Bike Check: Jill Kintner's Winning Norco Sight at the Trans-Cascadia 2021

Oct 2, 2021
by Alicia Leggett  

From the first day of racing, Jill Kintner dominated the Trans-Cascadia backcountry bike race. It was no surprise, considering she's won just about everything there is to win, but a multiday blind enduro had not yet been added to her list.

The race brought four long days in the mountains, endless views, and a wide variety of stages: some long, with up to 4,000' of descending, some quite steep and loose, and some rocky and thoroughly janky. Jill continued to increase her lead through the 12 stages until the final day, taking a well-deserved win in her first race of this type.

The Trans-Cascadia favors a bike with enough travel that it's not terribly punishing over the chunder but that's light enough to pedal, push, and shoulder around the mountains for back-to-back long days. Jill opted for her 150 mm Norco Sight, which is kitted out with a Shimano XTR drivetrain and brakes, a Renthal cockpit, Fox suspension, Stan's wheels, and a Maxxis Minion tire combo. Let's take a look.

1st EWS and a second place. Jill Kintner has something to smile about.
Jill Kintner
Age: 39
Hometown: Bellingham, WA
Instagram: @jillkintner

Frame: Norco Sight, size S - 150 mm rear travel
Shock: Fox Float X2
Fork: Fox 36 - 160 mm
Wheels: Stan's ZTR Flow
Tires: Maxxis Minion DHF / DHR II
Drivetrain: Shimano XTR
Brakes: Shimano XTR
Cockpit: Renthal Fatbar - 30 mm rise, 740 mm width & Apex stem - 50 mm
Seatpost: Fox Transfer 150 mm
More info: Norco Sight

Shimano takes care of shifting.

The brakes round out the full XTR build.

Up front, a Fox 36 and Maxxis Minion DHF do the job of providing the right amount of support and grip without adding too much weight.

A 150 mm Fox Transfer dropper post and Fox Float X2 shock handle the rest of the suspension tasks, with an MRP chain guide and bash guard in the mix to keep things rolling along smoothly.

Don't fix what isn't broken. The DHF / DHR II combo is a classic, and it continues to bring in the wins. This week, Double Down casing made sure the sharp rocks on some of the higher alpine stages weren't a problem.

A Renthal cockpit is one of the finishing touches along with an Ergon saddle.


  • 82 32
 I don't know how much 4000 feet of descending is. Can we please get some measurements in normal units and everyone from Liberia, Myanmar, and the USA can do the conversion if they please. It's a Canadian website FFS
  • 193 16
 If you are looking for Canadian measurements then 4000 feet is roughly 200 Zambonis lined up front to rear.
  • 64 1
 4000ft is roughly 700 moose or 4000 beavers in length.
  • 15 1
 666.666 fathoms, if one doesn't round up the seven ten-thousandths
  • 15 1
 But surely you know there is roughly 3 feet per meter. Estimating is hard and stuff.
  • 10 0
 1219 me’tre
  • 14 4
 Sorry that you don't know. Pretty sure every other person on this Canadian (FFS!) website doesn't give 2 shits.
  • 14 2
 Simple math is hard, even for dasprofessor
  • 17 22
flag Sluni (Oct 2, 2021 at 11:02) (Below Threshold)
 @Bro-LanDog: math? Feet is no international unit. It is just an american bullshit and even educated, international working americans are not using this bullshit.
  • 12 9
 @Sluni: your life must be really hard if you cry this hard over simple unit conversions
  • 13 0
 It complicated, so here it is in a few different terms:

