Worth it to 'check' IMS bearing during clutch? Clutch recommendations?

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Guys, I only try to educate people about the available technology for the vehicle based upon my direct experience with it; at the end of the day, it is your car and your money. If you want to buy a $20 IMS bearing because you do not like the way someone else warrantees theirs, be my guest, no one is holding a gun you your head to make you purchase something else.......................

Hey, JFP. I didn't mean for you to get all offended. I hope I made it clear how much I appreciate you and your vast knowledge on these cars. And I wasn't trying to take anything away from the product, as I've also stated.

All I'm saying is that if they make the claim that it's the "permanent solution" it's somewhat disingenuous to guarantee it for only 5 years. Especially for what they're charging for it. I wouldn't buy it no matter how they guaranteed it. That was never my point.

[elgyqc]

In 50 years when the only remaining 986s are in museums, any reference to IMS bearings will still lead to long repetitive discussions that will end with people yelling at each other from battles lines drawn up on opposing sides of LN...

My response to the original question... sure with the transmission off, remove the flywheel, lock the cams, remove the IMSB flange and inspect the bearing as others have suggested. I did that on my blue 2000 and plan to do it on the green one this year. If it is tight pull the bearing seal off and button it up. But that's just me...

[Qingdao]

Originally Posted by elgyqc

In 50 years when the only remaining 986s are in museums, any reference to IMS bearings will still lead to long repetitive discussions that will end with people yelling at each other from battles lines drawn up on opposing sides of LN...

My response to the original question... sure with the transmission off, remove the flywheel, lock the cams, remove the IMSB flange and inspect the bearing as others have suggested. I did that on my blue 2000 and plan to do it on the green one this year. If it is tight pull the bearing seal off and button it up. But that's just me...

Love it.


OP: If you are thinking about an IMSB failure... just replace it. Then you won't think about it.

I mean how much is an IMSB set? Most of the PITA is from it being behind the trans, and the cam locking.

[tonythetiger]

Originally Posted by piper6909

Actually, from their own website, only "...3,000 IMS Solutions installed since 2008".

30,000...what a difference a digit makes
:+)

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by tonythetiger

30,000...what a difference a digit makes
:+)

I did a triple-take to make sure I didn't read it wrong. It actually says 3000.

Copied and pasted from their site:

WHY BUY AN IMS RETROFIT FROM LN ENGINEERING?


As of 2020, with 35,000 IMS Retrofit and 3000 IMS Solutions installed since 2008, our IMS bearing replacements are the most trusted and used by hundreds of independent mechanics and dealerships worldwide.

[Porsche9]

Haven’t been on the site in some time. IMS bearing talk makes me not want to be on the site.

[Homeoboxter]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I did a triple-take to make sure I didn't read it wrong. It actually says 3000.

Copied and pasted from their site:

WHY BUY AN IMS RETROFIT FROM LN ENGINEERING?


As of 2020, with 35,000 IMS Retrofit and 3000 IMS Solutions installed since 2008, our IMS bearing replacements are the most trusted and used by hundreds of independent mechanics and dealerships worldwide.

I wonder how many of these 35000 Retrofits failed. If you scroll up in this thread there`s a report of a failed one. I came across other reports here and there on the web. Considering that 20 year old Boxsters way over 100k miles are out there running happily with the original 2-row bearing, still many of these were preventively replaced to a similar but hybrid bearing with a 25k miles warranty is more of a concern than the solution`s 5 year warranty. The Solution is overpriced (and overkill IMHO), but at least there`s no reports of any of them failing yet.

[Homeoboxter]

Originally Posted by Porsche9

Haven’t been on the site in some time. IMS bearing talk makes me not want to be on the site.

Totally agreed. These arguments are completely pointless, a complete waste of time. Yet, you can’t help yourself commenting on it, it’s like an addiction.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by Porsche9

Haven’t been on the site in some time. IMS bearing talk makes me not want to be on the site.

No worries, bud! We can always change the subject to oil and tires!

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by Homeoboxter

... The Solution is overpriced (and overkill IMHO), but at least there`s no reports of any of them failing yet.

