Truth in Geometry Tables

[Plum Hill]

I posed a question on the HSG thread in the Catalog section (https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=178972) but got no replies.
Would anyone care to weigh in on the subject?
Or better yet - have a like model that they could measure?

[Brian Smith]

There was never, to my knowledge, an HSG steel road frame, while there were many incantations of HSG carbon frames.

If you're trying to compare the geometry of a steel cross frame to a carbon road frame, possibly of unknown provenance, after the installation of couplers, and via common hand tools for measurements, then I'd see a lot of room for possible errors in judgment leading to the various numbers not being fully comparable.
If the issue is of significant concern, you might get a better response level here if you post better detail of what you've got, what you've done, and why a resolution of theory and reality is useful.

I recently discovered that an HSG Carbon frameset purchased for a friend was actually an HSG Custom. The stack was 2cm greater than the stock size to which I assumed the frame corresponded. This is just one way that differences between theory and reality can arise due to an owner not actually knowing what they own. In my case, a stem selection put the fit where I needed it. Neither the fault, nor the solution, lie in a table of "geometry" specifications found online.

[Plum Hill]

Perhaps my terminology is wrong. It’s a steel road, not cross, marked as Colorado, not HSG, but size was listed as 57 Performance Geometry which my carbon is. Both frames built in 2011. Frames were identical before steel was coupled.
Both frames measured by more than one person and all agree on dimensions. Those dimensions do not match geometry chart. A Reach of 36cm on a 57?
SN carbon HB-X957
SN steel CO-X100172
Makes comparing these bikes to others using published Stack and Reach a non-starter.

[Brian Smith]

Perhaps my terminology is wrong. It’s a steel road, not cross, marked as Colorado, not HSG, but size was listed as 57 Performance Geometry which my carbon is. Both frames built in 2011. Frames were identical before steel was coupled.
Both frames measured by more than one person and all agree on dimensions. Those dimensions do not match geometry chart. A Reach of 36cm on a 57?
SN carbon HB-X957
SN steel CO-X100172
Makes comparing these bikes to others using published Stack and Reach a non-starter.

I think you're better off getting the folks who are taking your measurements to help you, rather than turning here.
HBX957 would have been built in 2010, while COX100172 would have been built in 2011. It's not certain, in either case, that the chart retrieved online for 2011 HSG Carbon frames that you initially posted in response to is appropriate for the year/model frames you have. I'm not sure what purpose it would serve to find the proper chart, if you already trust the needed measurements you've been given, but I'm certain you haven't made the purpose clear to me. If you've got frames that you're trying to do something with, trust the people whose measurements you trust and move forward. If, rather, you're just trying to demonstrate that the geometry charts are incorrect, then I wish you good luck, but I suggest that you first start with the charts intended for the frames and that then you "instrument up." If you're trying to buy a new bike, let the seller fit you to one, bringing your old bikes for comparison, if that's relevant.
Sorry if that seems like I'm being short, but I'm presenting a lot more information and typing many more words than you are. I'd like to see you move forward, rather than get mired in comparing "irl" measurements to web archive geometry charts.

PM me if you need more help with this.