Sounds like rocket science. It`s literally pulling out a bearing from a bore and pressing another one in.

Going back to my days in corporate life, I also hold multiple patents, a couple as co author. Our legal staff always advise us to not release any public information about the developments until the patent was granted, solely because of how the process typically runs. Often, a filing is returned (not rejected) for clarification or expansion on one or more of the initial claims, and which basically restarts the filing clock all over again. While your filing remains basically protected, returned filings opens the doors for “squatters” to try and cross file on your ideas. The filing then becomes a legal burden you have to protect, and while you will typically win out in the long term, it delays your patent grant and cost big bucks. So if no one knows about what you have filed for, they cannot create problems for you.

Again, at the time, Porsche denied it was even possible. Jake and Charles developed how the engine has to be configured (locked at TDC, tensioners removed, cams locked) and the actual tools to do it. While I’ll may not seem like “rocket science” to you, without the procedure and tooling, Porsche was correct.

I was actually surprised how quickly theirs was granted. Mine took about 7 years from application to approval with a lot of back and forth.

Speed in being granted is a sign of uniqueness, nothing similar has been filed, and the design claims have been substantiated.

What's unique about a bushing? ;) I get it, it's how they applied it.

In my case they came back with other patents that had no relation to my idea whatsoever. It didn't help that my case was pushed from one officer to another 3 times and each time I had to explain to them what it was about. As if they couldn't read the abstract. But in the end I finally got it. :cheers:

Of course Porsche would say it`s impossible, they want you to buy a new engine or a new IMS and rebuild it using genuine parts from Porsche. Also, Porsche would never admit that a working IMSB has to be replaced to a new one in a preventive manner. And if it fails, the engine has to be disassembled anyway, pulling it out is not an option.

The need for locking the cams and the crank when messing with timing is obvious. When I need a tool like that, I make some measurements, make a drawing, walk to a machinist with a lathe and have it done. But the IMSB can be extracted using simple bearing pullers off the shelf. So this developing the right tools and right procedure taking a lot of time seems a little bit exaggarated to me.

Lots of thing seem easy once someone has already done 'it' once.

Granted they deserve some credit. But any mechanic worth their weight knows that when you work on a timing component you have to make sure you're not upsetting the timing.

It's no accident that Porsche put slots at the ends of the cams. It takes an extra machining step. It's also no accident that those marks line up vertically when the crank is at TDC. It's also no accident that the crank pulley has a hole that lines up with a hole in the case so you can insert a tool to lock it in place. It's also no accident that Porsche designed the chain tensioners to be installed from the outside of the motor, so they can be installed after engine assembly. This is different than most tensioners I've worked with.

So Porsche already had a procedure to lock the cams and crank on TDC, and for removing and installing chain tensioners.

Knowing all that, it's not that big of a leap to think, "Hey I wonder if I can pull this bearing out and put another one in." Especially for someone already quite familiar with these motors and with an extra motor or two lying around.

I figured out that you can take a non-EGR Subaru head, drill and tap a hole in it and install it in an EGR car. Conversely, you can plug the hole in an EGR head and install it in a Non-EGR car. Subaru said you have to use specific heads. People figure out how to do something that the manufacturer says can't be done all the time.

Oh the irony:
Cheering the ingenuity and resourcefulness of one group who developed something that Porsche said can't be done, only for that group to thenbecome the ones telling everyone that theirs is the only way, and the same people cheering them on.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Oddly enough, the person who discovered that the IMS could be replaceable despite Porsche's claims to the contrary was also named Tony.

As I was in pretty much constant contact with them (Jake and Charles) as they were inventing (and investing in) the process of providing a kit for a mechanic who had never done a replacement, I recall the frequent failures before the first product was complete. I was interested as I had a Boxster at the time and was also in charge of the production and productization of an item that couldn't afford to fail.

So I term it inventing if you are the first to produce a kit that may include parts, instructions and tools. And in the early days customer support to assure the product got a fair reception. No one else was offering that at the time.

There are patents on some of the LN/Flat6 IMS products. "The Solution" has three.

You may not like the choice they made. But recall just how old these engines are and how they don't have control over who does the install or who does the diagnosis saying that it was their product that failed. I sure wouldn't back any warranty under those conditions.

I saw that you also posted on Feelyx's thread. Were you in contact with him as well as Jake & Charles?

No I never talked to Tony. I was told by Jake that is where he got the idea that it could be done.

Ahh...Thanks. I thought his name was Tim.

So, from what I've read, Tony sold them the patent, although he can no longer discuss it. And now you've confirmed that neither Jake nor Charles figured out that the IMSB can be R&R'd?

No, because if he did, it would be listed as being invented by one person, and then reassigned to Jake and Charles, and there is no such information contained in any of the patents on the IMS Solution.

So, in March 2013, Tony (Feelyx) said he sold the patent he "cannot talk about the patent I sold, or about any "I_s" bearings/revisions/ etc."

