Go Back   986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Performance and Technical Chat

Post Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-16-2014, 05:25 AM   #1
Registered User
 
thom4782's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Foster City CA
Posts: 1,099
James: if your 'gut' hypothesis were true, then failure rates of single and dual row bearings would be similar. They are not. Data submitted in the Eisen lawsuit showed single row bearings failed more than 8 times the rate of dual row bearings.
thom4782 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 06:16 AM   #2
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,425
Quote:
The dual rows are overkill and because of the additional load carrying capacity,
Let's remember that statement for a later date... I certainly concur with that statement, and I believe in overkill.

Quote:
can tolerate poor lubrication over a much longer time.
None of the bearings that we have analyzed or have had analyzed show any signs of a lack of lubrication. It takes catching bearings at all the stages of failure, then analyzing them to gather this data, which takes years to accomplish.

Since 2007 we've known these issues were not related lubrication.
__________________
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
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 05:23 PM   #3
Beginner
 
Jamesp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,659
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom4782 View Post
James: if your 'gut' hypothesis were true, then failure rates of single and dual row bearings would be similar. They are not. Data submitted in the Eisen lawsuit showed single row bearings failed more than 8 times the rate of dual row bearings.
One of us has missed the point. Since there is an eightfold increase in single row failures there has to be a heavily weighted variable, one might even hazard to say exponentially weighted in favor of the dual row bearing. Assuming the Porsche designers had not been pithed just before designing the single row ( A distinct possibility), the bearing loads and speeds should pan out. As speed and loads should be accommodated, that would seem to leave lubrication. So what have I missed?

And Jake - I had no idea the 6204 was used in GM alternators! It's also used in mower decks.
__________________
2003 S manual
Jamesp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 05:38 PM   #4
Beginner
 
Jamesp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,659
Garage
One note to calibrate me to others. I believe that all IMS bearings suffer oil intrusion and subsequent lack of appropriate lubrication due to the closed design of the IMS shaft. Its got something to do with the ideal gas law, that whole PV=nRT thing, or something very close to that for the purists out there.
__________________
2003 S manual
Jamesp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 06:02 PM   #5
Registered User
 
thom4782's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Foster City CA
Posts: 1,099
Jamesp:

To your last two comments...

1 - the differential effect of loading on dual and single row the rates of spallation

2 - two mechanisms at play: a) heat hardened bearing seals leak and allow engine oil to blend with / wash out bearing grease and b) contaminants build up in IMS tube oil because inflow and outflow rates are different and they find their way eventually into the IMSB through the leaking inner bearing seal
thom4782 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 03:01 AM   #6
Beginner
 
Jamesp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,659
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom4782 View Post
Jamesp:

To your last two comments...

1 - the differential effect of loading on dual and single row the rates of spallation

2 - two mechanisms at play: a) heat hardened bearing seals leak and allow engine oil to blend with / wash out bearing grease and b) contaminants build up in IMS tube oil because inflow and outflow rates are different and they find their way eventually into the IMSB through the leaking inner bearing seal
Thing 1- Once spall begins in any bearing the rate is not of consequence - spall is the removal of chunks of material, not normal wear. This is a failure mode that feeds on itself and quickly destroys any bearing. Lack of lubrication or overload can both result in spall. I posted a picture of cut bearing apart bearing that had lines in it that looked like it could be the start of spall. Jake commented that bearing was failing, but no tribologist came forward to name the failure mechanism.

Thing 2 - You're on the right track, but there needs to be a motivating force to push oil into the bearing or it would tend to just drip off the bearing seal. Granted it would tend to soak in under its own power, but I wonder what motive force could literally push oil past the seal to fill the IMS tube with oil? It may have something to do with thermodynamics.
__________________
2003 S manual
Jamesp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 03:59 AM   #7
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,425
Trust that Lake Speed Jr. Is one of the Tribologistvthat has been working with us for years on these studies. He is one of 300 people in the world to hold dual certifications as both an oil analyst and a certified lubrication specialist. He just happens to be the guy that we've worked with to also develop the DT40, DT50 and XP9 oils.

He doesn't have time to step forward on forums and deal with a lot of the challenges of doing so. My days on forums are numbered too.

Lake will be part of a PCA Tech event held at our facility on April 5, 2014 where he will be one of the presenters.
__________________
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
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 12:06 PM   #8
Registered User
 
thom4782's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Foster City CA
Posts: 1,099
People can debate the fine points of failure mechanisms all day. Whatever the merits, the arguments must consider the two factors that distinguish single and dual row bearings, namely 1) how loads get distributed within their designs and 2) the 8% versus 1% respective failure rates. Lubrication is common to both designs. While it may explain the failure baseline (1%), it doesn't address the rate differences.

Last edited by thom4782; 01-17-2014 at 12:10 PM.
thom4782 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 07:13 PM   #9
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom4782 View Post
James: if your 'gut' hypothesis were true, then failure rates of single and dual row bearings would be similar. They are not. Data submitted in the Eisen lawsuit showed single row bearings failed more than 8 times the rate of dual row bearings.
Thats a fact... And with that said, its the time we've been waiting for!

What if you could fit a dual row IMS Bearing into a single row shaft without engine disassembly, and do carry this out as an "in car retrofit"? Well, now you can, just like we have been!

Remember when Jamesp stated this?
Quote:
The dual rows are overkill and because of the additional load carrying capacity
See all the details here that explains how the Generation 2 IMS Retrofit works.
Gen 2 Single Row Pro IMS Retrofit



And here's a quick video that illustrates how the Generation 2, IMS Single Row Pro Retrofit kit is installed utilizing the Patent Pending "Raby IMSR Faultless Tool"

from Charles Navarro on Vimeo.



And here is the Raby IMSR Faultless Tool. This single tool will extract all M96 IMS Bearings, both OEM and aftermarket, to include the IMS Solution. It will Also mechanically INSTALL any IMS Bearing into any Dual or Single Row IMS shaft, to include the IMS Solution.
This tool IS REQUIRED to install the Generation 2, Single Row Pro Retrofit kit.
__________________
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; 01-17-2014 at 07:20 PM.
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Post Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page