I'm just now reading up on an old Pelican Parts Forum thread from 2012 where this guy Tim, going by the handle 'feelyx' developed the same type bearing as the LN "solution" and said he could sell the bearing for $200 plus $50 for the oil feed setup. So, yeah. way overpriced. I'm halfway though the 18 page thread. Very interesting.

Who has done an IMS change (New Oil Fed Design Idea) - Page 9 - Pelican Parts Forums

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I'm just now reading up on an old Pelican Parts Forum thread from 2012 where this guy Tim, going by the handle 'feelyx' developed the same type bearing as the LN "solution" and said he could sell the bearing for $200 plus $50 for the oil feed setup. So, yeah. way overpriced. I'm halfway though the 18 page thread. Very interesting.

Who has done an IMS change (New Oil Fed Design Idea) - Page 9 - Pelican Parts Forums

That is absolutely nothing like the IMS Solution, regardless of what he describes as the cost. It uses a steel insert in the shaft and a ball bearing in the flange, and is held together with a center bolt. The Solution has no ball or roller bearing components.

[Homeoboxter]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I'm just now reading up on an old Pelican Parts Forum thread from 2012 where this guy Tim, going by the handle 'feelyx' developed the same type bearing as the LN "solution" and said he could sell the bearing for $200 plus $50 for the oil feed setup. So, yeah. way overpriced. I'm halfway though the 18 page thread. Very interesting.

Who has done an IMS change (New Oil Fed Design Idea) - Page 9 - Pelican Parts Forums

Yeah, remember that. A super lengthy post about basically DOF with a ball bearing. Solution is a plain bearing with DOF.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

That is absolutely nothing like the IMS Solution, regardless of what he describes as the cost. It uses a steel insert in the shaft and a ball bearing in the flange, and is held together with a center bolt. The Solution has no ball or roller bearing components.

No, he doesn't use ball bearings. Did you read the thread? It's a solid bearing.

I believe I saw on rennlist that he sold his patent to Jake Raby, which linked me to the aforementioned thread.

Read page 7. Post #126 actually has photos of his prototype. On Page 17 he says he can't talk about IMS anymore because he sold the patent. This was 2012. In 2013 LN introduced the "solution".



EDIT: My bad, somehow the prior link sent you to page 9 where he talks about a DOF to set of ball bearings instead of the bushing. He was working on several versions at the time, including a grease-fed bearing.

Use this link:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/boxster-cayman-forum/649905-who-has-done-ims-change-new-oil-fed-design-idea-7.html

[maytag]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I'm just now reading up on an old Pelican Parts Forum thread from 2012 where this guy Tim, going by the handle 'feelyx' developed the same type bearing as the LN "solution" and said he could sell the bearing for $200 plus $50 for the oil feed setup. So, yeah. way overpriced. I'm halfway though the 18 page thread. Very interesting.



Who has done an IMS change (New Oil Fed Design Idea) - Page 9 - Pelican Parts Forums

But was he trying to run a business? Or just kicking out a few on the side as an enthusiast?

My 986 trailer hitch: I had many people contact me, asking if I'd make one for them. I told them all no: there's always inferred liability, which means I'd have to line up all of my ducks in neat little rows. Ultimately, to do it as a business, with such a limited customer base, you'd have to pay me nearly $3k to make it make any sort of sense at all. But I built mine for about $250

I'm not disparaging what somebody decides to charge for their product. Rather, I'm disparaging someone who exploits a way over exaggerated failure and the accompanying fear, and then tells everyone that nobody else is smart enough to do it..... or even install his product.... and then all of his minions climb aboard and point fingers and throw rocks at people who decide to try their own path.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by maytag

But was he trying to run a business? Or just kicking out a few on the side as an enthusiast?

