HIBuLlitT profile

I thought I recognized that bike. Be careful or someone might get jealous.

LOL

Thanks for a new desktop background…awesome!

> ummmmm… things like that don't happen through luck.
> it's vision, hard work, and dedication. plain and simple

LOL, and having a place to do it, and having the right trees, and having enough
deadfall, and not living in California.

But I agree, with vision, hard work and dedication, you to can move to BC…

BTW, that's a very nice bridge you have there.

> ok so its eather a new tech of ditching or hes doing a front flip on purpose

Yes, that's bikerfoxes "trick" on grass.

This is PS, duh…

Awesome shot.

Mmmm, my kind of trail (with a FF helmet ;) )

That's one hell of a rock gardn'

Damn!

Help, I'm upside down and hung up on this stupid cable.

Has she ridden, or got the opportunity to ride any current bikes? Does she know what characteristics she wants from a bike? An old Bullit is going to be light years from a modern enduro sled. And I don't necessarily mean 100% in a bad way. I've owned an old Bullit and other than the brake jack which was solved by not braking….it was fun and versatile. I've got a '98 Super 8 with a set of Z1s and this bike should be dreadful but there are aspects of it that I prefer over a 10ft long 'game changer'. Basically I'm saying ride some bikes rather than looking at spreadsheets :) I've ridden plenty of bikes that I thought that I'd like but ended up hating, and vice versa. Some bikes just feel 'right'.

I threw you off mentioning the bullit. The bullit was the last bike she owned before the norco 2008 fluid 2. When the brakes failed on her right before a ride, she took my 2006 Specialized Enduro pro and it blew her mind. The Spreadsheet I put together compared the fluid and my Enduro which showed the differences. Her fluid weighs about 5lbs less than my enduro so I threw that number out as the enduro allowed her to climb better and of course with the extra squish allowed her to descend waaay better (the slacker HA helped I'm sure).

According to the spreadsheet, the bikes I've mentioned are the most similar to the ENDURO (not the bullit, which I didn't put in the spreadsheet). I suspect that the four bikes at the top will be very similar with only the suspension types being the biggest differences.

We don't really have the opportunity to ride these bikes to test (except the norco and specialized) thus this thread. :)

Thanks for the replies. I think what is making this decision so hard is they are all pretty good bikes (at least on paper).

Thanks for the replies. Buying a bike shouldn't be this hard. lol Of course it's not for me, and my wife has to like how it looks (remember the reactions to the specialized color schemes of 2009ish).
The Trance sx she hated the red on baby blue
The Hail she thought it looked like someone puked a bunch of non related colors on the frame

So from 15 bikes we're now down to 4

2017 SC Bronson AL (maybe Carbon) "S" build
2017 Norco Sight A7.1
2017 Devinci Troy Carbon GX
2017 Specialized Stumpjumper FSR expert

Maybe I should make a poll.

My wife is looking for a bike for herself. We've narrowed the bikes down (kind of) to a few, but right now the top two are the LIv Intrigue SX and the Norco Sight A7.1.

A little back story on my wifes riding. She started on my old 01 bullet and wished she never got rid of it. When we moved to Canada, she got a NOrco fluid 2 (2008) and hasn't felt comfortable on that bike ever. Her bike broke and she hopped on my 06 Specialized Enduro pro and loved it. She felt like she could take on everything she was walking before. Night and day.

I've set up a spreadsheet and narrowed down components and angles, the two above meet the closest (special mention also goes to Devinci troy carbon GX, Spec rhyme and stumpjumper fsr expert and Giant reign advanced1).

She's not a goat, and enjoys the down more and would rather sacrifice some up for the down fun and confidence she gained using my Enduro Pro.

The question is: Does anyone have experience with the two? Side by side pros and cons. I know it's all personal preference, but is there anything that sticks out?

