nouseforaname profile

You forgot to mention - constantly tinkering with whatever PR system they have to 'tweak it to work better'.

You want parties with single focus, and special interests everywhere - vote PR. For every Green Party, you'll end up with an AFD. And still nothing getting done.

@Cooper

Poor people *do* have a smaller carbon footprint  - but there's 100x more of them (China + India) as there are of us, and we are paying to pull their people out of poverty at a faster rate than at any time in history. So those 'poor people' are soon going to be no longer poor, but contributing just as much per capita (perhaps more) as we are. 

And they want the same lifestyles we have - and why shouldn't they? Te approved method seems to be that we should destroy our lifestyle/economy to build theirs? We have imposed increasingly onerous burdens on businesses until they give it the Bill Murray, throw their hands in the say and say "Fuck it, I'm out." Only for that same product to return to the market, made in some country that cares more about the quality of life of it's citizens than virtue signalling against big corporations. Quebec has a moratorium against Alberta oil, but imports millions of gallons from a country half way around the world with an appalling human rights record.

To now offload responsibility back onto us, and pretend that we should reduce our carbon footprint to their level because they have a lower per capita number (for now)  is sophistry. Destroy our economies so they can prosper, don't have kids so that they can have kids, ride a bike to work so they can have factories. The message only sticks because it suits the millenarian doom and gloomer inside the guilt ridden and shamed Western world. We love to worry about the end of the world because we don't have enough real things to worry about any more. Plus you can make good money to push the message. Little different in that regard to Y2K.

@Cam - if in 2012 China's CO2 output was only 16% directed to goods shipped overseas, do they have a responsibility to clean up the other 84%? If we have reduced our CO2 output by 10% , and they have doubled theirs in the last 10 years, who is needing to step up their game? It's not finger wagging, but expecting a level playing field. You seem to be suggesting that because we bankrolled their economy, we're responsible for offsetting it? Again - how long should we wait for them to get it under control if we only have 12 years?

We can't have it both ways - either you care for the environment and the worlds biggest polluters need to accept the same curtailments we have pushed on us (and that's going to suck big time for the people who live there). And by extension, stop preaching to the choir TOYER. Or accept that by not addressing the big dogs in the room, it's nothing but theatre and the equivalent to environmental 'thoughts and prayers'. Except thoughts and prayers don't cost us money out of every paycheck.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/china-average-europe-carbon-footprint < Again 2012, but where is it now?

Sorry - slow day...

Absolutely - that is a point I made above. 

From the article you linked, the US is responsible for 5% of China's CO2, using their logic. 16% of total CO2 emissions were related to exports. That still leaves 84% that is related to their internal economy that is ripe for them to resolve without harming their external economic bottom line. If you want their economic bottom line to continue.

If we have 10 (or 12 or whatever) years left - how many of those years will go by before meaningful change happens in the countries that are producing the worlds CO2? The ball is in their court. 

But they can't play it because doing so would destroy their internal economies. The only reason the Communist Party is still in charge in China is that they are able to point to a real legacy of improvement (for most - don't ask the Uighurs or any of the political prisoners, or anybody executed whose family was billed for the bullet) that is unchallenged. If that legacy of improvement is threatened (either internally or externally) they will have no future.

Sorry Cam.

We are pulling people out of extreme poverty at an unprecedented rate (which is amazing and cool, given that the level for which 'extreme poverty' is set would have you living almost twice as well as someone in the UK 120 years ago). That was a country that had the largest economy in the world and a globe spanning empire. 

This is happening thanks to the industrialization of the two most populous nations on earth. Without curbing their natural desire to have what we have, there is no meaningful way to achieve what self conscious hand wringing types like TOYER (shouldn't it be TOSYER - too close to what I think perhaps) want.

US and EU Co2 emissions are 10% lower than they were a decade ago - that's improvement overall right? How is that # for the two countries I mentioned? And how has that happened?

We either end that improvement of life for residents of those two big countries - driven by their desire for the same goods and services we have; as they don't care about the environment 'enough', or we deal with the consequences. At this point, probably not much short of global thermonuclear war will do it. As a plus the nuclear winter will reduce 'rising temperatures' and 'icebergs melting' etc and send us back to pre industrial revolution temperatures. Win/win for the environment (? fallout might be an issue), and I'm pretty sure the XR folks would be happy at last.

Off shoring manufacturing so that we can have endless plastic shit at Christmas, Easter, Halloween and any time we want a cheap geegaw has got us into this situation. We have supercharged those previously 'have not' economies and now we are wringing our hands about the results. And pretending we can fix it from 10,000 miles away - how privileged patriarchal is THAT idea?

