Pedros Techno DOF IMS fix?

[southernstar]

Jake, I agree totally - the criticisms you received upon introduction of the retrofit bearing come with the introduction of any new technology that has not yet been proven on many vehicles over many miles in real world usage. It is the same criticism that is now being levelled at the DOF (and at the new IMS Solution).

I still maintain that for owners of double-row bearing engines, the retrofit is probably the most cost effective answer. For owners of single-row bearing cars, I suspect that the retrofit with your recommended replacement schedule is likely the most cost effective answer - although with better evidence on aeration, I would be inclined to see DOF as an important augmentation to a bearing upgrade/replacement. I also believe that for those for whom money is no object, the new IMS Solution is likely the best available technology, in spite of the fact that it has not been tested on the road by a large number of cars over a large number of years: the technology just makes sense to me. By the same token, I also believe that for owners of the larger single-row bearing engines, which cannot be replaced without engine tear-down, DOF seems like a low-risk upgrade. Lets face it, even if it leads to some premature replacements of the A/OS (and that is a big if, bearing in mind that the A/OS failures tend to be based upon failure, over time, of the internal rubber flap), it is much cheaper than complete engine replacement if the IMS bearing fails. As to minor oil pressure variances, again I believe that the engines were designed to accomodate significant variations in oil pressure as occurs naturally depending upon various factors such as oil viscosity, oil temperature, RPM's etc.

Customers who purchased your retrofit bearings at the time of their introduction did so not because it had been proven on many cars over many years, but because the technology made sense. Today, after many years and many units, that logic has been supported in real world usage. I believe that we are in exactly the same position today with respect to the introduction of the DOF and IMS Solution as those who originally purchased the retrofit: prospective customers must look to logic, risk, costs associated with those risks and the particular engine that they have. It may be, as I ssupect, that one size (or one solution) does not fit all.

Brad

[Steve Tinker]

[QUOTE=southernstar;368706]
Customers who purchased your retrofit bearings at the time of their introduction did so not because it had been proven on many cars over many years, but because the technology made sense. Today, after many years and many units, that logic has been supported in real world usage.

You are correct.

I had my LN ceramic bearing fitted back in 2010 when many people didn't know & didn't care about retrofitting the IMS bearing.
But I come from an engineering background, so the logic of the ceramics and the commitment in $$ portrayed by Navarro and Raby convinced me that it was a better solution than the factory original. Convincing enough for me to stump up close to $4,000 for the retrofit which to me is a serious cost for something you can't see, feel or hear!.
Does it really, really matter if the bearings are splash, force or mist lubricated - as southernstar says, many years & many units later they are still out there and working, so somethings right with the design ......

I don't know how much time, effort or dollars Flat6 and LNEng has sunk into the whole M96 bearing debacle (and probably they don't either), but you've got to give credit where credit is due - both Navarro & Raby will be bearing enough scars on their gonads to last a liftime - a bit like war wounds to be worn with pride.

[Jamesp]

This is a fantastic discussion on the IMS bearing. It includes opinions from folks like me with an engineering background and many engine rebuilds, but very little (say zero) experience with the M96 engine, other than tearing it down for rebuild. It also has experts who do this every day for a living. Perhaps a little self promoting to be sure, but usually with the caveat, "I am biased, but..." . I did not see any one beating on anyone's character, their product approach perhaps, but that is expected in the marketplace. I'm also not sure why anyone would view this string is a "situation", it's a free exchange of ideas, some good, some maybe not so good. It is up to the participants to decide what they think. I enjoy the spirited technical discussion, and would hope folks would contribute to it with their ideas and products. If you've got something to say, put it out there, we all want to read it. I've learned quite a bit about the IMS - the latest comment on low speed loads (a little hand tip perhaps?) supports a thought I had on lubrication viscosity. Lets keep the technical discussion flowing, and maybe we can get the technical experts to tip their hand a little more...

Jim

[southernstar]

TuneRS, I can fully understand why you would not want to get involved with a discussion of competing technologies except through PM or email. Indeed, one might even consider a refusal to get involved in what will inevitably devolve into public mud-slinging as taking the 'high road.' Neverhteless, from a reading of this entire thread I do not believe that anyone has suggested that DOF is a bearing replacement - although most posters who reference the system are suggesting both a bearing replacement/upgrade AND DOF where possible - i.e., in all but the later large single bearing engines in which the bearing cannot be replaced without engine tear-down.