Thanks for the advice all (including farmer - that's quite valuable.) If I get this I'll only have a few weeks to prepare and move, so I want to be sure I know what to do on my own end of things. Sounds like clearing my credit card should be priority one (is anyway, for more obvious reasons). Do you folks know if my autos (truck/quad) are transferable down there with the loans (minimal, but still there) on them, or should I pay them out first and just off them in Canada and start fresh?

Also… to address the 'murica hate: I can act/chameleon for a year or two, and if I find a nice place away from people I can probably even do it for longer… if I get this the next logical step is Denver, Houston, or Calgary and I'd be just fine with any of them.

Keep your Canadian CC's, you will have zero credit down south (as I learned the other coming
up here). That means you have no credit for a cell phone, gas, electric or rent. Have cash
ready and/or get a prepaid CC. I had/have about as good of credit as you can get in the
states, but that meant shit when I got here. Didn't take too long to get my credit up here
but it was a bit of a shock not having any credit for the first time in 20+ years.

I don't think you'll really notice to many differences. There are just as many rednecks
up here as there are down there, only difference is what flag they fly. Music's the same
the trucks are the same, the clothes are the same etc, maybe just a bit less polite and more
"real". I find there's good and bad people everywhere you go.

Farmer's right in filling out that form (forgot the number). My wife didn't do it for 18 yrs
she lived in Hawaii with me, and didn't file the whole time. There was no issue till she
moved back and she had to file. Turned out BC has reciprocal agreements with Hawaii (and many other
state) so I think all told she paid less than $100 in the end (like $10 + 90 in interest).

Haters goin to hate, enjoy your adventure!

I guess I am missing your point since it still doesn't relate in my head. I'm talking about people killing sharks in areas where there are sharks for no real reason and the fear mongering is by those people. The only people that should care live near and use the ocean where these sharks exist.

I'm not saying that Canadians or Russians or even people from Utah should relate to this. I'm saying that the very people that kill and base their fears are doing so based on very thin evidence. Let me relate it to something a Canadian can relate to. You are more apt to be killed by a cougar in NA than you are in NA.

The reason dogs come up and how it relates (in my head) is that you can see a dog (in an urban environment) 99% of the time, whereas you don't see the shark 99.9999+% of the time. The point being that a dog IS more dangerous than a shark. You as a person don't have to try too hard to be bit by a dog, it's easy. On the other hand, you just have to be one very unlucky person to be bit by a shark.

To put it another way, if a shark wanted to bite you while you were surfing it could. There would be nothing you could do about it, you wouldn't see it, smell it or hear it coming. If we were truly food or sharks were truly "killing machines", "man-eaters" or even "liked" to predate on humans we would all be dead. There would be 100,000 shark deaths per year, and the "attack"-to-kill ratio would be closer to 100% instead of ~5%.

The main purpose of sharks is to keep our oceans clean. They limit disease in fish/marine mammals, they consume the dead and dying, they strengthen the ecosystem. To kill a shark…any shark in todays environment is wasteful and ignorant. To kill the top predator is dangerous.

Which brings me to one of my first points….humans make sharks look like butterflies. 600Million sharks killed vs 12-15 humans is the most telling statistic.

I think you're missing the point that you "see" the dogs, most people never
see a shark even after decades of surfing, or swimming in the ocean. Of course
Canadians have a different attitude since not many "bad" sharks come close to
shore except in some very select areas on the east coast and even then only
at certain times of year. If you want to add up how many people are bitten by
dogs vs, sharks it gets even weirder. There's about 100,000 dog attacks per
year in the USA "alone"…probably over to a million dog bites per year
world wide vs 200 shark attacks. You can down play dog bites but the reality
is shark bites are rare, even on a per hour exposure (more so if you take out
the owner's exposure time).

How about I use the fact that more people die from coconuts falling on their head than sharks? Lightning? Drowning surfing. Hell Drowning surfing small surf. How about dying from your leash getting wrapped around a rock/coral head (almost happened to me). My point is that dogs are domesticated animals, not wild hunters and yet exposure or not, more people die from dogs. The reality is if you're swimming or surfing between 50* north and south on this planet you ARE swimming with sharks, every time you go in the water. You may not see them, but they know you are there and every shark within a couple miles knows where you are too. If they were truly "man eaters", again, we would not be able to swim, surf or dive…ever.

