The front suspension on the red bike appears to be a piece of completely wrong-headed design engineering which cannot work except when it shouldn't. Bumps on the front wheel are always received from in front - the distance in front of the tyre contact patch depends on the size of the bump and the radius of the wheel & tyre. However that suspension achieves its "ride movement" by moving the wheel forward, in the opposite direction to the horizontal component of the applied load. Because that bike uses standard bicycle front fork design dimensions, nearly all very small bump effects will be just about exactly in line with a line through the front axle and the pivot at the top of the fork, hence the suspension will not articulate at all. However if you hit a large bump the suspension will articulate backwards, with unfortunate results. Note that the bike seems to have a small front brake, and when it is applied, the front suspension will also articulate backwards. This is an even worse engineering design disaster that the old Morgan Sliding Pillar front suspension, which was simply worthless. In case there are any bike front suspension enthusiasts out there, compare that design with a pivot-type front suspension which actually worked, the one on the old BSA M20, the ubiquitous WW2 British and Australian despatch rider's bike:
http://s4.hubimg.com/u/1220647_f520.jpgMuch more interestingly it seems to have a swinging arm rear suspension, which I can't see properly but actually looks promising. (On the other hand, the Sliding Pillar looks promising until you think about it in detail.) Until I saw that picture I hadn't known any bike had swinging arm rear suspension before Triumph adopted it in about 1952, from memory.
