KDXRIDER.NET

Awesome! :D

Re:'Is it really that awful to have to explain it again... '

I didn't say 'awful'. Many things have been explained 'again' on this site. It's just the way things work on a public forum.


Do this for fun: Get the answer to a question. Find the documentation for it. Post the link or copy/paste and quote it here with a verifying reference that others can check if they wish to. Find a graphic that explains the answer. Download it. If the site you find that graphic on doesn't ALLOW you to download it, take a screen snap of that site and use the required software to edit the resulting picture. Or...find the information on a site that DOES allow you to save it. In any case, reformat the graphic so the extension is acceptable as an upload on KDXRider. Upload the result. Link that graphic into the thread, with the explanation of what it's all about.

Do it twice or as many times as is required to make the point.


Do that a couple hundred times and let me know if you think it's awful.


I'm not complaining or griping about it. No one makes me do it. In fact, I quite enjoy finding answers to 'things'..and likewise enjoy a community where such information is shared. That still leaves room for a bit of irk when the answers are basically ignored..or too much trouble to read about..and asked over again just 'minutes' after they were given already!

There have been times it has been more efficient to suggest a poster do their own search..the results being prolific and varied. In such a case I will generally do the favor of supplying the search string complete with boolean descriptors (shock AND bottom AND bearing) that will get the reader to where they need to go.

I have no idea what a 'more functional' search means in the way of effort expended to get it done...but I would presume it to be considerable. That Vince does this all singlehandedly is amazing to me...especially considering it's much less effort spent on my part that gets me a bit pi$$y about it. I don't know how he can stand it...........


Re: 'Also, I guess you are getting what you paid for too... Huh? '

Yep!

And remember, Carvr rides about 10,000 miles a year, so frequent bearing servicing is required.

Lucky dog...

10,000?

Not unless you count the Honda.......

sooooo...the answer to my question is "'grease it often'

Yep, at least 2x a year

2 times!!!!!

I'm about 10x behind!

midlifemoto wrote:sooooo...the answer to my question is "'grease it often'

You feelin' left out or sumthin?

As said...mine failed even on a 4X (that would be 4 times within a 12 month period) maintenance schedule. And, no...in case you are wondering, that doesn't mean three times in the last month.

'Your mileage may vary' and all that. Ski's worked OK. Mine didn't. While I know of others that also have not worked well..I do NOT know any others that have had the good fortune ski did.

Do what makes you happy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this site only has room for one lazy bastard and that position is FILLED!! ME!!!

Now go do your own searches and quit irritating my personal assistant.... Ha!!

I think my shock bearing held up so well because I ride in dryer conditions than CC does. He has some muddy wet stuff most of the year. I have dry stuff most of the year.

good time to remind folks that if you find this site at all helpful, hit the little gold button at the bottom of the page. It's been earned.

canyncarvr wrote:Re:'Is it really that awful to have to explain it again... '

I didn't say 'awful'. Many things have been explained 'again' on this site. It's just the way things work on a public forum.


Do this for fun: Get the answer to a question. Find the documentation for it. Post the link or copy/paste and quote it here with a verifying reference that others can check if they wish to. Find a graphic that explains the answer. Download it. If the site you find that graphic on doesn't ALLOW you to download it, take a screen snap of that site and use the required software to edit the resulting picture. Or...find the information on a site that DOES allow you to save it. In any case, reformat the graphic so the extension is acceptable as an upload on KDXRider. Upload the result. Link that graphic into the thread, with the explanation of what it's all about.

Do it twice or as many times as is required to make the point.


Do that a couple hundred times and let me know if you think it's awful.


I'm not complaining or griping about it. No one makes me do it. In fact, I quite enjoy finding answers to 'things'..and likewise enjoy a community where such information is shared. That still leaves room for a bit of irk when the answers are basically ignored..or too much trouble to read about..and asked over again just 'minutes' after they were given already!

There have been times it has been more efficient to suggest a poster do their own search..the results being prolific and varied. In such a case I will generally do the favor of supplying the search string complete with boolean descriptors (shock AND bottom AND bearing) that will get the reader to where they need to go.

I have no idea what a 'more functional' search means in the way of effort expended to get it done...but I would presume it to be considerable. That Vince does this all singlehandedly is amazing to me...especially considering it's much less effort spent on my part that gets me a bit pi$$y about it. I don't know how he can stand it...........


Re: 'Also, I guess you are getting what you paid for too... Huh? '

Yep!

I post on many forums. Many.

I post answers, over and over again on many forums, many.

It's part of the territory. In the future if it's such a huge inconvinience, dont do it, i'm ok with that. I was asking for some help.

Thanks.

In that schematic .. is that the correct orientation for the 4 seals (11012).
Its the same way in my manuals but they sure seem to fit better with the seal part in?? All greased up and putting it back, just wanted to make sure

Schematic?



The suspension parts diagram? Which 11012 seal(s) are you referring to? I don't see that number on that diagram.

You imply a 'schematic' shows a seal backwards I presume....but I don't understand what it is you are referring to.

canyncarvr wrote:Schematic?



The suspension parts diagram? Which 11012 seal(s) are you referring to? I don't see that number on that diagram.

You imply a 'schematic' shows a seal backwards I presume....but I don't understand what it is you are referring to.

I think its post 15 its the schematic from the manual (swingarm) Im reffering to the seals on the swingarm bearings..Just noticed the seals are different part numbers than my manual but same thing anyways.. they dont seem to fit with the seal part facing out..

delete

Wish I knew how to post an image here.

[img]http://whatever.com/pic.jpg[/img]

Or start a gallery and use the URL info from that pic like you would above.

You have to make sure you right click on the picture... go to properties... select the entire URL... it should end in ".jpg"

Halleluja (sp) ok seals #11012 all 4 of them show them going with the small shoulder in and the seal out.. Im saying NO WAY

Normaly would not question the service manual but its obvious thats not the way the seals go.. just want to verify this.