Meh. Its definitely incremental, but put the Pogacar's Y1Rs next to the Sagan's Cannondale's next to Lance's Trek, and its pretty clear things have changed.

Well, they very clearly explained that it was in a bid to get EF riders to stop sizing down to get frames with lower stack heights. It is not just about spacer stacks, but also about getting riders on bikes that are the right length for them. Based on the pro bikes I have seen from EF, they are not using setups with less stack height. They are on bars with shorter stems.

One of the great mysteries of the bike part of the internet is why people size down (like pros), buy race bikes (like pros), and then complain about the stack height being too low because they lack the elite physiology that makes up a pro. They could probably have solved some of the issues by either buying the right bike size for them from the start or buying an endurance bike and sizing down. Most people look at the size charts created by manufacturers and throw them straight into the bin. While they aren't a replacement for a bike fit, that guidance is based on the bike's design and desired handling characteristics.

With the most love and good intentions to you and to Peter--there isn't much positional innovation with regards to the bikes that XMCS are proposing on this thread. We rarely see that coming from anywhere but from brands with teams involved in the highest level of racing. I am not suggesting that XMCS should be doing that, just that expectations should be set accordingly, and for the brands that have pushed performance through position optimization (e.g., Specialized, Ridley, Colnago), it might be worth giving them a bit of credit for their work.