Banshee Chaparral

[sicklines.com]

http://www.sicklines.com/review/banshee_chaparral/titlegraphic.jpg


So I got some time in on the Banshee Chaparral now and it was quite nice with only a few setbacks about it

Anyone else check one out? I know a lot of you love banshee's so it'd be interesting to see what you guys thought about the Chap

[trail worker]

http://photos.nsmb.com/files/2/0/0/8/8/chap004.jpg

thats my setup, running a reasonably strong yet light build with an 06 travis triple. bike feels great for some things and not so great for others. very stable on skinnies, logrides and tech sections but I find it leaves alot to be desired on really high speed, rocky descents. maybe I don't have the rear shock dialled in yet, I'm nt sure. it weighs around 42lbs right now, ideally I'd like to drop the weight down to 39 lbs and keep the same fork. I should easily be able to make this happen with a lighter BB, a lighter saddle and a set of folding bead nevegals(I have run these in the past with no problems). I think with these mods to drop a bit of weight, the bike would really be a do it all machine wehn it comes to climbing.

[sicklines.com]

Nice bike . The folding bead nevegal's are about a quarter pound lighter each than the wire nevegals. If you're running the DH casing Nevegal's you should try the wire nevegals before the folding oness unless you're set on running them.

[trail worker]

hard to say, but I am running the DH casings right now and the are way heavier than the folding beads I had on my old Bullit. I found that going to the much lighter folding bead tires really made the bike come alive and really helped on long pedals.
Personally I ran the folding bead tires at the same pressure I do the dh casings on the same rocky, fast trails with XC tubes with absolutely no flats. The weight difference was light and day as I believe the folding beads drop nearly a pound of rotational weight off each wheel...pretty damn good!

I am considering swapping the travis DC for a travis SC, but I'm not really decided. I ran a travis SC on my bullit and loved it, and I think that would really really make this bike a versatile beast. Even with 8" of travel up front it climbs well up fireroads but it's horrible on technical climbs--the front end is just way too high.

[sicklines.com]

Yea, the weight is pretty signifigant if you're running the DH casing Nevegal. The DH Nev's i have weigh about 1300g, Wire Nev approx 980g, Folding Nev approx 850g (all 2.5" models). How do you like the Travis? I haven't had a chance to try one out yet (single or dual crown).

[trail worker]

If you do a search, you'll see what I think of the travis SC TPC+
in one word, it's amazing...do a search and read my post...

the travis DC with intrinsic is pretty good too, but I only have a few rides on it so far including an 8 hour epic that combined nearly 20km of climbing with around 3000m vertical of steep descents. I think it's a great fork, but I would take the travis SC over the DC for the riding I do, 8" is alot of travel for a "do it all" bike, and the SC's 6" of travel is more than plush enough to bail you out of just about anything.

I am tossing around the idea of swapping back to a travis SC, but it's always a compromise--give up a bit of balls-out confidence that the DC provides, but gain alot of climbability and agility that the SC gives...hard to say, really.

[Desloc]

I am considering swapping the travis DC for a travis SC, but I'm not really decided. I ran a travis SC on my bullit and loved it, and I think that would really really make this bike a versatile beast. Even with 8" of travel up front it climbs well up fireroads but it's horrible on technical climbs--the front end is just way too high.

Specing the Chap with a 8" Travis was just silly. The a2c is way too tall and unbalances the geo. As far as DC forks are concerned, the 7"(180mm) Travis would have been a perfect match.

Des

[trail worker]

yeah when I had it built up, the shop only had the 8" travis DC so I went for it, but I really wish that it had a 6 or 7 inch fork instead.

[madpixl]

yeah when I had it built up, the shop only had the 8" travis DC so I went for it, but I really wish that it had a 6 or 7 inch fork instead.
After talking with Maverick American about my confusion about their triple (more like 2.5) crown DUC fork, spec'd as All Mountain 160mm, 3.9 lbs.,etc. I thought I'd give it a go with the eventual goal of having a 34lb Chap. I'm not a big hucker, but I break bikes pretty regularly (snap rear triangles mostly), so I thought I'd try this beefy bike building as a light but hardcore AM. The DUC matches up the front and rear travel and feels better as it is breaking in. It is an unusual choice, but Maverick assured me that pro super DHers use the fork, so I could feel confident on my 4-5 (2-3 if we're honest?) footers at speed.

So far the fork is super stiff due to its inverted design, and would probably play off the DHX Air even better. It has recommendations for XC to freeride by changing air spring, rebound and oil.... Have a looky....Front disc was not yet hooked up here

[Desloc]

http://www.sicklines.com/review/banshee_chaparral/titlegraphic.jpg


So I got some time in on the Banshee Chaparral now and it was quite nice with only a few setbacks about it

Anyone else check one out? I know a lot of you love banshee's so it'd be interesting to see what you guys thought about the Chap

You didn't mention you had an eleven page review up on your site... http://www.sicklines.com/reviews/2007-banshee-chaparral/

Good review. That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the Chap too.