We either force those countries to clean up their act, or suffer the consequences globally. And telling individuals in the 'west' that is is their responsibility to manage is about as Stalinist an idea as I can come up with.

We have built China's economy with massive trade imbalances, desire for cheap shit, and ignoring for decades their  breaking of global rules and norms because it suits those making money from the situation. Now they and India are in the driving seat of global pollution what are we going to do about it? Make A+W use paper straws? Nice one! 2.7 BILLION polluters. The population of Europe AND the USA doesn't account for half that #.

Now India is getting in on the act - they've doubled their CO2 output in 10 years, but they are still only 25% of what China is at now. Their population growth is not slowing.

The good news is that China's population is stabilizing. So maybe we won't tip over 10 billion.

Reap the whirlwind.

With apologies in advance to Cam and Dave for being such a 'redneck'.

Makes sense - if SRAM can decide that .55mm is enough to justify a new crank/BB interface I can see how an extra 3.4mm+ would give some advantages.

Thanks for the insight. Super DH sits at the top of the pile compared to the Giro which seems even bulkier. I wonder if MEC will have some of these?

$350USD makes this a pricey helmet for Canadians. I thought the Super DH was pricey already. Chain Reaction has this at $540CAD - $140 more than the street price of a Super DH.

Worth the extra cash in your opinion Cam? Have you worn a Super DH as a comparison?

I agree with you here AJ - my G16 was amazing and changed how I view the trail, but in 29r guise it was far from perfect. HA around 60deg with two offset bushes to get the BB under control made it nimble like a super tanker loaded with crude.

*tacks #thatguy #mypleasure

Posted by: tungsten

Posted by: nouseforaname

The streets don't actually run with blood down there - most deaths are suicides (60%) or gang related (22-27%). Accidental deaths run about 3% (<1000 per year VikB). That leaves between 10-15% (3200-4800 in 2011 #s) as what most of us would think of as interpersonal homicides. Avoid shooting yourself, don't deal drugs or hang out with dealers and you have a pretty slim chance of getting shot. Those figures were from 2011 but homicide rates are down about 50% from the 1990s, so pretty valid IMO. The endless news media cycle tries to persuade us that things are different with their constant coverage of murder and mayhem - if it bleeds it leads!

++++++++++++++++++++++

Guns killed nearly 40,000 Americans in 2017, according to official statistics, which only counts cases if guns were "the principal cause" of death but not if they only "contributed" to it; that is 4.43 deaths per 100,000. By contrast, the death rate from gun violence in Japan and the United Kingdom is 0.04 and 0.06 respectively.

About two-thirds of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. This tells us there is plenty of despair. It has gone up by 33 percent in the last two decades while the global suicide rate has declined by 30 percent in roughly the same period.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/drugs-guns-despair-america-killing-americans-191210154703005.html

++++++++++

The 2A was written expressly with the intent to allow regular people to defend against a tyrannical government.

Of course the Founders of the US were against democracy - because they understood that democracy is fickle mob rule and nothing more. Most people don't understand that we don't live in a democracy, so when they see stuff like was posted above they think that can be used to attack the intent of the founding of the USA, which is ridiculous.

[b]Yeah no it's not yes they can and no it isn't. Jeez........[\b]

Edit: If any NSMBrs want to come shooting - drop me a line. Ammo's on me. Come and see how safe and regulated Canadian firearms owners are.

Cool! Got an outdoor location where we can film it so we can post up here and make Vikb's skin crawl? You, know, the anti-gun guy who rides a bike with silhouettes of Colt SA revolvers on his chain stays?

But no 2nd admendment discussions ok? I wouldn't want our little outing to end in bloodshed. heh...

ps - I can bring my own ammo

I'm not sure what you meant by the bolded section.

Your numbers broadly track with mine - so I think you're in agreement with me that if you're not suicidal or dealing drugs, you have a low chance of dying by firearm?

I'm a member at PCDHFC - we can discuss the 2A all you want. A video would be pretty dull because safe and well regulated really translates as dull.

I don't end political conversations with gunfire. I hope you're not projecting.

Posted by: syncro

While the part about muskets may not have been bang on (ha!), the general point I was making about firearms still stands. There is a pretty wide margin between the firearms of today and 300 years ago, especially when it comes to hand guns. And while the point you make about the 2nd Amendment is true, that also speaks to the main point I was making; society today is quite different from 300 years ago and to expect the rules we live under to not change at all is it a bit unrealistic. 2A is an amendment, it's not impervious to change.

