Cool thread. I think there is a giant void in the cycling biz for this body type, and that it's way more common that designers realize, especially with taller folks. I assume people aren't likely to have the same proportions at 5'8" and 6'4". Either that, or the percentages of balanced proportions at each height are different. But for some reason large frames seem to be designed for giant small guys.
There is a - quite recent - trend towards
this type of bike (Giant Defy, Colnago CX Zero etc), but the marketing, naming and quality is never up there with the top-end models of that particular range.
If Giant labelled the Defy as a derivative of their TCR, Spesh labelled the Roubaix a derivative of the Tarmac (and eliminated the curvy bits and w4nky 'Zertz' blobs of glue) and Colnago gave the CX Zero and number instead of a name; and if the models that carry this 'Sportive' moniker were given the same quality of carbon and the same caché as the range-toppers much more people would be riding them. God knows the recent (and welcome) influx of desk jockey MAMILs riding race bikes with up-turned stems should be!
Merckx did it *years* ago with the 'Century' geometry (see - already a much better naming convention that carries a better stigma than 'Sportive Geometry'!), but now this supposed 'new' phenomenon is only good enough for the inflexible desk-bound new cyclist who has just seen a 'rinse & repeat' self-titled "Bike Fit Specialist".
Sometime I wish I'd never sold my LOOK 585 Optimum...