That was a typo on my part. I understood he was comparing to his 313. And more interestingly, he said that although he had tried out one or more 213's owned by friends, he said he was still looking for the perfect travel tripod. It wasn't clear to me precisely what he was looking for, or if it could even exist. The Feisol too flimsy, the 213 apparently too heavy?
I would not cut too many decimal points on the leg angles specs. I suspect there can be some rounding involved. In the review, though, I don't think he accounted for the flat plate design of the Feisol, which, similar to Gitzo Systematic vs Mountaineer, naturally makes the tripod about 3-4" taller than a comparable folded length center column model. That is because relatively more of the folded length is telescoped, simply by virtue of the shorter flat top mount. That is one reason I bought a Systematic.
I think the idea that Feisol was "cheating" bothered a few here, certainly me. From my perspective it is not cheating, it is simply balancing certain mutually contradictory specifications and features a bit differently. I do believe he may be right about the stance, to some degree, just based on the experiences I mentioned. But in the case where more stability is needed, the right way to stabilize a CF tripod is to hang weight, making minor differences in stance a moot point.
I suspect all the 28mm CF tripods are a bit tippy in a stiff wind, for example, but that should be solved with added weight on the mount hook. It is less true with larger tripods like my Series 3, but then that extra weight is simply embedded in the tripod by virtue of the larger dimensions, making it less travel friendly.
To Jerry: I wasn't trying to be a tough crowd. I just found the review to be an outlier, as I mentioned, and tried to put some sort of context into what I found to be a somewhat confused review, mainly for people to direct further research on the points he raised.