I think most people are going to be more comfortable on an endurance style racing frame. What I'm envisioning here is slightly slackened head and seat tube angles, slightly longer chain stays (i.e. >41cm instead of 40mm) and a longer head tube. That's going to be plenty aggressive for most people and especially most clydes. It's unfortunate that most bikes are built with racing geometries like we're all going to be working on becoming TdF domestiques or something. It's great that there are now starting to be more choices with racing frames, endurance frames, gravel grinders etc... Considerably more choice than a few years ago, but it can make for a bewildering set of choices when you go to buy a bike.
Greg Lemond said it best - you should get the bike that allows you to be as aerodynamic as you are comfortable.
I had been riding an older bike - a 2007 Lemond Versailles built by Trek. Had 40cm chain stays, 67mm bb drop, very upright seat and head tube angles, a high bottom bracket. That was a bike that took a lot of steering input to manage and was essentially a criterium bike but not dissimilar to most "racing" frames now. I recently built a full custom stainless steel frame that is awesome that has what would have been considered the geometry for a stage racing frame (very similar to endurance style frames now) from when that was the style of racing frame. Slightly relaxed angles on seat and head tube. 41.5cm chain stays, 75mm bb drop, longer wheelbase etc... I'm slightly more upright. Result is increased average speed, better comfort, less fatigue after a long day of riding. Very predictable and quick handling, great on high speed descents.
J.