Des

[Shrew]

Dear Sicklines,

You have a good site!

[sicklines.com]

Thanks, glad you liked it. I just wanted to see what you guys thought about the Chaparral

[SkunkworkS]

I think the Chap is sweet.

One of the few "duallies" out there in XS that does fit smaller people.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y248/SoberPhotography/110_1029.jpg

[trail worker]

nice setup, looks like a tiny bike

[ESHER SHORE]

that's a good comprehensive review, nice to see lots of detail there :)


the only issue i had with the review, which was mentioned several times, was that you couldn't get the seat low enough??

its pretty common to trim down seatposts, handlebars when setting up a new bike


every interrupted seat-tube bike i've had (big hit, norco, Scream, Chap, Wraith) i've had to cut the telescopic post to fit properly.

with my new Chap, i cut 45mm off the lower and upper post, which lets me drop the seat way low for getting aggro, yet still gives full leg extension for climbs and pedalling (i'm 5' 10" and ride the medium Chap)

I also run the DHX 5 coil shock, which makes the Chap ride WAY better on higher speed trails and for big drops / hucks

I run 26"/24" wheels so tire clearance isn't an issue, but my buddies here in England with 2006 Chaps running dual 26" haven't had any problems despite the filthy mud we usually ride in

keep up the good work!!

Rob C

[sicklines.com]

Hey Rob,

I replied to your email, thanks for the feedback. Yea you definitly can indeed cut the post but the bike was reviewed as it was recieved. I would hope that anyone spending any kind of coin would cut the post and I'll add in a note to further help that out but...

Most posts require 100mm of insertion, and I believe the Titec Scoper requests 88mm of insertion.

The seat post on the chaparral we got is about 225mm from bottom of the post to top of the lip and roughly 140cm of that goes inside the frame.

To get the seat all the way (down) in and with the appropriate lengths still in the frame, the post would have to be cut 133mm to leave some clearance for the quick release and have the proper amount of seat post in the frame. The Inside seat post would have to be cut at least 140mm(to not bottom on the frame pivot) which would only give 110mm of seat post, 88 of which is the recommended amount inside the post which would leave you with roughly 22mm-52mm of seat post available to adjust from the numbers I crunched out.

While you may not have to run the correct amount of minimum insertion, I don’t want to recommend someone to ride it even though you / I or anyone that buys this bike might just run it without the minimum insertion.

There are in-between mediums you could cut it to make it better but not as low as it could go. Similar to how you found a happy medium of cutting the post only 45mm and were satisfied is an ideal situation. While you may not need your post to be lower, a 5’6 person might need theirs as low as it will go (minimum line)

know what i mean?

[trail worker]

I am around 5'11 and ride a large(17.5") frame. I am actually not running a telescopic post and find that I can *just* get enough extension using a cut down standard post, but in the pic I posted of my bike that's as low as the post will go. I will probably pick up a telescopic post in the near future though, because on long fireroad climbs I really like to jack the seat up high, whereas on uphill XC climbs I will ride with it just a hair under proper extension to make dismounts a little easier.

I have also not had problems with tire clearance in the back, I run a 26" wheel with a 2.5" nevegal and I actually have more clearance than you show in the picture on your review--weird=/

[m-rock]

I agree with ESHERSHORE about the seat post, I trimmed my telescopic post, and it seems fine, goes plenty low enough for me, as well as plenty high enough. I've considered doing what Trailworker did with a regular seat post as well.

As for tire clearance, I too have not noticed any issues at all, I've run both 2.5's and 2.3 which I'm on now. No issues what so ever.

I'm also running an air shock (manitou evolver) which I'm finding is sweet. Awesome shock, gotta run a lot of air pressure in it, as I'm a pretty big guy, but I really like the way it rides, I'm not a big hit kinda guy, so it's perfect, REALLY smooths out the trail nicely. The initial break through of the travel feels sticky (like when you press the seat with your hand in the parking lot) but you don't notice it on the trail at all.

Otherwise it's an awesome bike, light, nimble, perfect geometry for everyday freeriding. They also climb and pedal really well, they really have all the angles worked out well on those bikes.

Get out and ride one!!

[Tonestar]

I am 5'11" and am running a medium Chap. I started with a cut down stock seatpost, it worked for me no problem, then I went to the Titec Telescopic post, which I had to cut down as well, on both parts. I hate the telescopic post, it's a pain in the ass, so I went back to the stock post, much easier to work with.

