69gaugeman

I can see a design flaw in the picture of the parts. But I am sure that all your testing has revealed it and it has changed on the production run.

KrazyK

Yeh, the cost.

Imo000

No, he is serious. He is the one that came up with this same idea, when I was repairing my engine.

69gaugeman

I already have the solid models drawn up for this, when Imre decided to just use the off the shelf bearing. his was a double row. I suspect that the fact that it requires running a lube line from the engine is why they won't sell to the diy crowd. That does have some merit as that would be considered an advanced skill, but not out of the realm of the advanced diy'er.

KrazyK

Then I guess some of us have been thinking of similar ideas. Only thing is, I dont see how there would be a large enough market for this to be cost effective. We'll see.

69gaugeman

at 1500 each it is very cost effective.....

Seaflat

Seems with labor that would be about the cost of an extended warranty .....that would cover a bunch of stuff.

Flat6 Innovations

Thats not a design flaw.. It is a functional part of the design and it has proven priceless already during testing. This arrangement was developed the old fashioned way and not just on paper. Thats why it works.

Imo000

What are you referring to as "Thats...."?

BED997

If it is sold directly to my indy shop, will they be able to install the Solution if they are familiar with installing the LN ceramic bearing?

I'm guessing the Solution would require a completely different set of install tools than those they might already have for other LN bearings put in cars?

Flat6 Innovations

Yes, as 2/3 of the procedure is exactly the same as the standard retrofit. The remaining 1/3 just takes common sense to apply.

Chris996

Interesting

offshoreMM

After having the single-row retrofit installed, at significant cost, it's slightly unnerving to hear that 'so many people have installed them incorrectly and experienced failures...' I thought that having the single row retrofit installed would give me relative peace of mind, but I suppose that was foolish.

One has to wonder if the number of 'botched' install single-row retrofits approaches the percentage of 'natural' IMS failures. In fact, if the number of botched installs is so great that they've actually stopped selling the kit all together, it would hint that more people than we'd like to imagine have somehow managed to screw up the install and grenade their $20k motors. Would be nice to know the relative distribution of failures for (1) dealer installs (2) indy installs and (3) shade-tree backyard installs, simply as someone who bought the product and would like to make an educated decision as to what to do with it now that it's already on my car. I assume there is no way to spot a 'botched' install until the motor actually grenades, at which point no one is going to accept any liability whatsoever because nothing can be proven with regards to the install if everything is in pieces.

Just my thoughts. Not trying to aggravate things. Just slightly unnerved by these revelations.

RF5BPilot

Always appropriate to blame the install.

Flat6 Innovations

Some details:

Please don't make this more than what it is. There have not been "so many failures" from bad installs. The total amount of failures from the single bearings have been 5 out of around 7,000 at last count. Of those we know the following:
-One was installed without a snap ring to retain it- it failed.
-At least two were installed AFTER an OEM bearing had began to fail and contaminated the engine with debris. These failed because the bearings were destroyed by the debris.(those engines were not resurrected properly or should not have been retrofitted at all as they were already injured)
-We have seen at least two others come to us after the installer did not tighten the retention nut correctly- I literally removed it with my fingers and video documented it.
- NONE of the single row bearings that we have installed on site have failed and all are serialized since day one.


No, you did what you could with what was released at the time. We did what we could by taking the time to develop a final solution that works and is proven. The sucky part is how we have had to protect it and the act that we couldn't even warn anyone that it was coming without compromising the patentability of the unit.

For the past few months when someone called us about a single row IMSR they were transferred to me and I offered them the IMSR using the IMS SOlution, all were blown away and appreciative that we didn't sell them on current technology without warning them of future technology. I stopped carrying out standard IMSR jobs months ago on single row cars just because I didn't want pissed off customers that felt they paid 3500 bucks for yesterdays news. This has all been a well planned and exceptionally executed development in every way.

READ THIS:
**MY COMPANY** has stopped applying the standard IMSR using the ball bering, LN still makes the bearing that we designed and tested together and will continue to as a lower cost install for those not wanting the IMS Solution. We did this because the technology was born here and our engines are always outfitted with our technology and nothing else, thats just pride and application. People come here and ship their cars from all over NorthAmerica for a reason, and not because its a cheap solution to the problem. The way I see it, my efforts of creating the IMS Solution are wasted unless all my engines feature the technology.

The total number of failures for all above is around 5-7 and thats it. Its nothing to worry about, or be alarmed about. BUT your bearing is rated for 50K miles and thats not the case with the IMS Solution arrangement- thats the difference. Not keeping the car for more than 50K miles? Don't worry about it.

Most companies would be happy as hell if they sold 7,000 units all over the world to everyone from dealer techs, to experts, to Engineers, to complete dummies and ONLY had 5-7 failures. Here I lost my appetite for 3 days after we had the very first failure; even though it was later learned that the installer left the snap ring out (installer was a professional). One failure is too many. Period.

Even though the engine was broken it was inconclusive what happened LN replaced the bearing lived up to their warranty, and I put the entire engine back together and shipped it to the owner. Done deal. Scenarios may vary, especially when an engine has 23 other documented modes of failure, the majority of which can be confused with IMSB trauma.

Just my thoughts. Not trying to aggravate things. Just slightly unnerved by these revelations.

In summary: The failure of the current IMSB retrofit bearings are not of concern at all and thats why you have not read stories online of such failures. The single row bearing is simply too small and the best way to create a final solution to the problem is to omit the ball bearing completely. Our VERY FIRST idea about solving the bearing failure issues was to use this plain bearing design, but it was taking too long to perfect (years) so we worked diligently behind closed doors to develop this.

Love the car and want to keep it forever? If you haven't retrofitted it, then use the IMS Solution. If you have retrofitted it, ride out the 50K rating and replace it with the final solution.

Like the car but don't want to keep it more than 50K? Just install the standard retrofit and save yourself 600 bucks or so, drive it 50K and live with having a ball bearing in the engine. In my opinion the only bad decision is for single row customers to not take some sort of action, and at least install an IMS Guardian, or apply the lowest cost bearing from Pelican. Something beats nothing all to hell.

I'll counter with:
"Always appropriate to blame the manufacturer".