I don't think that it's accurate because a combination of large length and girth is more rare than one or the other. And the highest value is only 1/62500 which would mean there are lots of guys with 9.25" x 7.00".
Anyways, my min is 8" NBPEL x 6.5" MEG and max is 8.25" BPEL x 7" BEG.
I already mentioned in earlier posts that the chart reflects the volume.
It is just an indication, but the green zone (average >-1sd <+1sd) is pretty accurate.
( left and right from this zone reflects the volume as if the Lifestyle data was a normal distribution )
If I had the individual data (lenght x girth) of the Lifestyle Survey, I could make a very accurate volume-chart with a max error of 2%.
( and then we would also see that lenght and girth correlates strongly - what I suspect )
But you're right : volumewise a 9.25" x 7.00" is 1/62,500; this would mean that in a city of 187,500 habitants there is probably 1 with such a penis volume.
( adult males = +/- 1 on 3 // women and children = +/- 2 on 3)
That seems a bit high, but that's the data from the Lifestyle Survey.
The second chart in this thread goes to 9.50" x 7.25" : 1/500,000; just 0.25" more in lenght and girth is 8 times less.
http://www.lpsg.com/attachments/178797d1335355284-[statistics]-volume-chart-chart10725-jpg
But hey, it isn't the word of God, it's just fun to see, where you approx stands "volumewise" with your penis, without calculating yourself the volume.
Have fun.
BTW : my bike was total loss ( an oldie of the eighties: a Yamaha XV1000 )
I'm still working now on my Laverda 900, that I bought in 1983.
Never thought I would ride with that machine again.
Most of my weekends goes to searching for cheap original spare parts.
I'm to old now to buy a new bike, and honestly I'm not an admirator of those 'bling bling machines'.
And the oldies that I like - I don't have the money for it : MV Agusta, Norton...