10-24-2013, 04:03 AM
|
#1
|
|
Beginner
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,659
|
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
|
|
|
10-24-2013, 08:16 AM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 598
|
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
|
|
|
10-24-2013, 08:42 AM
|
#3
|
|
Engine Surgeon
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,425
|
Quote:
|
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!
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist
Last edited by Jake Raby; 10-24-2013 at 08:45 AM.
|
|
|
10-24-2013, 08:46 AM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 598
|
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
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:38 PM.
| |