View Single Post
Old 10-03-2013, 06:06 PM   #29
Jake Raby
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,425
Guys,
Nothing in the mechanical world is perfect. Every mechanical design has its compromises, whether they are cost, packaging, fitment or complexity.

I respect all competing technologies and those who have developed them. Without those types of things there would be nothing to inspire me to continually evolve the components, processes and tools. Its also a free market place and we are all given equal opportunities to create what we feel is the best way of solving any given problem.

The biggest compliment I've had in a while was ordering some "competing technology" (to evaluate on the dyno) and finding that the IMSB extraction tool that I invented was being bought from a distributor and then remarked and re-sold by the competitor, as their own. Thats nothing new, and to be expected.

Thats ok, the first generation tool is now out of date and the new tools are the way of the future. The current tools will soon go away and the competitor will have to do something else, or sell a tool with my trademark on it. The processes have never been easier and safer to carry out both from an extraction and installation point of view than whats made possible by this tool. Remember, without the tools and processes that I created these "options" wouldn't be out there; because you couldn't extract the bearings (at least the dual row IMSB) to allow for retrofits. When I developed this procedure it was thought to be "impossible" or black art. The day I posted the first IMSB retrofit procedure on my website it went viral and the site had over 30,000 unique visits in a 48 hour period. Today people forget about the conversations of yesterday where people were arguing about whether or not an IMSB could even be extracted. Then there was no other choice, either you bought what the pioneers offered, or you didn't buy anything. Its rather funny that one of the developers of competing technology actually utilized the LN IMSB in his own car prior to developing his component, but I respect him for admitting that. We even tried to help the guy out.

And yes, 2014 will find yet another IMSB retrofit evolution release. In fact, the "faultless tool" is required to install it. This unit is developed as a mid price point retrofit not costing as much as the IMS Solution, but offering more life than any single row 6204 style bearing. The IMS Solution solves the problem, but it isn't for everyone, primarily due to cost and the extra special care required to properly install the component.

Some contend that the bearing isn't the problem and that lubrication is. We contend that the OEM ball bearing and its multitude of moving parts, that lead to engine-wide collateral damage after bearing failure is the problem. Its okay to disagree and none of us are really ever going to be proven right, or wrong, so it really doesn't matter.
Attached Images
 
__________________
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; 10-03-2013 at 06:10 PM.
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote