Love the 24" frame - what would be the reason/logic for the design BiTD?
Hopefully Geoff will come along and give his viewpoint. But here's my analysis for what it's worth.
The Cleland' ethos, that came from motorbike trials, is that you you should be able to ride across terrain, and not have to get off and walk. However the idea of a trials motorbike, with the engine replaced by pedals wasn't practical on a whole number of levels. So Geoff Apps started from the alternative approach of adapting bicycles to be more like a trials motorbikes. Since the bikes were meant for off-road touring, big free rolling wheels were the way to go, hence the 1981 29er Cleland.
I remember entering a Cleland into the Trials event of the 1985 Wendover Bash. And though the Cleland was very competent over technical terrain they were simply too big to take on the 20" trials bikes. So Geoff Apps conceived the Dingbat. A tractor of a bicycle with its 3" wide rear tyre and slim front tyre, it was perfect for ploughing through mud. It could take on and win against the 20" bikes. With a change of running gear also made a competent tourer.
So their is an inherent and unresolved conflict in Cleland design, and also in mountain bike design as a whole. That the big wheeled mile-eating machines, are simply not as nimble as their small wheeled, low step-over cousins.
I surpose my modern Cleland NRS bikes, with their full suspension and 26" wheels are to some degree modern-day Dingbats. When things go wrong, they're so much easier to jump off than a 29er.