Furlongs- 6
Chains- 60
Rods- 240
  • 7 13
flag DasProfessor (Oct 2, 2021 at 14:56) (Below Threshold)
 @extratalldirtrider: I do know that, I'm saying you should have to do the math, not the rest of us. How long are your chainstays in inches?
  • 15 1
 @DasProfessor: the chainstays on my Spur are 435mm and I don’t care how long it is inches.
  • 21 5
 @DasProfessor: How wide are your tires in mm? What's your tire pressure in pascals? what about your shock pressure in atmospheres? Get over yourself. You're lucky measurements aren't like languages where there's hundreds, there's only 2. It's not hard to use both.
  • 1 5
flag rh00p (Oct 2, 2021 at 19:46) (Below Threshold)
 @Bro-LanDog: uhm no, the 'professor' is crying. He's the one who started the thread. Your life must be really hard if you keep coming back to this thread to keep replying LOL
  • 7 0
 @Randy-Verified: never seen a Canadian beaver I take it?
  • 2 0
 @rh00p: whoooosssh
  • 2 0
 @DasProfessor: I feel like with all of the things to blame America about in the world this seems like not the one to pick.
Its actually one of the few things we haven't tried to impose on the world.
  • 2 3
 3 ft = 1 m

It's 1500m ~
  • 9 1
 @BarryWalstead: I find it weird that the US is being blamed for Imperial measurements. The clue is in the name.

And it really ain't that hard to understand metric and imperial...
  • 5 0
 Simply pick your favorite unit of measurements and be a d!ck about it..
  • 3 14
flag beerrun (Oct 3, 2021 at 9:18) (Below Threshold)
 Come ride in Washington and Oregon and California, and start spittin that metric shite, see where that gets you. Judgmental pos, FFS.
  • 1 0
 @beerrun: 12192 DÉCIMÈTRE
  • 8 0
 @beerrun: dude, chill. Lol. It’s just Pinkbike.
  • 4 0
 I'm thinking that PB is very much no longer a CDN website...
  • 2 2
 4000ft is equal to about 650-800 your moms in height or 4 Sky Towers if your familiar with building in Toronto Ontario. Get on your feet and stop trying to meter out of it.
  • 4 0
 As a Canadian Carpenter, I do these conversions daily, surely a professor can too
  • 2 0
 @Randy-Verified: more accurately 2789 beavers long
  • 33 5
 I'd like to know the weight. It would be cool if the PB reporters carried a $10 luggage scale with them when getting information on the bikes. Wink
  • 27 9
 its built light enough to pedal all day for four days, and heavy enough not to break after being thrashed for four days.
  • 12 6
 Just imagine a number in your head and go with that
  • 10 0
 @zyoungson: I was only half a pound off!
  • 3 0
 @reydin: actually made me chuckle out loud. Thanks!
  • 2 2
 My large Sight A3 29er weighs in at 33 pounds or so. All aluminum on mine. I'm sure hers weighs no more than 30 or less.
  • 2 0
 @troutwest66: What parts have you got?? My C1 29er is 16kg (35.2)
  • 2 0
 @troutwest66: ?????????????????? Dude my A3 29er in large is like 17kg
  • 2 0
 @troutwest66: I'm a bit incredulous at this!
  • 13 1
 Worth noting that on past TC’s, Kabush raced on an SB130, but brought an SB150 this year.

As someone no prior experience racing on this type of terrain, if I knew what I know now about the trails we rode, I’d probably choose something even bigger, like the 170/170 Spire. Not to in any way suggest that the pros picked the wrong bikes, just that for me I’ll bet the extra confidence of more suspension would have helped me more than any of the downsides of a bigger bike.
  • 3 0
 I debated grabbing a Spire but suck with my V1 Sentinel with a Cascade link for 158 mm of rear travel. Between that and the DH casings+ Cushcore, it was no fun to ride/push up hill, but no flats in that, um, "chunder" we rode each day.
  • 2 0
 @gilby82: sporty chunder.
  • 14 1
 I personally really like the idea of these smaller enduro rigs. If you look at the EWS scene, most of the riders are on smaller sizes, or their sponsors lesser travel bikes.
  • 11 1
 Us plebs need more suspension to counteract our lack of skill. Kinda makes sense. I figure most riders have way more suspension than they actually need.
  • 6 2
 If you do what racers are doing, you won’t be comfortable. Maybe faster but certainly not what a typical weekend warrior really needs.
  • 5 1
 I like the punchy climbs on enduro stages making suspension travel and weight important. Along with making races self supporter so durability and efficient designs are rewarded.
  • 4 1
 @husstler: Yeah people forget that their needs aren't the same as a sponsored pro racer. Too much obsession with weight and speed (road cyclists especially fall victim to this mentality, almost all of them would be better off on a metal-frame gravelbike).
  • 1 0
 @ratedgg13: Of course we do! And feels great.
No matter what happens, I'm always the one who is the weakest link
  • 2 0
 @jaib06 Yup, if you go back to when Tracey Mosely was dominating the EWS she was on a 140mm travel front and rear bike.And now, Bex Baraona just won the last two stage in the EWS in two different venues with a bike less than 150 travel in the rear.

