Agreed, I have also had many bikes over the years where tube lengths have been up to 5mm off published values, seat tube angles have been off by 0.5, etc, etc.TobinHatesYou wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:05 am
I trust them as much as I trust any on-paper measurement. Guess what, no two frames are exactly the same. I've have two Emonda SLR Discs, and their eTTs, TT, reach, stack, etc. are off by 3-7mm. It's utter nonsense to trust one value over the other. If you are that particular, then it's necessary to just whip out the measuring tape.
The word particular is poignant, because in my younger days I certainly was not particular. I could have 2-3 bikes that were close, but not really that close and hop from one to the other. But as I've aged and my body has started to show the effects of years of abuse (don't let your kids race motocross ) I've found that I really want my bikes to be as close in setup as I can possibly get them. But maybe also my OCD is worsening as I age. The funny thing is, even if I get the contact points identical, no 2 bikes will ever feel the same. My gravel/winter bike with long chainstays and slack head tube angle is going to feel so much different than my Moots Compact SL which is pretty steep and short, and that will feel different from my older Trek Madone, that is close in geometry but another material completely.
I'd certainly caution the OP against buying bar/stem/seatpost until you have the frame in hand. I once used published numbers (all of them, stack, reach etc) to calculate my fit and I was convinced I needed a 110 stem. Built the bike up exactly as calculated and found the reach was too short. Frame had a slightly shallower seat tube angle, and eTT was 3mm shorter than published. So....ended up with a 120 stem because even though it measured out a touch longer than I wanted it was better feeling than being 5-6mm shorter.