Does anyone have information on the EPS roller bearing IMS Solution?
01-12-2017, 06:03 PM
#46
Drifting
Just in time !
Yours would have eventually been one of the (rarer) 2 row IMSB failures. So it is a particularly interesting test of the roller bearing IMSB variant. Interesting if the new roller lasts more than 100,000 miles :-).
Yours would have eventually been one of the (rarer) 2 row IMSB failures. So it is a particularly interesting test of the roller bearing IMSB variant. Interesting if the new roller lasts more than 100,000 miles :-).
08-23-2017, 02:39 PM
#47
Hi Relinuca,
Thank you for your interest in our product.
Our EPS IMS bearing differentiates from that of LN because it is based on a completely different technology. LN uses a ball bearing that applies the load on a pin point of about 1.0mm. Our EPS IMS bearing is cylindrical, meaning that it applies the load across the total length of the cylinder, approximately 15mm.
The reason for the IMS failure is due to the type of bearing that is employed. The LN ball bearing is incapable of carrying the load applied on it even with proper lubrication. Also, since LN’s ball bearing is open caged, it fails with the same or greater frequency than the factory bearing.
Regarding your question about the oil lubrication being the problem, this is not the case. The bearing is positioned at the bottom of the oil pan, so it is essentially submerged in oil at all times. Lubrication is not the problem here.
To give you a little reference on how the ball bearing is inferior to the cylindrical bearing, you can take a look at Porsche’s attempt to correct the IMS problem throughout the years. Porsche changed the ball bearing 3 different times. First, a single row of 47mm, then a double row of 47mm, and finally a single row of 62mm. All three bearings failed.
Our EPS Patented Cylindrical bearing does not fail because the load is spaced out across the entire surface area of the cylinder.
Hope this clarifies your doubts. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us.
Thanks,
EPS Team
epsauto.com
Thank you for your interest in our product.
Our EPS IMS bearing differentiates from that of LN because it is based on a completely different technology. LN uses a ball bearing that applies the load on a pin point of about 1.0mm. Our EPS IMS bearing is cylindrical, meaning that it applies the load across the total length of the cylinder, approximately 15mm.
The reason for the IMS failure is due to the type of bearing that is employed. The LN ball bearing is incapable of carrying the load applied on it even with proper lubrication. Also, since LN’s ball bearing is open caged, it fails with the same or greater frequency than the factory bearing.
Regarding your question about the oil lubrication being the problem, this is not the case. The bearing is positioned at the bottom of the oil pan, so it is essentially submerged in oil at all times. Lubrication is not the problem here.
To give you a little reference on how the ball bearing is inferior to the cylindrical bearing, you can take a look at Porsche’s attempt to correct the IMS problem throughout the years. Porsche changed the ball bearing 3 different times. First, a single row of 47mm, then a double row of 47mm, and finally a single row of 62mm. All three bearings failed.
Our EPS Patented Cylindrical bearing does not fail because the load is spaced out across the entire surface area of the cylinder.
Hope this clarifies your doubts. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us.
Thanks,
EPS Team
epsauto.com
Last edited by EPSAuto; 09-12-2017 at 03:04 PM.
08-23-2017, 03:32 PM
#48
Drifting
They make a good case for the RND roller bearing ?
http://rndengines.com/roller-bearing-ims-retrofit-kit/
http://rndengines.com/roller-bearing-ims-retrofit-kit/
08-23-2017, 05:42 PM
#51
Rennlist Member
Hi Relinuca,
Thank you for your interest in our product.
Our EPS IMS bearing differentiates from that of LN because it is based on a completely different technology. LN uses a ball bearing that applies the load on a pin point of about 1.0mm. Our EPS IMS bearing is cylindrical, meaning that it applies the load across the total length of the cylinder, approximately 15mm.
The reason for the IMS failure is due to the type of bearing that is employed. The LN ball bearing is incapable of carrying the load applied on it even with proper lubrication. Also, since LN’s ball bearing is open caged, it fails with the same or greater frequency than the factory bearing.
