Which leads me to wonder if Imo000 off the shelf bearing is what Pelican is selling. Anyone have any way to find out? Curious if Casper Labs/Pelican/Imo000 all are using the same bearing. I can't imagine there would be too many bearing manufacturers for that type of specific bearing, but I could be wrong.

 

This design was granted a patent?

 

Imo000's bearing is one that is available off the shelf. A small spacer was fitted and the snap ring needed to be thinner slightly to fit into the groove. The bearing could have just as easily have been ground down as well.

Also note that the snap ring holding the bearing does nothing. The original design inherently holds the bearing in place. If there was a failure due to a snap ring not being there, their design must not be very good. If you look at the original design from Porsche, you would see that the snap ring would have been just to hold the assembly together until installed. Once installed, the bearing cannot migrate as it it held in place on one side by the intermediate shaft and on the other by the housing bolted into the case. This is frequently done when one manufacturer makes an assembly and ships it elsewhere to be installed.

That's not what he said. He said the patentability would have been reduced if they let it out what they were doing. This could mean anything. Specifically worded vaguely to invoke confusion. I suspect that they had a lot of the original design in stock and needed to move it so they wouldn't be stuck with it. Specially if they stopped using the single row 'for months now'

 

well...what's the cost for the solution install...i've got the 3500 for the retrofit kit....now i've got to spend another grand? i'm going to put the kit on SOON...like in 2 wks

 

69gaugeman, seems like you have a lot of insight into this. May I ask if you are an engineer?(meaning to be a compliment).

Also you indicated that you had already come up with the same design as the solution before in solidworks. Have you created any prototypes or tested it in any way outside of computer simulation? I don't expect you to actually answer this as I don't know what the implications of any patent liability would be. Curious as to what you meant by "flaw" for us simpletons. Feel free to pm me.

 

No PM's. Put your thoughts on the table.

 

Slippery slope = 12+ pages or IBTL, whichever occurs first.

 

This is gonna be good!

 

Incorrect. The single row bearings can barely stay on the shelf. You guys have my company confused with LN Engineering. We are the developers and installers of these types of technology, LN is the manufacturer and co-developer.

The standard retrofit bearings are currently still being sold and that will not change, they will maintain their advantage of the lower cost alternative, since the retail price is 600+ less than the IMS Solution.

When I said we are no longer selling the single row bearings that was from an installation standpoint, they will still be sold by LN and are still working fine. I originally wanted to develop the IMS Solution ONLY for my engines, generally I only care about my engine program. Ltusler knows a little about the IMS Solution, he is the owner of a Raby engine and has had his hands on the unit.

 

There does not seem to be much point to replacing a stock bearing with the LN bearing anymore if the "final solution" is $600 more and the suggested LN bearing life is 50k miles vs. forever. I don't think anyone here isn't looking long-term and saving $600 now only to have to fork over multiples of that 50,000 miles down the road seems foolish. (if one intended to replace the stock bearing to begin with, that is.). Saving $600 in this scenario seems penny-wise but pound-foolish, especially compared to the normal running costs already.

 

I'm satisfied with this answer, thanks! I'll keep my single-row retrofit on for 50k and then move on to the non-bearing solution that has been produced.

 

I have no idea what kind the Pelican kit has but, either way, hybrid or not, it's probably off the shelf unit (like what I used). From the pictures it looks like the Pelican kit always uses a single row but with a bigger spacer for the double row IMSs. What I used was a proper double row hybrid (ceramic *****) unit that is readily available. Ths spacer was not much thicker than a couple of flat washers stacked up. All the details, with pictures, are on the thread in the Canadian forum. I'm not going to hide anything. I think I even posted on the possibility of first making a friction bearing to go into the IMS. I'll have to check as it's been a few months since that happened.

 

Yes I am in the automotive parts manufacturing sector. Specifically for the last 6 years in a plant that makes transmission shafts that run in and have bushings.

My isp was out last night so I was not able to post my response as well as my concern. Then while at dinner I was reading this thread on my phone and Flat 6 responded about the patent. Now that post has disappeared. Not before I saw it though.

So before I post the response I had written, I do have a couple of questions.

Is the design in the picture the same as the one in the patent application?

I have never heard of a temporary patent number. Usually it is patent pending and if you are granted a patent, they then give you a number. Can someone tell me if patent law in the united states has changed recently?

 

PM sent.

For the rest I will post my concerns soon.

 

Can a Porsche dealer install the Solution, Mr. Raby....or do i need to get the car to you?