Never had a tire clearance problem, the bike came stock with the 2.5 Nevegal, fit just fine. I have also run a WTB Timberwolf 2.5 on the back, it's a big tire, no issues there either.

[builttoride]

I run a large 06 chap with 8" travis's (you can see my bike in the sicklines reviews photo section). I find with the 8" fork t becomes a perfect 'whistler bike' it lengthens the wheels base a bit and slackens the angles making it very stable at speed yeah still just nimble enough for the tighter trails.

I used to run it with a fox 36 when i first got it... found it a little steep angle wise for my liking on the steepest whistler had to offer, but was great on the local trails. Think a totem would be the best fork for this bike, especially if you get the 2 step, will make it very versitile!

When i was trail riding I found that i could not put my seatpost high enough (I'm 6'3" with long gangly legs) however that was without using a telescopic seatpost. A cut down telescopic post worked perfectly! (after getting some grit between the telescopic parts so that they didn't slip, which I find is a common problem with this kinda post).

Tire clearnace, I noticed one problem 3 times... the rear tire 2.5Nevegal slightly buzzed on the front derailer cable router, but that was when the tire was brand new, after a week it never happened again. interms of tire clearnace at the seatstay yoke, I never had an issue, however I haven't had that many really muddy days on the bike.

I ran the nevegal 2.5" folding bead... and had a lot of flats, was a big fan of the grip, but to be honest for the riding I was mainly doing it was just not a strong enough sidewall. I was running 2DH tubes wrapped round each other front and back at 40psi by the end of the whistler season, and even then i still got the occasional flat, wasn't a fan, think this hack needs thicker sidewalls!

I run a swinger coil shock at the back, with maximum bottom out resistance and minimum platform also run it at minimum rebound damping (I really like a lively bike) and medium preload, found it worked really really well with the bike especially at high speeds, but saying that I have never tried the bike with any other shock, so couldn't say how it directly compared.

Just my thoughts on the bike from a few months hard riding. I had a scream before hand, and was uncertain about riding the chap a bit at first... but I loved it, still very stiff and responsive and lighter and more nimble, sure it's maybe not such a purebread huck bike and has a shorter rear end so is not quite as stable on the fast chunder... but it took what i could throw at it and then some!

I'm very interested to read what peoples thoughts are.

Keith

[trail worker]

Just a question: I have always run my chap in the rear most travel setting on the link plates, this IS the 7" setting, right?

[builttoride]

Just a question: I have always run my chap in the rear most travel setting on the link plates, this IS the 7" setting, right?

yup!

[ESHER SHORE]

when i cut down my telescopice, i followed Titec's min. insertion markings (88mm) and made sure I scribed lines for 90mm min. insertion on both cut down sections, to make sure it wouldn't stress the posts or the frame seat cluster

seems to work 100% good, but maybe for a smaller or taller person it may not be such a good fit

another thing to bear in mind, the banshee's are really small (standover) compared to many other brands, so even the medium sized chap without the seatpost dropped all the way down, will still give a generous standover

hell, next to my buddy's Big Hit, my chap's seatcluster sits many inches lower :)

[trail worker]

another thing to bear in mind, the banshee's are really small (standover) compared to many other brands, so even the medium sized chap without the seatpost dropped all the way down, will still give a generous standover

yeah that was one of the first things I noticed about the frame--my large(17.5") frame has great standover despite having a fairly high BB with the 8" fork.

[SkunkworkS]

Is it just me or does my 2.5 Nevegal just BARELY squeeze into the seatstay yoke?

My cockpit is also fairly tight.

[builttoride]

Is it just me or does my 2.5 Nevegal just BARELY squeeze into the seatstay yoke?

My cockpit is also fairly tight.

what rims are you running?

I have 2.5 mevegal on sun s-types and I have at least about 7mm clearnace all round...

[SkunkworkS]

729s.

I'm pretty certain it's the fact that I'm 5'6 and the frame fits me like a glove. I'll stop my complaining now.

[builttoride]

The seat stays and whole rear linkage are the exact same size on all the different sizes... I suspect we just have different opionions of barely maybe? the rims you run will make a bit of a difference also.

[SkunkworkS]

My 'barely' is that there will be rubbage when I roll into any wet, mucky spots on a trail.

[Tonestar]

My 'barely' is that there will be rubbage when I roll into any wet, mucky spots on a trail.

Skunk, you are running the older Chap, 04 or 05, the 06/07 models have changed from then to give room for a larger tire. The Kenda Nevegal is also one of the largest volume tires out there, so maybe you should go for a 2.3 in the back, or pick another tire model (Maxxis, Michelin, WTB). The Chap in the 04/05 versions was designed as an all-mountain bike, so super large tires were not a consideration in the initial design, for 06/07, they changed many things on the Chap, including the geometry.
Hopefully that answers your question for you.

