No-Fork project, bicycle geometry hacked

Wow, suddenly I'm impressed. You have been making some interesting bikes...

No Fork, since you've made all these wonderful bicycles with driveshafts, why didn't you incorporate a driveshaft in the no-fork bike? Surely, as has been pointed out previously, it would be more desirable than a chain drive with the axle angles involved??

on single chain stay it may end bad.

The answer to the driveshaft question is quite straightforward. The clearance between the angular gears in a driveshaft system need to be tight for a low friction loss. The relative flexibility of a bicycle frame makes it hard to maintain that clearance within the right tolerances. With the chain drive the playgorund is much wider. I think that that property is the main reason the chain drive is THE standard for bicycles, and that you hardly see any shaft drive bikes around. Also the belt drive experiences problems in this area. Trek has head a big problem with belt drive because the flex in the frame was just too big, causing friction between te belt and the cog, resulting in the cog being grinded down. The chain drive is the big winner cause it allows big tolerances. Thats the reason you gan have11 chain gears and why ALL the bikes in the Tour the France have them.
If you take the chain of your bike between your thumb and index finger, in the middle between the rear cog and the front chainring, you will be able to twist the chain through 30 degree to one side and the other, without having to exert much force. (depending on chain tension..) Even the chain on the chainwheel and the cog has enough play to twist through more then tens of degrees. And it will use that room when under load. When you have seen that, and the various chain lines of a chain in different gears you will appreciate that a 3(!) degree twist in the chain of the NF bike is absolutely irrelevant.

I think 1Karchangels made a sensible remark, unless you want your bike to look like a BMW..