My main point is that we kill the dog when it attacks (in NA), but we can't do that with sharks, so we just go out and kill every shark that will bite the hook. Most Ichthyologists feel once a shark bites it will not bite a human again. They believe that the vast majority of shark attacks come from new adult sharks that are changing from fish to mammals/larger prey. And, when they see us they bite to see if were edible, evidence shows they do not like the taste of us and spit us out or stop the encounter and leave. That shark now knows our shape and can put that in their mental catalog of "things that taste bad" and will not bite again. So, if you by some very small chance happen to catch the shark in question, you are now taking a shark out that "won't" bit us again.

I had compiled a bunch of statistics when I was doing snorkel tours in Hawaii, it does illustrate our paranoia about sharks, and how we disregard the much in our lives that we really should worry about but don't because of familiarity.
I'll see if I can find it.

Humans kill 100 million sharks per year, they kill 17 of us and only 220 people are attacked
each year.

Just in the US alone 4 million people are attacked by dogs with 17 fatalities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_attack

Maybe we need to kill more dogs randomly.

not arguing in favor of the shark killing, but I've always had a problem with those statistics. There are just under 80 million dogs in the US, with a much higher contact rate or chance of interaction compared to 3500 great whites with waaaaaaaay fewer human shark interactions, so I don't feel it is a fair comparison.

Killing some great whites may only take out the weaker and easier to catch sharks, resulting in the stronger sharks being left behind to breed. I'm worried this will inadvertently create a new race of super sharks like in that movie with LL Cool J.

I have the same feelings about this as the yuppies that go out and build their big shacks in the mountains and then complain that a cougar killed their dog or a bear got into their garbage.

Think again.

Far more dog attacks and yet we can see them coming, we train them and 99.999% of all dogs are happy go lucky animals. Most people don't come in contact with a dog very often unless they own one or chase them down at the park (where they increase their chance of getting bit).

There are hundreds of millions of people that swim in the ocean every year. We can't see them coming, a sharks sense of smell makes a dogs seem useless. They pick up vibrations better than any dog can hear, they can pick up our electrical output.

Why all this matters, is that if sharks (not just GW's, but Bulls, Tigers and every other shark that has ever attacked a person wanted to make us part of their diet, we would be completely helpless and you wouldn't be able to swim anywhere between 50N or 50S without being eaten.

As far as way fewer shark interactions that varies by person. I know I've had far more shark encounters in my life than dog encounters that didn't belong to me or my friends. Having dove Hawaii, I can also say I have had more shark encounters while surfing (and didn't know about it) than dog encounters (which I'm pretty sure I knew about almost all of them).

I don't fear either, I respect both and just like dogs, sharks show emotion through body language and it's not too hard to figure out. Killing "a few" GW's isn't making the rest of the population stronger, just making fewer of them. They have very few young in their lifetime and they grow extremely slow.

I am glad you feel that killing them because of an attack is dumb.

Prolly just hungry. Shoulda' just given him some left-overs from the fridge, he'd'a just wandered off smacking his lips and licking his fingers.
Why you Albertans gotta' get soooooo agro 'bout shit like that anyways?
Jeeez…. "oooooo, I'm gonna' shoot 'em with ma' gun!" :rolleyes:

Is a sword, dagger, or aluminum baseball bat better? Breaking into someones house is stupid.
You should fear for your life when you try something like that. A mother defending her kids
can be a very dangerous animal.

That said, I've had a guy walk into my house (we were watching tv) looked at us, looked around
and said, "this isn't my house" and left. We got to know him pretty well and he used to hang
out all the time. He was pretty hammered at the time. Those were less "dangerous" days back then.

These dudes are prolly now owners of internet companies. Pwnage!

I like the PS party hats, PS beers on the table, PS cat, and the PS pussy to the left with
the runway haircut (although it could be pu'unani shadow).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB4D-GbQ9A4