Thanks for the responses.
For some reason I read the Kestrel model as RT-1000 in your posts. But yeah, there are some problems with the RT-1100 geometry too that are bugging me: Take a look at the top tube and head tube measurements for size L. I see 565 and 195 mm - just looking at the numbers, they seem to clash with the declared stack and reach measurements. I entered the provided numbers into the
bikegeo.net calculator and it gives 598 and 388 mm for stack and reach (plus or minus a few mm for the fork axle-to-crown height guesstimation), for a ratio of 1.54. To achieve anything like the declared stack and reach measurements it would have to have the fork length of less than 340 mm, hardly likely for a 700c wheel bike.
Regarding the Madone, yes, I would say that using the H2 geometry in this discussion is just as disingenuous as using the Cervélo. It is a widely known and promoted fact that these geometries are primarily adapted for recreational and casual riders, to enable a more upright position than what pro racers would typically ride. The way that I see it, you want to use what was explicitly made to be an exception to the rule, as an argument there is no rule at all (though I would call it a strong and clear trend rather than a rule anyway).
Finally, it's interesting that you are so strict when it comes to the "rules" of race vs. endurance geometry regarding rider positioning, yet you are quite a bit more lax regarding handling. Take a look at that Kestrel RT-1100 in size L. I see 405 mm chainstay length, 988 mm wheelbase (another questionable measurement though; bikegeo.net calculates it as 993 mm), 69 mm BB drop, 73.5 degree seat tube, 73.2 degree head tube, 57 mm trail (or 55 mm, per
Bicycle Trail Calculator | yojimg.net)... All the numbers point to an aggressive, sharp handling race bike, except for that unusually tall head tube which enables a more upright position. Shouldn't you argue then that there is no discernible distinction whatsoever between race and endurance bike geometries?
Amusingly enough, I have very little to disagree with in your response to Racing Dan.