Regarding your question about the oil lubrication being the problem, this is not the case. The bearing is positioned at the bottom of the oil pan, so it is essentially submerged in oil at all times. Lubrication is not the problem here.
To give you a little reference on how the ball bearing is inferior to the cylindrical bearing, you can take a look at Porsche’s attempt to correct the IMS problem throughout the years. Porsche changed the ball bearing 3 different times. First, a single row of 47mm, then a double row of 47mm, and finally a single row of 62mm. All three bearings failed.
Our EPS Patented Cylindrical bearing does not fail because the load is spaced out across the entire surface area of the cylinder.
Hope this clarifies your doubts. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us.
Thanks,
EPS Team
epsauto.com
Thank you for your interest in our product.
Our EPS IMS bearing differentiates from that of LN because it is based on a completely different technology. LN uses a ball bearing that applies the load on a pin point of about 1.0mm. Our EPS IMS bearing is cylindrical, meaning that it applies the load across the total length of the cylinder, approximately 15mm.
The reason for the IMS failure is due to the type of bearing that is employed. The LN ball bearing is incapable of carrying the load applied on it even with proper lubrication. Also, since LN’s ball bearing is open caged, it fails with the same or greater frequency than the factory bearing.
Regarding your question about the oil lubrication being the problem, this is not the case. The bearing is positioned at the bottom of the oil pan, so it is essentially submerged in oil at all times. Lubrication is not the problem here.
To give you a little reference on how the ball bearing is inferior to the cylindrical bearing, you can take a look at Porsche’s attempt to correct the IMS problem throughout the years. Porsche changed the ball bearing 3 different times. First, a single row of 47mm, then a double row of 47mm, and finally a single row of 62mm. All three bearings failed.
Our EPS Patented Cylindrical bearing does not fail because the load is spaced out across the entire surface area of the cylinder.
Hope this clarifies your doubts. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us.
Thanks,
EPS Team
epsauto.com
08-23-2017, 06:07 PM
#52
Drifting
I am not an expert but could pick apart every brash claim and baseless assertion made here.
"Our EPS IMS bearing differentiates from that of LN because it is based on a completely different technology. Not so, LN sell several different IMSBs. Their star product does not have a rolling element at all !LN also sell a cylindrical Roller bearing IMSB but with significant enhancements over the EPS generic bearing. LN uses a ball bearing that applies the load on a pin point of about 1.0mm. Actually a pin point is about 0.025mm a huge difference. Our EPS IMS bearing is cylindrical, meaning that it applies the load across the total length of the cylinder, approximately 15mm. Nonsense.The load is carried by the oil film not the metal !The significance is the size of the oil film area which is derived in part from the surface area of the rolling bearing element.
The reason for the IMS failure is due to the type of bearing that is employed. The LN ball bearing is incapable of carrying the load applied on it even with proper lubrication. Also, since LN’s ball bearing is open caged, it fails with the same or greater frequency than the factory bearing. Nonsense, the failure rate of LN products has been frequently cited on Rennlist as exceedingly low.We beat to death any report of an LN product failure.
There should also be mention here of the IMS tube o-o-r/concentricity issue
Regarding your question about the oil lubrication being the problem, this is not the case.Then why do you have all those You Tube videos showing your "patented" oil feed via the oil pump drive?
The bearing is positioned at the bottom of the oil pan, Incorrect !The IMSB is not in the oil pan .It is at the bottom of the 2 crankcase halves.The oil pan is beneath that. so it is essentially submerged in oil at all times. Incorrect - it is 1/3 covered when the engine is off and the oil at the correct level Lubrication is not the problem here.Correct but not for the reason stated
BTW , The EPS YouTube video clearly shows the IMSB is not in the bottom of the oil pan.
To give you a little reference on how the ball bearing is inferior to the cylindrical bearing, you can take a look at Porsche’s attempt to correct the IMS problem throughout the years. Porsche changed the ball bearing 3 different times. First, a single row of 47mm, then a double row of 47mm, and finally a single row of 62mm. Incorrect sequence - first was a double row. .All three bearings failed.Misleading - each of the 3 types had different failure rates.
