Some comments above about the rider adapting to the bike.
Sometime ago I road an early race day Pace RC something or other around Thetford* and Norfolk area. Geometry and
especially the AL material choice meant I was battered. These bikes were indeed race day and the rider had to put
up with discomfort for the race duration at the expensive of gaining speed and leg power transfer to the rear wheel.
To think you could adapt to such a bike for say a 200 km off road epic would require an awful amount of training and
an
unnecessary amount of going through the pain barrier. For short rides, sure, you can put up with it. You can
put up with practically any ill fitting bike for a short duration, and of course off-road you are moving around so won't
be in a bad position for too long either.
IMHO, it's when you start to have various aches and pains, and riding develops into more time in the saddle (actually pedaling)
that a good understanding of geometry and position becomes very beneficial - make the bike work 100% for you, I can't
see it any other way to be honest.
Adding suspension in the mix, and bombing down rock gardens is something very different and specific that's already mentioned
with all sorts of flavours, lovers and haters. Just what the bike industry thrives on. I suppose around the late-90s it all got
pretty well nailed (normalised even?) concerning geometry and the intended riding.
Interestingly, if you look at the very very early road bikes when there were crap unsurfaced roads, rider comfort is
taken into account in the geometry with slack angles and highly raked forks. We are also talking skinny flexy tubes everywhere.
Things invariably stiffened up with the quest for speed and angles got steeper and other "must have" bits-n-pieces, but
around the 90s (at a guess) a better understanding of the negative effects of long duration rider discomfort gained interest
and AL frames became practically worthless overnight with more rider centric carbon frame designs.
* ..... I know. Not the most hardcore.
