Gene, you pointed out why it sucks when the ACTUAL seat tube angle is not listed in most geometry charts, and the limitations of the EFFECTIVE seat tube angle. The effective angle gets slacker as you raise the post on modern bikes where the seat tube is offset in front of the BB. The effect is smaller on GG bikes than many others due to keeping the actual angle steep and minimizing the offset in front of the BB. It's a packaging nightmare to make that happen, but it helps the bike fit better.
Also keep in mind that the effective angle is measured at roughly the height where most folks have the saddle while descending. Raising the saddle for climbing amplifies the issue if the actual angle is pretty slack (eg the bikes with a large kink in the seat tube).

Most folks do not pedal in the effective angle zone, as that would be where the saddle is at the same height as the top of headtube. Eg, is your handlebar 30-70mm higher than your saddle while climbing? If so, you're climbing in the effective STA zone. Most people have it the other way around: saddle is higher than the handlebar while climbing, which is where the difference in effective and actual seat tube angles makes a bigger difference.

Actual seat tube angle on the Mondraker is 3 degrees slacker, despite the steep effective angle.

At 5'10", it is rare for somebody to ride a size Large. 6'1" is the point at which most folks prefer Large, or at 6' with a +1 or +2 ape index.

I was going to make the same comment. Joe will be calling them for royalties checks.

Yep. The weight range of 125 - 250 lbs includes approximately 95%+ of mountain bikers.

I've always been interested to try springs like this on a mountain bike.

If you bet it would work fine to run the fork at 170mm of travel, maybe you can tell Fox you'll cover any possible warranty costs of worn out bushings, and then they might release it.