I don't think most people here are calling for a ban on guns, just improved regulations around purchasing and owning them. That's one of the main issues with firearm ownership in the US in my opinion, there is a wide variation in regulations. Some states have what seem like fairly sensible regulations and other states have very little. It's like having a no peeing section in a pool - not very effective. The other thing I see is that the pro-gun lobby seems completely opposed to any talk about firearm regulation, if it comes up they basically loose their shit.

When it comes to Canada I think we have fairly sensible laws for the most part, but I still think there is room for improvement. Some of that is would be in favour of firearm owners and some would be in favour of stronger regulations. The recent moves announced by the Liberals are not waht I would call an improvement.

How much of a margin between 18th century freedom of speech and what we have now? He types on his computer. There is a slim margin between society of 50 years ago and today - there is no firearm on the market that is novelly different from what was available 50 or 60 years ago. 40 years ago, you could buy a select fire rifle or an actual machine gun. You could buy real assault rifles just like the military had - actual M16s with full auto not just AR15 semi automatics. Want an M2 Browning, sure no prob. What has changed for the worse since then, you can't buy an assault rifle any more, so things should be better right. Why are things 'worse' now than they were 40 years ago?

States with the strictest regulations have the most problems - when will enough regulation be enough? There are already laws about transporting firearms, shipping firearms across state lines (has to go to a FFL, not your home), mandatory background checks for all purchases - what law can you propose? (Serious Q, answers like 'take them away' or other unicorn reliant solutions don't count).

What stronger regulations would you propose for Canadian firearms owners - that aren't "this gun is scary, you can't own it"? And what improvement in favour of firearms owners would you propose?

This thread delivers.

Canadian exceptionalism, misunderstanding the 2A, misunderstanding what Americans can legally do with their owned firearms and a good dose of holier than thouism. Add in some bad statistics (looking at you VikB) and misunderstanding about whether America is a Democracy or not and what that means. But about what I would expect for NSMB talking about firearms and Americans. Subjects most Canadians are ignorant about IMO.

America is a different country, with a different cultural origin. Where Canadians stayed as happy subjects of the Crown (and are still generally happy to be subjects) Americans threw off the yoke. Everything from then on diverged their culture from ours. In the 1700's the folks who were white on this continent were not much different, whether they were North or South of the 49th parallel. Comparing Canada to the US is about as meaningful as comparing the US to Mexico, despite our 'common' language.

None of us up here generally 'get it' IMO, as the cultural differences are constantly reinforced (especially over the last 20-30 years up here from what I've seen and read). Canada has continued to push a civilian disarmament plan, where as Americans have gone the other way. Despite that gun culture (because of it?) homicide rates continue to fall in the US and Gun Culture 2.0 is racially diverse . Canadian gun owners are still culturally much more homogeneous - old white guys etc. In the States, firearms ownership is growing rapidly among young ethnically diverse urban dwellers, and they're not buying hunting rifles.

The streets don't actually run with blood down there - most deaths are suicides (60%) or gang related (22-27%). Accidental deaths run about 3% (<1000 per year VikB). That leaves between 10-15% (3200-4800 in 2011 #s) as what most of us would think of as interpersonal homicides. Avoid shooting yourself, don't deal drugs or hang out with dealers and you have a pretty slim chance of getting shot. Those figures were from 2011 but homicide rates are down about 50% from the 1990s, so pretty valid IMO. The endless news media cycle tries to persuade us that things are different with their constant coverage of murder and mayhem - if it bleeds it leads!

The 2A was written expressly with the intent to allow regular people to defend against a tyrannical government. They'd experienced that once already and knew what they were talking about. Syncro's point about a musket being different to an AR15 is a typical red herring. At the time of the War of Independence, many Americans were BETTER armed than the Redcoats - they had rifles which were more accurate than the muskets which were literally unable to hit a man outside of 50 yards - they didn't fight in big lines because they liked the symmetry. Against that were colonials who could often kill a man at 200 yards or more due to the better accuracy of their firearms. The Supreme Court in the US has actually ruled that NON military firearms are NOT covered by the 2A! Most folks don't know that. So owning something that is not an AR15 or derived from a military type firearm puts you at more jeopardy than owning a select fire assault rifle. Why would you expect to restrict people to a firearm that is less capable if you expect them to defend themselves against the government that you expect to try and tyrannize them. IMO that argument is usually made by people who say things like "Well defending yourself against the government is ridiculous, you could never do that." Or "governments never harm their own citizens!". Both of which are patently false to even a casual student of history. Disarmament is usually the first thing governments do before subjecting their citizens to violence.

