I also think the issue is reach is used without factoring in stack height. If a bike has a reach of 480mm, it will feel longer if the stack is higher than lower when compared to what you are currently riding.. A lower stack also usually means spacers and riser bars for the average punter so suddenly that 480mm is 460 when standing and the seated position gets cramped a Leitch pointed out..
I found this interesting article,
https://www.mbr.co.uk/news/beyond-geometry-charts-399728.. It’s pretty nerdy but i am bored with time to kill.
Considering the amount of marketing telling you to upgrade for geo reasons, I think it is interesting to run an experiment on what size I am riding.
For example I * think* I want a longer reach 120-130mm bike for when things get a bit steeper at Bright etc, nothing outrageous, the sort of numbers revel and santa cruz use.. So far measuring my bike (2019 Primer with an angleset) against the newer bikes, the wheelbase is within +/- 2-3 mm, front centre +/- 2-3mm, head angle within ~0.5 degrees.. Reach and seat angle are the next to be measured. So looks like the geo charts are actually a bit off (after factoring in the angleset) and the desire to upgrade for geo reasons isn’t looking particularly strong.. Of course there are many other reasons for an upgrade though
..