For the record, in the recent MOG article about gravel bikes: Geometry section, paragraph 2:
No, we have not redefined the term slack. It still refers to seat tube angle, never top tube angle. This despite what the manager of the worlds “premiere” bike fitting school might publish.
After publishing your correction, also explain how top tube angle has a damn thing to do with weight distribution.
He looks really, really dumb instead of just dumb.
Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone assume you are stupid, rather than open it and remove all doubt.
His delivery is a bit harsh, but I think he is correct though. Top tube angle has nothing to do with weight distribution. Picture an “aggressive” geometry design with a flat heat tube, now design the same frame with shorter seat tube and get a bit more seat post exposure but keep seat, head tube angles the same only changing the top tube angle. How is this changing the weight distribution other than removing a few grams of seat tube material?
He’s absolutely correct. Sloping top tubes in no way impact rider weight distribution.