Of course the Founders of the US were against democracy - because they understood that democracy is fickle mob rule and nothing more. Most people don't understand that we don't live in a democracy, so when they see stuff like was posted above they think that can be used to attack the intent of the founding of the USA, which is ridiculous.

Americans CAN NOT just shoot after a truck that has run them off the road as it speeds away. And that's not what the OP represented the PB question as. But it's no wonder that a Canadian might think that it's what is OK down there - as it suits everybody involved in disarmament to paint a picture of a lawless society with everybody blasting away at each other. Of course that goes to my point about the streets not generally running with blood. Depending on your State, you can't even necessarily shoot a violent home invader without suffering the consequences of punishment by trial. In some States in the US, if someone is breaking through your barricaded bedroom door screaming that they're going to rape and kill you, you STILL cannot shoot them through the door despite the obvious threat to your life. The US does not have universal 'Castle Doctrine' which is what many Canadians seem to think applies when they think of the States. Using your firearm to defend yourself IS permissible in Canadian law - just expect that you're going to spend years defending yourself in court, after you've defended yourself in fact. I did read a statistic recently that suggested that US burglars preferred empty homes compared to Canadian burglars due to the risk attendant to their crime in the US, but I can't find again it to reference it here.

To answer your question OP - I would use something like this from Hill People Gear - it wouldn't serve as much of a deterrent against rednecks but there's not much point carrying a pistol that isn't accessible when you need it. At the bottom of my Camelbak where it's settled after riding for a couple of hours is a pointless place for a pistol, but then so is carrying one on your hip. Open carry is dumb IMO and makes you the obvious target. With that said, it's unlikely that I would carry while mountain biking even in the US. I struggle with wanting to carry what friends consider essentials when riding up here, and expecting to add a pistol into that mix would probably double my load! Unless I was riding in an area that i thought I was likely to be targeted in, there would be no need. The best way to avoid being a victim is to avoid areas where you're more likely to be victimized. I'd be generally happy to carry concealed in the US outside of riding my bike - or swimming. probably wouldn't tuck a Glock in my speedos. Defensive gun use is a nebulous # but even on the low end is thought to run 500,000 per year (high end 3 MILLION) - instances when having a gun has prevented victimization, robbery or death. Canadians for good reason can't wrap their heads around that idea.

Edit: If any NSMBrs want to come shooting - drop me a line. Ammo's on me. Come and see how safe and regulated Canadian firearms owners are.

Posted by: jon

I wonder if earlb has been a consultant on the project after all his garage builds. ;)

They probably aren't interested in selling rusty frames.

I don't think the fork is expensive at all - given how much we pay for mass produced forks from mature companies with a wide range of products. SRAM and Fox can amortize the cost of their high end forks over the 10s of thousands they make every year, in factories that make 100s of thousands of forks. Subsidised by the 100s of thousands of other forks they sell into the OEM.

It's more crazy that we pay so much for Fox and SRAM product than the fact a boutique builder with unique solutions charges E1800. After exchange rate and removal of VAT the fork is under $2100CAD. Pretty crazy - isn't a Lyrik Ultimate MSRP at $1650CAD? I know they don't sell at that price but again, that's the mass market vs the boutique. Even at a 'street price' of $1300CAD for a Lyrik Ultimate, I don't think it's that big of a mark up.

I'd support that mad engineer in a heartbeat if I had the money.

He's the guy that in trying to find environmentally friendly packaging to protect his product came up with the idea of using non stick pan scourers. They protect the fork and are reusable, unlike most packaging materials. Way 'outside the box' thinking. It's a shame we're so locked into MY cycles and incremental changes year after year that his products seem too expensive.

LOL. Nothing can replace that Roach vest. I still judge all shorts against the Roach shorts I replaced last year, and none measure up.

Trek does.

Available with or without a lever (which is a 6mm allen key that is held in magnetically).

IIRC Livetoplay and Orange Sport Supply (Distributors) have some Formula freehubs. You would need to order through your LBS.

How about Toxik Harald? He does strip and repaint, so he'll probably do you just a strip. And at least he knows what's up with a bike, rather than some automotive place unaware of potential risks with media vs Alloy. A friend of mine once sent a fork off to be stripped, expecting walnut shells. They used an acid bath and he got back a pair of severely corroded fork lowers, as they weren't expecting magnesium.

Posted by: RAHrider

Saw this in person today. The whole thing weighs about the same as a BzA bar. The shop owner who is bit of a beast on his euro bike has been riding it and loving it. 

I guess the question for me now is how do I not buy it?

Maybe you like the idea of the One UP bar, which is more appealing to me. A bit more comfort as I'm smashing rocks with my wheels.