If you showed some people a sketch of something like a Ventum triathlon bike they would probably say it was wrong or fake. The shape of bikes has been held back for too long by tradition and outdated UCI race equipment rules.
Or the safety bicycle design is so perfect that any attempt to “improve” upon it winds up coming across more as an art project rather than a utilitarian upgrade.
In the case of standard racing bicycles, it really is rules rather than tech.
There are different formulae for road cycling (governed by Union Cycliste Internationale), triathlon bikes (International Triathlon Union), and "human powered vehicles" (International Human Powered Vehicle Association), typically recumbent and with fairings, and others.
Top speed (undrafted) for HPV over a timed one mile is 78 MPH.
If utilitarianism optimises for local travel, the biggest difference I've seen is a curved top-tube on omafiets. If it optimises for moving rider and luggage from A-to-B, touring bikes are pretty standard.
Fortunately, mainstream bikes have been decoupled from the UCI rules, probably since the introduction of the mountain bike. Most bikes sold today are things like cruisers, hybrids, city bikes, and low tech mountain bikes, that have no corresponding category in competitive cycling.
Designs are changing, but gradually. Most kids bikes now have non trapezoidal frame designs. But metal tubing is still a pretty compelling material to make a mainstream bike from.
Dunno, doesn't look that special to me. But I've had quite a bunch of different bikes (trials/mtb/bmx/cruiser/race/'normal' day to day) and am from a cylcing-heavy country so I'm used to seeing many different shapes.
I didn't claim it's special. Just that it differs significantly from what the majority of people think of as a "bicycle". If you ask them to sketch a bike it won't look like that.
https://ventumracing.com/bikes/