My 986 trailer hitch: I had many people contact me, asking if I'd make one for them. I told them all no: there's always inferred liability, which means I'd have to line up all of my ducks in neat little rows. Ultimately, to do it as a business, with such a limited customer base, you'd have to pay me nearly $3k to make it make any sort of sense at all. But I built mine for about $250

I'm not disparaging what somebody decides to charge for their product. Rather, I'm disparaging someone who exploits a way over exaggerated failure and the accompanying fear, and then tells everyone that nobody else is smart enough to do it..... or even install his product.... and then all of his minions climb aboard and point fingers and throw rocks at people who decide to try their own path.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I believe he had mentioned selling the kit but later stepped back from that, and later on he mentions that he sold the patent. So it's obvious to me that he walked back selling the kit because he was in negotiations. It's a very long thread and I don't remember everything verbatim, sorry.


EDIT: Check post #168 for pricing on the solid bearing.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/boxster-cayman-forum/649905-who-has-done-ims-change-new-oil-fed-design-idea-9.html

And here he talks about his oil fed ball bearings he had intended on selling:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/boxster-cayman-forum/649905-who-has-done-ims-change-new-oil-fed-design-idea-10.html

So he had full intention on selling these himself at first.

If he was willing to sell it for $200 and still make himself a profit, it pretty much reaffirms what I said earlier that the "solution" costs less $100 to make. And they sell it for $1850. With only a 5 year warranty.

[Homeoboxter]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I believe he had mentioned selling the kit but later stepped back from that, and later on he mentions that he sold the patent. So it's obvious to me that he walked back selling the kit because he was in negotiations. It's a very long thread and I don't remember everything verbatim, sorry.


EDIT: Check post #168 for pricing on the solid bearing.
Who has done an IMS change (New Oil Fed Design Idea) - Page 9 - Pelican Parts Forums

And here he talks about his oil fed ball bearings he had intended on selling:
Who has done an IMS change (New Oil Fed Design Idea) - Page 10 - Pelican Parts Forums

So he had full intention on selling these himself at first.

If he was willing to sell it for $200 and still make himself a profit, it pretty much reaffirms what I said earlier that the "solution" costs less $100 to make. And they sell it for $1850. With only a 5 year warranty.

Yes, you are right about the bearing, the plain version shows up indeed in this thread.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by piper6909

No, he doesn't use ball bearings. Did you read the thread? It's a solid bearing.

I believe I saw on rennlist that he sold his patent to Jake Raby, which linked me to the aforementioned thread.

Read page 7. Post #126 actually has photos of his prototype. On Page 17 he says he can't talk about IMS anymore because he sold the patent. This was 2012. In 2013 LN introduced the "solution".



EDIT: My bad, somehow the prior link sent you to page 9 where he talks about a DOF to set of ball bearings instead of the bushing. He was working on several versions at the time, including a grease-fed bearing.

Use this link:
Who has done an IMS change (New Oil Fed Design Idea) - Page 7 - Pelican Parts Forums

The IMS Soluion was developed by and installed in engines he built by Jake Raby prior to 2008, he developed it before he and Charles Navarro developed the ceramic hybrid. Jake also filed a “clean” patent application in July of 2012, meaning it does not reference any previous versions or prior patents that had been acquired. A search for a patent application for this other design produces no identifiable filings, so I have not idea if there was a patent; or if it exists or who it was sold to. Do you have a patent number for this other design?

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

The IMS Soluion was developed by and installed in engines he built by Jake Raby prior to 2008, he developed it before he and Charles Navarro developed the ceramic hybrid. Jake also filed a “clean” patent application, meaning it does not reference any previous versions or prior patents. A search for a patent application for this other design produces no identifiable filings, so I have not idea if there was a patent, or who it was sold to. Do you have a patent number for this other design?

I have no way of knowing the patent numbers.

From what I've read, the LN "solution" was not available until 2013. But, if it was available in 2008, as you say, why didn't some of those who posted in 2012, including Charles Navarro himself (yes, he posted in that thread) tell him that it's already been done? And you posted there too.

Also, according to LN's site, they were granted the patent on March 31, 2015. So Feelyx may never have received his actual patent, he may have sold it while it was still pending.

EDIT: the Events listed for Patent #US8992089B2 shows Priority to US201261677511P on 7/31/2012 (I have not yet been able find out what that refers to ) Then on March 13, 2013 IMS Solution, LLC filed application for the patent. So the timeline falls in line with what I've been reading. But of course that's not the whole story, and since Feelyx can not talk about it we may never know for sure.