That, coincidentally, is the same month that Jake & Charles filed the patent for the IMS "solution". The timeline is a little TOO coincidental to me.

Now, if I really want to pursue this further, I could ask my patent attorney if there was a way to sell a patent, either before or after it has been granted, and erase any record of the original inventor. Maybe Tony sold them the patent application while it was still pending and then Jake & Charles re-filed it under their own names?

I don't know the patent laws, but I know that you can sell a "patent pending" application. Whether you can sell an application and change the inventors' names is above my pay rate. Any patent lawyers here that can chime in on this?

Even if you sold a pending patent, you would still be listed as the inventor, the purchaser would be the assignee.

And as much as you would like to besmirch Jake and Charles, they are listed as the inventors on all of the IMS Solution patents, which as stated earlier are "clean", meaning no assignments, which legally means they did not purchase the rights from someone else. From the US governments site on patent laws and rights:

"“Assignment,” in general, is the act of transferring to another the ownership of one’s property, i.e., the interest and rights to the property. In 37 CFR 3.1, assignment of patent rights is defined as “a transfer by a party of all or part of its right, title and interest in a patent [or] patent application....” An assignment of a patent, or patent application, is the transfer to another of a party’s entire ownership interest or a percentage of that party’s ownership interest in the patent or application. In order for an assignment to take place, the transfer to another must include the entirety of the bundle of rights that is associated with the ownership interest, i.e., all of the bundle of rights that are inherent in the right, title and interest in the patent or patent application."

Have a good evening.

I don't know the guys so I have no reason to "besmirch" them. At first, I found it more than comical that they claim it's the "permanent solution" but they only guarantee it for 5 years. Then I scratched the surface a bit and found this guy who was developing a prototype for a bushing (very similar to the "solution") to replace the bearing, and documenting his progress in a thread. He was even planning to market it for $200. So for him to turn a profit, I assume it would cost less than $100 to make.

Later, he suddenly wrote that he could not talk about it because he sold his patent, and that same month, Jake and Charles applied for their patent. Perhaps there's another way to sell a pending application without "assigning" it, so the buyers can have a "clean" patent? I don't know, I'm not a patent attorney and I believe neither are you, but feel free to correct me.

Today I learned that Jake and Charles weren't even the ones who figured out how to R & R the IMSB, which some on here, including you, give them credit for.

From the beginning, all I said was if you're going to charge $1850.00 for your 'permanent solution', put your money where your mouth is and give it a 'permanent' warranty.

I'm not besmirching them. I'm posting info as I find it. I am, however, besmirching that weak warranty. And BTW, I said the same about the EPS roller bearing warranty. They also claim theirs a "permanent" solution. But you choose to bend over backwards to defend LN. That's your prerogative and you have your reasons. :cheers:

Basically that no roller or ball bearing assembly will survive indefinitely in this application, so anyone claiming otherwise should be held suspect. The bearing engineer hired by Jake and Charles during their development of the ceramic hybrid bearing basically indicated that a roller bearing offered no advantages over a ball bearing design in this application, and could have limitations, which is why they went with the ceramic ball design rather than a roller design.

EPS promotes using a point steel implement to punch a hole of a specific size in the pump end of the shaft to allow oil to flow towards the bearing, and then use an oil pump drive shaft with a grove cut into it for the oil. Jake's work had shown that quite a few shafts did not run true to their center line, so flooding the shaft would worsen the side loading on whatever IMS bearing is at the other end. It is for this exact reason that every IMS Solution installation includes an sealing plug behind the Solution bearing in the shaft to prevent flooding. Early on, those that seriously raced the M96 engine discovered that the stock oil pump drive shaft, the one EPS cuts a grove in, is a weak point and can actually snap before any grove is cut into to it, taking the engine to the grave along with it. Every engine that leaves Jake' shop has a chrome moly steel replacement oil pump drive shaft for exactly this reason.

LN actually makes a roller bearing for the IMS, which is used pretty much exclusively by engine rebuilder RND out of Atlanta. RND also offers LN ceramic hybrid or IMS Solutions if the customer asks for them.

One of the main reasons I shy away from the roller designs is a lack of development information, and a rather limited installed base of successful installation's. Jake and Charles have been very upfront and public about their products, how they developed and tested them, and have open to questions, including how many LN hybrids have failed over the years since introduction. All you have to do is ask. When you and your shop's name is on a retrofit, you cannot accept risks, you need to go with what works time and again. I like to sleep at night, so we only went with what we knew works.

Fair enough. I totally get that, on principle, a plain bearing is far more durable than a ball or roller bearing. So you're saying you won't install LN's other bearings, only the "solution'?

I agree with you that it's a fine product, and there's a solid argument to be made that it's actually the best out there. But when it costs at minimum twice as much as anything else out there, don't you agree that they can offer a much better warranty? I mean, seriously. After all the pre-qualifications, and to only honor the warranty if it's installed by an authorized mechanic, don't you think they should believe in their product enough to offer a lifetime warranty? To me it screams that they don't believe in it, not even as much as you do.