Quote:
Originally Posted by piper6909
I don't know the guys so I have no reason to "besmirch" them. At first, I found it more than comical they 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, but not EPS. That's your prerogative and you have your reasons.  |
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.
Threaded Mode