Frankly, I and various other posters have been not only interested in the DOF technology, but supportive of the concept. To date it would seem that the only concerns expressed (apart from, like the LN Solution, the understandable lack of real-world use in a large number of cars over a number of years) is with respect to two issues:

1. potential oil pressure loss/differing oil flow characteristics in the engine;
2. potential aeration of the oil and the effects on the A/OS and upon lubrication generally.

I and others have already opined that, as the engines are engineered to take into account significant variations in oil pressure, the small amount of oil being directed to this bearing should not have deleterious effects upon lubrication of other parts of the engine. Certainly your successful testing even in racing environments would tend to support this.

I and others have also opined that, with oil entering under pressure through a line that should not contain air, aeration should not be a problem. Nevertheless, I and others have also encouraged a test that would compare oil on comparable vehicles both with, and without DOF, after equivalent hard runs. While I suspect your technology would pass with flying colors, a test/deomonstration should go a long ways towards dispelling concerns that are clearly held by a number of prospective customers.

Surely, answers to these questions in a public setting can only benefit your company. You would not be required to attack other products as, from what I can see, your DOF is the sole product on the market that is attacking the problem from a lubrication, rather than bearing design/construction approach. It is also the only product that can be used on the later, large diameter single-row bearings - which, in spite of some suggstions to the contrary, have suffered a significant number of failures even though the engines are newer and in some cases, much newer than the earlier single-row and dual-row bearings. I think we can also safely assume that without adequate lubrication, the number and percentage of failures in those large bearings will go up with increasing mileage and the passage of time.

Is splash lubricaton of the IMS bearing through the removal of the outer seal adequate in all driving conditions? The fact that this is apparently the only recommendation made by Excellence magazine is in no way conclusive; indeed, in a magazine that relies upon advertising revenue, it is understandable that they would not support any one technology over another. I also find it difficult to believe that if the solution was that simple, Porshce would not have merely removed the outer seal in later vehicles and recommended the same in a service bulletin on cars that had suffered failures, or required a clutch replacement.

In sum, this thread has shown that there is a great deal of interest in DOF technology even though there are some questions that remain unanswered. I, for one, believe that you would be doing this group of potential customers and yourself a real service by attempting to answer them. Don't take the bait - don't engage in mud-slinging with posts from competing technologes who are obviously proceeding from a biased perspective. Do, however, take this opportunity to not only explain your technology and to extol its virtues, but to answer some legitimate questions which have already been posed.

Brad

[Jake Raby]

Nevertheless, I and others have also encouraged a test that would compare oil on comparable vehicles both with, and without DOF, after equivalent hard runs.

This and other IMSB evaluations are currently being carried out by a third party. We have no affiliation with them, we only learned of the evaluation when they called us looking for test components, after they found the IMS Solution was out of stock everywhere they looked.

I made sure they received a component, though the unit I had to send to them already had 10,700 miles on it :-)

What they find will be interesting, and why they are doing the work is still both mysterious and interesting. They are NOT from the automotive world, but rather the General Aviation engine industry.

Maybe we'll have the opportunity to compare notes based on our own studies after they are all finished. I asked what they were comparing and their one word reply was "everything", but thats all they'd say.

I still made them pay for the unit, no freebies here and I charged them retail for a part that they know was used with more than 10K on it!

[southernstar]

Jake, very interesting indeed. Do you know if they are prepared to share the results with you (or to make them public)? I am not familiar with aviation engines, but do you (or does anyone else) know if any of them use an IMS?

Brad

[thom4782]

[QUOTE=Steve Tinker;369011]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Does it really, really matter if the bearings are splash, force or mist lubricated - as southernstar says, many years & many units later they are still out there and working, so somethings right with the design ......

It matters in the following $350 sense…

The apples to apples trade off in rough price terms is this: the $650 custom manufactured LN Retrofit lubricated by sump oil versus the $1000 combination of an off-the-shelf ceramic bearing (@ $200) lubricated by DOF (@ $800). People struggle because they are trying to figure out what approach provides the greatest IMSB reliability – LN supposedly better bearing or the combined DOF fix’s supposedly better lubrication approach.