And Charles Navarro didn't develop ceramic hybrid bearings, they were designed by SKF and have been around for decades. He pulled one off the shelf.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I have no way of knowing the patent numbers.

From what I've read, the LN "solution" was not available until 2013. But, if it was available in 2008, as you say, why didn't some of those who posted in 2012, including Charles Navarro himself (yes, he posted in that thread) tell him that it's already been done? And you posted there too.

Also, according to LN's site, they were granted the patent on March 31, 2015, so Feelyx may never have received his actual patent, he may have sold it while it was still pending.

It was not generally available to the public until 2013, but was in use earlier at Raby’s shop only, and only in complete engines and not as a retrofit. Jake held this design rather “close to the vest”, and did not let the dual row out of his shop until even later (all the first IMS Solutions were single row design only, the dual row came out later).

THe reason that no one talked about it was entirely commercial, the patent had been filed for, but both Charles and Jake had learned a serious lesson from the development of their entire retrofit development: Say nothing, patent everything, which takes time, years in fact.. Jake and Charles spent a lot of time and cash prior to 2008 figuring out how to extract the OEM bearings and retrofit their products, developing both procedures and tooling, all of which was valuable intellectual property that they failed to protect with copyright or patents. Everyone seems to forget Porsche said that doing this was impossible without disassembling the engine. This allowed others to simply copy their tool designs and retrofit methods with a cheaper “me too” product offerings; some good, others not so much.

So having been substantially burned on the tooling and procedures used with the ceramic hybrids, the Solution was kept pretty much under wraps. As for this other design in the earlier posts, if there was either a patent filing or issued, it would be cross referenced in Raby’s patent in the Patent Office records if Jake had either acquired the rights to it, or if it had been issued to someone else (the patent office does this when technologies are similar, but sufficiently different enough to be patentable); but Jake’s patent is “clean”, no cross references to someone else’s work. What may have transpired is that this other individual did file an application, but found out Jake was there first, but there is no way to confirm that.

US201261677511P refers to another Raby filing on the same development, he actually holds multiple individual patents for the IMS Solution.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

It was not generally available to the public until 2013, but was in use earlier at Raby’s shop only, and only in complete engines and not as a retrofit. Jake held this design rather “close to the vest”, and did not let the dual row out of his shop until even later (all the first IMS Solutions were single row design only, the dual row came out later).

THe reason that no one talked about it was entirely commercial, the patent had been filed for, but both Charles and Jake had learned a serious lesson from the development of their entire retrofit development: Say nothing, patent everything, which takes time, years in fact.. Jake and Charles spent a lot of time and cash prior to 2008 figuring out how to extract the OEM bearings and retrofit their products, developing both procedures and tooling, all of which was valuable intellectual property that they failed to protect with copyright or patents. Everyone seems to forget Porsche said that doing this was impossible without disassembling the engine. This allowed others to simply copy their tool designs and retrofit methods with a cheaper “me too” product offerings; some good, others not so much.

So having been substantially burned on the tooling and procedures used with the ceramic hybrids, the Solution was kept pretty much under wraps. As for this other design in the earlier posts, if there was either a patent filing or issued, it would be cross referenced in Raby’s patent in the Patent Office records if Jake had either acquired the rights to it, or if it had been issued to someone else (the patent office does this when technologies are similar, but sufficiently different enough to be patentable); but Jake’s patent is “clean”, no cross references to someone else’s work. What may have transpired is that this other individual did file an application, but found out Jake was there first, but there is no way to confirm that.

US201261677511P refers to another Raby filing on the same development, he actually holds multiple individual patents for the IMS Solution.

I have a patent. My attorney told me that once the application is filed, I could market it. So I don't know why they had to keep it "close to their vest".

And Feelyx did say that he sold his patent and he can no longer talk about it. I believe it was on page 19 of that thread.

EDIT: It was on page 17.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/boxster-cayman-forum/649905-who-has-done-ims-change-new-oil-fed-design-idea-17.html