Thank you very much. It's a shame that the geometry is based on older models, with a very rear-set seat tube angle and such a high bottom bracket.
We'll keep looking for a frame with a lightweight design and progressive geometry...

Where did you find the geometry? The product specifications section of the website won't load on my computer.

Could you share it?

This is going to be my first post on this forum, and I reckon it's going to be a bit longer than I'd have thought, but here's my opinion.

It is obvious that the most common sizes in terms of geometry are the most widely used; however, which market are you aiming for? North America and Europe, or perhaps the Asian market? Here, the most common size varies, and perhaps the geometry settings do too. In short, traditional M–L sizes range from approximately 54 to 58 (52 to 56 for Asia).

The shape of the frame will be very important from a sales perspective, but from my point of view (as an engineer), my perception of design takes a different path; for example, when I see that the shape serves no purpose strictly related to stiffness, shock absorption or aerodynamics, for me that design is completely out of the question.

Having said that, I personally prefer a bike for enjoying long rides, so a racing-style geometry or a super-aerodynamic design won't add anything to my enjoyment of cycling. In my experience (in Spain and southern Europe), 98 per cent of cyclists are amateurs who don't compete, rarely goes near 40km/h on the plane (when lonely), or at most take part in endurance events. Everyone riding frames with racing geometry ends up using between 30 and 50 mm of stem extension.  The latest trends I've seen in the Aethos 2, Quick-Pro UR-One, Canyon Endurance CFR, Scott Addict, Emlee...  seem to me to be much closer to what the average cyclist actually needs.

If we compare the key features of these models, we can see that they have a reach similar to that of a racing bike, as well as a similar seat tube angle, but a higher stack and a relatively long overall wheelbase. Secondly, these bikes are designed more for lightness and confort than for being super-stiff and aerodynamic.

As for the wheel arch, there's no doubt that the current standard is 30mm, but I think a maximum of 35mm is the minimum you should bear in mind.

Finally, given the trend towards shorter cranks and the wider tyre profile, I think it's important to lower the bottom bracket; 74mm below the line of the wheel axles is a good starting point