there was, the bike industry would surely have stumbled its way to finding it by now. That said, convergent evolution is ever tightening the range of values. I posted this more than half a decade ago and I've long forgotten the context, so I'll make some general statements. The ideal anti-squat can change with the situation. When climbing, the rider's weight is rearward and the suspension sags more, so the relevant parameters for pedaling anti-squat are a low gear and a sag point well beyond the flat-ground sag. Some clients prefer "crisp" pedaling, while others can accept more squish in the suspension if it means less drivetrain interference when pedaling. When descending, the suspension is higher in the travel and the rider is probably pedaling while standing, but pedaling may not even be a priority, so maybe the designer should be focusing on compliance ratio (axle path) - not that that changes with rider posture or sprocket selection, just something to consider when the client provides their design priorities. In all situations, pedaling anti-squat is of low importance when the suspension is deep in the travel (it would be fine to let it drop to a low value in this range to minimize drivetrain interference), yet compliance ratio is very important (a more rearward axle path in this region would create a high pedaling anti-squat). As you can see, these factors are mutually exclusive (for a direct drivetrain without floating BB), so the client and designer must choose their compromises. In the chart above, all bikes have high pedaling anti-squat values in all sprockets and at all points in the travel. The Smash is remarkably consistent across the range of sprockets and travel positions, while the 161 exhibits considerable variation across the sprockets (the variation through the travel is not unusual). None of these are intrinsically bad, but they all involve certain compromises.