LOL I was wondering how long it would take for you show up with that old argument again. But why must I repeat myself, AGAIN? We never set out to "prove" anything. You are the one who was splitting hairs and punishing us for employing terms that do not fit with your one-design-fits-all framebuilding philosophy. We were here just talking about finding a sweet ride, nothing more. But since you mentioned it, again, the "criterium frame", although not a category but a philosophy (I just hate having to repeat myself over and over again), is not new, as it has been around for quite some time. I'm starting to find more framebuilders who seem to have knowledge of this as well. (I'm getting better with google LOL).

Following your reasoning, since there are only "minute differences" between a stage race bike and a "sporting bike", and between that and a "touring bike", for that matter... while we're at it, why make separate categories for those? Why not make something along the median of everyting, as one of your posts suggested? A one-design-fits-all sort of bike. Remember "hybrids"? They are a great example of a "median" bike! They make a POOR mountainbike, and they make POOR road bike! In fact, they're pretty crappy at everything, but then again, if you've never tried better, how would you know?
That "little one degree difference" you mention is what separates a road racing bike from a touring bike. Ditto for bottom bracket height. So do you also reason that we may as well give racers touring bike angles and bb heights from now on? After all, it's the same "minor difference" between a standard road racing bike and either of them (touring or criterium), just not in the same direction!

Now regarding the CG height... you're leaning at the same angle, for a given speed and arc, no matter what the height of your bottom bracket. CG height affects vehicles like cars that do not lean and will tip over if the CG is too high! But we lean at a given angle depending on speed and arc, so we don't have that issue on a bike. The book "Bicycle Science" gives more information on this topic.

Your repeated insistence on trying to kill the term "criterium geometry", hammering it to death and threatening anyone who uses it of ridicule, is starting to look very much like a closed minded framebuilder who came here for some free exposure and publicity, but now has painted himself into a corner. You've made statements you won't back away from for obvious reasons, and you look concerned about your reputation. No one asked for, nor needed, your permission to use the term "criterium geometry", nor to have it recognized by you. It was used in the past, is being used again, and will be used in the future, whether you like it or not.