If you go to http://cycle-ergo.com/, you can plug in your height and other measurements and then choose from a number of bikes to see how you would fit on them. The site gives you an option to compare bike to bike with just a flip of the scroll wheel.
I took the liberty of putting in your weight (had to guess on your inseam...put 33 inches in), and your knee angle on the Storm is 108 degrees, while on the Raider it's 128 degrees. That's a pretty significant difference. The bend of your arm is also considerably better/straighter on the Raider. Give the site a try.
I was all set to buy a Thunderbird in the spring (and probably still will), but this site really gave me pause. I'm coming from a Vulcan 900 Custom, and was surprised to see the Thunderbird was smaller (for your size, it's a 117 degree knee bend). At 6'1" myself, I was hoping for a more stretched-out posture, not less, for my next bike. If I buy a Thunderbird next year, it'll be in spite of the rider ergonomics, not because of it.
I don't think there is an ideal...as you suggest, it's subjective according to the preferences of the rider. My Vulcan 900 Custom is 108 degrees knee bend for me, while the Thunderbird is 104 degrees for me. For me, that's not an ideal setup, because ideal for me means more room for my legs to stretch, not less...that's what I was hoping for in my next bike (that, and more power...and, I had hoped, a Triumph badge). Interestingly, the Triumph America is 120 for me, and the Speedmaster is 122. Why they decided to scrunch the ergos for the Thunderbird, I've no idea...but because they did so, it makes the ergonomics -- for me -- less than ideal.I know this is a subjective question, but what do you suggest is the "ideal" ergonomics for a cruiser?