Just to add what I've learned in talking to and reading what has been put out there by people much smarter than myself as well as what I've learned in my own tinkering over the last 10 years. Bottom end geometry does alone dictate an engine's powerband, peakiness, etc. Even basic generalizations are easily disproven. Take the Nissan SR20DE and the Honda B16, archetypes of the small displacement performance engine. Both are DOHC, 4 cylinders, and very close in output but are greatly differing powerbands. The SR20 makes gobs of torque all through the midrange but runs out of steam on the top-end. The honda is almost the opposite. It does nothing until 5000rpm and then charges all the way to the 8000 rpm redline. The odd thing is that the Honda is the under square engine although it does have a 1.75:1 R/S ratio. The 85x85mm SR20 is the torque monster against conventional wisdom.
R/S ratio will dictate the max rpm your bottom end can sustain. Longer rods slow the rate at which the pistons accelerate away from TDC and BDC. Long rods also increase the amount of dwell time at TDC which helps with cylinder filling at higher rpms. Cylinder bore wear will be reduced due to reduced piston side loads. The trade off is a taller engine, more reciprocating weight, and reduced cylinder filling at low rpms. The caveat is that all these factors, except for piston speeds, are affected by the rest of the engine components.
Larry Widmer at Endyn, who has built some amazing engines (like a 300hp, 285tq, 2.0l Honda B-series), feels that 1.75:1 R/S is a good compromise for a NA street engine and anything below 1.6:1 may benefit from a reduction in stroke to allow installation of a longer rod package. With all that said he is still in favor of getting as much displacement as possible and tuning around it for the performance level you desire.
F1 is not the be all end all of engine performance. The rules of F1 tend to dictate engine configuration. The ban on turbos means the engines have to spin to high rpms to make power. High rpm dictate a large bore (for bigger valves). The engine can't be too tall because of aerodynamics so you have to reduce stroke to keep piston speeds down. The added benefit is reduced pumping losses. At 12000+ rpms valvetrain weight and friction becomes a factor. Thats why you don't see 5-valve per-cylinder F1 engines. Almost all are 40 valve, V10's. Honda and BMW were both planning on fielding sub 2.0l turbo 4's when the turbo ban went into effect in the early 90's. As you can see, everything is a tradeoff.
When I build my engine, I think I'm going to run an L24 crank in the tallest block I can find (LD28?). I punch the bore out as far as possible and fit it with ITB's, big valves, and a big cam. I'll fit an eaton supercharger making 5-8psi to make up for the lack of low end. My Z is just for my own personal enjoyment and doesn't have to conform to any class restrictions (except my wallet). History has shown that big, low rpm engines are just as viable as small high rpm engines.
Sorry for the ramble on.