That's a great question and one of the reasons why I am skeptical about the shorter reach of the Cinelli frame. On the Kestrel I have a flatbar with a 110mm Ritchey stem. If I were to have drop bars, I would run a shorter stem. My plans for the Cinelli are not yet fixed on either flat or drop bars. I think though, for me flat bars are much more fun for the type of riding that I typically do and if I were to go that direction with the Cinelli frame, I think longer than 110mm is not a good idea.

Another thing that I have just considered is the seatpost set-back. I need to verify this but the Kestrel has what I think is a 2.5cm set-back and my saddle is perfect center. I believe that this means if I run the same set-back on the Cinelli S frame and with the saddle more to the rear, that I could pull this off quite nicely. Question is then: would the bike ride well with the saddle so far behind the crankset? Seated climbing might suffer a bit.

After looking around it seems that other manufacturers such as Giant and Scott have also similar geometry: Much longer virtual seat-tube, and shorter reach lengths than the classic European road bike geometry of the Kestrel.