If the bearing is the problem, then the LN approach might be best. If lack of lubrication is the problem, then the DOF approach might be best. And if these two points of distinction – bearing quality and lubrication method - don’t matter much in real wprld applications, then the low cost option is the rational economic choice.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by Steve Tinker

Does it really, really matter if the bearings are splash, force or mist lubricated

Absolutely! Bearings are NOT happy if they are not lubricated. We've had this before at my factory - a piece of equipment is returned from rebuild. It's not lubricated by the rebuild shop. We assume it is and put it in the machine. How long do you think it lasts? Not long!

This is from the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit website:



See that tiny slit between the IMS shaft and the IMS bearing cover? That's what the IMS Retrofit depends on to get oil bath, splash, or mist lubrication from. That's what scares me about that solution - there is not a great, reliable path for consistent lubrication. Now if you could pump in oil from inside and just let it drain out of that slit you would end up with the area between the end of the shaft and the cover filled with oil - thus flooding the bearing at all times. Both the TuneRS DOF and IMS Solution plain bearing put oil inside and drain out of this slit. I don't see why aeration or anything else would be a concern in either application.

Kirk Bristol

[cnavarro]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Absolutely! Bearings are NOT happy if they are not lubricated. We've had this before at my factory - a piece of equipment is returned from rebuild. It's not lubricated by the rebuild shop. We assume it is and put it in the machine. How long do you think it lasts? Not long!

This is from the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit website:



See that tiny slit between the IMS shaft and the IMS bearing cover? That's what the IMS Retrofit depends on to get oil bath, splash, or mist lubrication from. That's what scares me about that solution - there is not a great, reliable path for consistent lubrication. Now if you could pump in oil from inside and just let it drain out of that slit you would end up with the area between the end of the shaft and the cover filled with oil - thus flooding the bearing at all times. Both the TuneRS DOF and IMS Solution plain bearing put oil inside and drain out of this slit. I don't see why aeration or anything else would be a concern in either application.

Kirk Bristol

The example from the photo posted is equivalent to the gap on the dual row IMS bearing and flange assembly. That photo is actually a quadruple row IMS Upgrade we used to do on dual row bearing IMS shafts. We used conventional bearings in the very beginning, of which there are probably a dozen or two still in service.

The LN single row IMS Retrofit kit actually has a larger gap and we actually redesigned the flange last year providing an even larger gap to allow significantly more oil to get in there along with cryogenic treatment of the single row ceramic hybrid bearing to further improve the wear characteristics of the bearing races. However marginal an increase, we found a study claiming positive benefits of the process for 52100 bearing steel.

To quantify the lubrication requirements of the IMS bearing, I had a lengthy discussion with our bearing manufacturer and the lubrication requirements for a ceramic hybrid bearing are minimal and that barely more than one drop per minute is required, so about 1/20th of a cc.

As such, I will re-iterate that the IMS is submerged in oil and there is more than adequate lubrication with an open bearing in the M96's wet sump.

[Steve Tinker]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Absolutely! Bearings are NOT happy if they are not lubricated. We've had this before at my factory - a piece of equipment is returned from rebuild. It's not lubricated by the rebuild shop. We assume it is and put it in the machine. How long do you think it lasts? Not long!

This is from the LN Engineering IMS Retrofit website:

Kirk Bristol

Kirk,
My comment was not questioning the correct lubrication of bearings but the fact that THOUSANDS of the earlier LN ceramic ball bearings are in service since 2007/8 & significantly without any reported failures. To my mind this means that the (presumably) questionable oiling from splash or otherwise is adequate for ceramic hybrids. Perhaps not so for the original steel deep groove ball bearings as fitted by Porsche.

Its only relatively recently that the "lubrication" mousetrap has been mooted as a primary cause of bearing failure - previously everything hinged on the original bearing type being at fault.

[thom4782]

Originally Posted by Kirk

See that tiny slit between the IMS shaft and the IMS bearing cover? That's what the IMS Retrofit depends on to get oil bath, splash, or mist lubrication from. That's what scares me about that solution - there is not a great, reliable path for consistent lubrication.

The 'tiny slit' can't be a serious problem if the LN folks are seeing their bearings going more than 50,000 miles with no wear.