It takes a lot of gnar to justify some of the new super enduro bikes. Granted, I’d love one for lift/ shuttle days, but it’s hard to justify them over my 145 rear/ 160 front bike for the extra couple pounds it brings when I’m doing my own climbing.
  • 10 0
 Congratulations Jill! You rock more than your bike does!! Just saying you're super rad on an only rad bike.
  • 8 5
 Anyone else against the new fad the MTB world has by using “ janky” incorrectly?
  • 19 1
 Since "janky" is just slang, it's meaning is tied to however it's used. Since an entire industry uses it a certain way, it now has that meaning.
  • 22 1
 That's a janky statement.
  • 5 1
 Original Jankster
  • 4 1
 Nah - you’re just being janky.
  • 19 2
 @jaredmh: agreed, it’s hopeless, just like how people use the word “loam” (which refers to a specific class of mineral soil proportions of silt, sand and clay) when they are referring to surface organic “litter” and/or “duff”.
  • 8 0
 Yes. It’s the Canadians. Always been a problem.
  • 7 2
 "Yo dawg we heard you like janking, so we added some janky stuff to your janky stuff"
  • 1 1
 haha the industry is dominated by yuppie bros. just ignore them, times change
  • 1 1
 What the jank are you going on about?
  • 1 0
 @jaredmh: I too was pissed about how PB was referring to classic north shore as jank, so I looked it up via Oxford on Google and it does have a formal definition.
  • 1 0
 Janky = excessive lack of uniformity and/or challenging by way of unpredictability; is this a approximate definition of the incorrect usage applied by mountain bikers? Is the more correct/traditional definition more synonymous with like sub-optimal and non-desirable, like an outlier version of something, that is tolerable but definitely not great?
  • 7 0
 I'm not too concerned with how "janky" is being used for trail descriptions. However, it does seem to be reaching over use. As now it seems to be applied to just about any natural techy trail that isn't a flow trail. Suggesting that jank trails aren't as worthy as a flow trail. They both have there place.
  • 1 1
 @quesoquesoqueso: like ones with money as their profile pic?
  • 3 1
  • 3 1
 To be honest your use of jank stank.
  • 3 1
 @tbmaddux: sat on her mental duff, producing janky definitions of loam
  • 1 0
 @RobertGrainier: From Oxford and how I’ve used the word in the past: “of extremely poor or unreliable quality.” I think the keyword is quality here.
  • 1 0
 @Olafmetal: +1 upvote on your username too. I was thinking about Olaf's song from Clerks the other day
  • 3 0
 Is this metric janky or imperial janky? One means more than the other.
  • 3 0
 This norco sight is the best mtb ever built
  • 2 0
 About 4000 ft of descending but what about the climbing? Do they have to climb everything on their bikes?
  • 2 0
 Some days we got free very, but it was only ever a fraction of the total. We allegedly climbed 3500-5500/day, though “pushed” might be more accurate.
  • 2 0
 Which bottle cage is that? kinda interesting.
  • 1 0
 I think it could be a Fidlock water bottle system
  • 2 0
 @lehott: I don't know what it is, but it's definitely not a fidlock. The bottle is just a normal Purist, and if you look closely, you can see the cage surrounding it.
  • 1 0
 Did the Norco team run out of chain lube or is rust the new oil slick for pro edition drivetrains?
  • 1 0
 Neither. It's just dust.
  • 1 0
 @KotsosK: Yep you're right. Thought for a moment that my drivetrain might actually be in better nick. We just don't get dust in Wales that does that to chains.
  • 1 0
 33, the Masonic number of obsession.
  • 4 3
 No carbon bar, rims or cranks.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Copyright © 2000 - 2023. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.052812
Mobile Version of Website