[SkunkworkS]

I donut have any questions. I'm quite content with the bike.

All I have to do is keep going faster so the mud will shed off via the wind. And if it mucks up, it tells me that I'm going too slow!

[builttoride]

I donut have any questions. I'm quite content with the bike.

All I have to do is keep going faster so the mud will shed off via the wind. And if it mucks up, it tells me that I'm going too slow!


hahah good, thats the kinda response that i like.
Ride on!

[trail worker]

does the 6" setting make the geometry more slack? I put it in the 6" setting and measure the BB hight against the 7" setting, and it really didn't look like the geometry changed much more than a 1/4 degree or so.
the reason that I ask is because I am going to be switching to a travis 150TPC+ and am wondering how much the geometry is going to change, and if running the 6" setting will keep it fairly slack still.

all in all, I'm quite stoked to be ditching the 8" travis DC and going back to a travis SC. it's about all the fork I need and will really make the bike more versatile for XC and whatnot.

[builttoride]

does the 6" setting make the geometry more slack? I put it in the 6" setting and measure the BB hight against the 7" setting, and it really didn't look like the geometry changed much more than a 1/4 degree or so.
the reason that I ask is because I am going to be switching to a travis 150TPC+ and am wondering how much the geometry is going to change, and if running the 6" setting will keep it fairly slack still.

all in all, I'm quite stoked to be ditching the 8" travis DC and going back to a travis SC. it's about all the fork I need and will really make the bike more versatile for XC and whatnot.

your about right with .25 degrees. the change in geometry is very minimal. I found my bike when set up with a fox 36 up front was great for trail riding, and with a short stem I was comfortable on super steep stuff... however with long stem I found I was over the front a bit too much for the mega steeps, didn't stop me riding them, just scared me more.

basically it sounds like it will become a perfect heavy duty trail bike!

[trail worker]

your about right with .25 degrees. the change in geometry is very minimal. I found my bike when set up with a fox 36 up front was great for trail riding, and with a short stem I was comfortable on super steep stuff... however with long stem I found I was over the front a bit too much for the mega steeps, didn't stop me riding them, just scared me more.

basically it sounds like it will become a perfect heavy duty trail bike!
ok, so it's not worth switching to the 6" setting to slacken the bike after going to a 6" fork. That's good to know

Yeah, I'm hoping for a great trail bike. I used to ride a SC bullit with a travis 150TPC+ and a light build that I found was GREAT for riding everything on. My build weighed in at 37lbs and was light enough to ride all day, yet still strong enough to handle some gnarlier riding.
ultimate heavy duty trailbike is what I'm after, I'm pretty stoked!

[builttoride]

sweet man! I suggest maybe if you want to keep the bike a little slacker, run in 7" setting with slightly more sag... however the downside of this is that you might loose pedaling efficiency slightly... but maybe worth a shot!?

I'm glad your stoked man!

[ESHER SHORE]

just watched NSX9...and noticed Dangerous Dan riding an "old" style Chap in some of his section with Manitous on front

and flowrider Dharma riding a custom Scream

we saw the custom Screams at Banshee's HQ in Vancouver last year, like a light blue / darker blue colourway...pretty sweet

[sicklines.com]

just watched NSX9...and noticed Dangerous Dan riding an "old" style Chap in some of his section with Manitous on front

and flowrider Dharma riding a custom Scream

we saw the custom Screams at Banshee's HQ in Vancouver last year, like a light blue / darker blue colourway...pretty sweet

Nice! I still need to get that dvd. How does it compare to the others out there? The trailer looked pretty good

[SkunkworkS]

Any of you Banshee masters know if putting the Totem 2-step onto my XS Chaparral would be a good idea?

Me thinks 180mm. of travel up front would unbalance the rear 5/4". But, the height of the Totem is actually a little lower than the 66 I had on there before and the option of the 135mm. is VERY appealing. And the 66 didn't feel too horrendous, also running flat bars now... I like the Travis but after riding a Pike, I'm still a sucker for Rockshox in my heart. :couple:

[builttoride]

Any of you Banshee masters know if putting the Totem 2-step onto my XS Chaparral would be a good idea?

Me thinks 180mm. of travel up front would unbalance the rear 5/4". But, the height of the Totem is actually a little lower than the 66 I had on there before and the option of the 135mm. is VERY appealing. And the 66 didn't feel too horrendous, also running flat bars now... I like the Travis but after riding a Pike, I'm still a sucker for Rockshox in my heart. :couple:

totem should be fine! Off the top of my head I think the axel to crown height is the same as a 66, so if 66 was ok then totem will be fine, and if the forks squats at lower travel setting then the HA will steepen nicely.