I test rode a CCR-4 last weekend.
It definitely has as short effective top tube (ETT) but with a short head tube in my bike's size, which is about a 58. That's peculiar given that usually comfort-type bikes have a short ETT and a long head tube.
Also strange was that in a 58, it had 42cm handlebars and I believe it had 172.5 cranks. Other brands would've had this bike set up with 44cm bars and 175mm cranks. I guess this frameset was meant for someone shorter than myself but looking at the geometry, I wouldn't have wanted the next size up.
I know little about carbon weaves, modulus or otherwise but it looked like a nice frameset. The components were indeed low-grade, though; the seat post was a dirt cheap-looking, the crankset was the old cotterless style, and then of course there's the Sora shifters which their awkward ergonomics. When I first took the bike outside, it made a repetitive squeaking sound as it rolled; turns out the hubs needed a few drops of dry lube. That was new to me.
When I test rode the bike, it didn't seem much more vertically compliant or otherwise shock-absorbing than my aluminum road bike. It was directionally very stable, probably due to the extremely lax head tube angle. If you want descending stability, this is one of the bikes to consider. Despite the crankset it had, the bike seemed to transmit power pretty well.
Not much about the ride was remarkable or that otherwise grabbed me.
However, at $750, I could stand to put some Tiagra or better shifters on it as well as a decent contemporary crankset in my size and maybe some better wheels.
The deal breaker, though, was when the shop tech was inflating the tires and the bike, which was resting its handlebars against a 2' section of wall, tipped over and hit its top tube against the corner of the wall, scarring the paint on the top tube. Since the bike is composite it concerned me enough to not want the bike, as cheap as it was.