>>1074671>First of all it's quite possible to put more weight on the front wheel [...] when climbingNo. What you're doing when you're hanging over the handlebars to not fall over backwards when climbing is keeping the balance. You're not so much adding weight on the front as making up for the less.
Ridiculous demur discarded.
>Secondly on a regular bike there is absolutely no driving force going through the front wheelYes. That's a good thing, for all the reasons previously covered. If you have traction to provide assist, you can do it on the rear wheel. If you have little traction, you absolutely do not want any drive on the front wheel. Not even "some additional power", and definitely not in a feedback loop to your pedals. You want the front wheel to track but not drive. If it drives, it can slip. If it slips, it doesn't track and you go down. If the rear wheel slips and there is still power to your front wheel, all your drive immediately on your front wheel. Shear and slip will ensue.
Also, friction on a slipping wheel is lower than on a driving wheel, contrary to popular belief. This is why you get longer braking distances with a locked up wheel than an almost-but-not-quite locker wheel. This means that _should_ your driven wheel slip even a little it will go into hysteresis, and slip suddenly, completely and violently. No problem on the back, but big problem on the front.
So, the original anons retarded idea was that 2WD (even asymmetrical) would somehow be beneficial on snow or in mud. The opposite is true. While there are engineering advantages to front powered assist in conditions with good grip, there are only drawbacks and hazards when grip is poor.
Your idea is stupid and so are you. 2WD is the blimp train of cycling. Just accept it.
