@Rick - I do not understand your comment about bonding of the rear triangle to the front; it is not uncommon. Please elaborate and not let us less knowledgeable fill in the gaps with our stupid fears.
With reference to the photos above:
If you look at where the chainstays attach to the bottom bracket, on bikes such as the NEO in the picture, the frame "necks down" behind the BB. It looks as if the chainstays stays were formed by one loop of material, and then bonded to the BB. They are narrow at the top and curving inward. It is not "uncommon". The Planet-X bikes are that way also, and probably some more.
But if you now compare to the PedalForce (and is also similar on Scott Addict, etc) you see that the chainstays remain full width to the bottom bracket and there is no change in contour behind the bottom bracket. The rear triangle looks like it was "built in" at the time of the main triangle was formed, rather than "added on" after the main triangle was formed.
I notice that on some of the Hong Fu frames they show both types of construction.
I am not saying one is good and one is bad, or that either is unacceptable. But it seems pretty obvious which one would be naturally expected to be stiffer and stronger.
95% of all bikes are done that way. Wether it looks like it or not. Almost all monocoque frames are done as a "multi-monocoque", thus the rear end is bonded in seperately. No problems there and it doesn't equate to loss of stiffness/strength.
I saw a cut out of a new Cannondale carbon frame, where you clearly could see from the inside that the rear was bonded, but it looked like on the Pedalforce from the outside.