Our EPS Patented False claim of Patenting. No evidencee of a Patent for this generic product Cylindrical bearing does not fail because the load is spaced out across the entire surface area of the cylinder." There is way more to it than that - read the RND link here
http://imsretrofit.com/roller-bearings/
This is sad because the EPS product may actually have some merit for those wanting a cheap product to flip an M96 with IMSB issues ?
Why not just give us the specs., the Test Data, the numbers sold and we'll decide what to buy ? The bombast and hyperbole just undermines the merit of the product.
EPS also published the same boilerplate of unsubstantiated or silly claims here:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/boxst...ml#post9712851
"Our EPS IMS bearing differentiates from that of LN because it is based on a completely different technology. Not so, LN sell several different IMSBs. Their star product does not have a rolling element at all !LN also sell a cylindrical Roller bearing IMSB but with significant enhancements over the EPS generic bearing. LN uses a ball bearing that applies the load on a pin point of about 1.0mm. Actually a pin point is about 0.025mm a huge difference. Our EPS IMS bearing is cylindrical, meaning that it applies the load across the total length of the cylinder, approximately 15mm. Nonsense.The load is carried by the oil film not the metal !The significance is the size of the oil film area which is derived in part from the surface area of the rolling bearing element.
The reason for the IMS failure is due to the type of bearing that is employed. The LN ball bearing is incapable of carrying the load applied on it even with proper lubrication. Also, since LN’s ball bearing is open caged, it fails with the same or greater frequency than the factory bearing. Nonsense, the failure rate of LN products has been frequently cited on Rennlist as exceedingly low.We beat to death any report of an LN product failure.
There should also be mention here of the IMS tube o-o-r/concentricity issue
Regarding your question about the oil lubrication being the problem, this is not the case.Then why do you have all those You Tube videos showing your "patented" oil feed via the oil pump drive?
BTW , The EPS YouTube video clearly shows the IMSB is not in the bottom of the oil pan.
To give you a little reference on how the ball bearing is inferior to the cylindrical bearing, you can take a look at Porsche’s attempt to correct the IMS problem throughout the years. Porsche changed the ball bearing 3 different times. First, a single row of 47mm, then a double row of 47mm, and finally a single row of 62mm. Incorrect sequence - first was a double row. .All three bearings failed.Misleading - each of the 3 types had different failure rates.
Our EPS Patented False claim of Patenting. No evidencee of a Patent for this generic product Cylindrical bearing does not fail because the load is spaced out across the entire surface area of the cylinder." There is way more to it than that - read the RND link here
http://imsretrofit.com/roller-bearings/
This is sad because the EPS product may actually have some merit for those wanting a cheap product to flip an M96 with IMSB issues ?
Why not just give us the specs., the Test Data, the numbers sold and we'll decide what to buy ? The bombast and hyperbole just undermines the merit of the product.
EPS also published the same boilerplate of unsubstantiated or silly claims here:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/boxst...ml#post9712851
Last edited by Schnell Gelb; 08-24-2017 at 09:00 PM. Reason: Honesty and Clarity
08-23-2017, 08:13 PM
#54
Former Vendor
I have seen the "Patented" ads in magazines and now I see it being mentioned here.
Someone needs to do some homework on what "Patented" actually means, and the requirements of those who manufacture, and sell "Patented" products.
At minimum Patent issue numbers are required to be permanently stated on all components that those Patents apply to. Right on the flange of our IMS Solution you'll see "US Patent 8,992,089" and then when the secondary Patent was issued for that product we had to add "9,416,697" to all items in the next production runs following the Patent being issued.
Secondly, a provisional Patent is NOT a Patent. It is intended to provide a 12 month period of protection for the Inventor to sell a product while preparing the Patent filing. After 12 months this Provisional Patent and its "Patent Pending" status expires, and a full Patent must be filed, with the resultant 33-40 months of Office Actions occurring.
Those selling Patented products must state their US Patent numbers in any ad where they state "Patented", as well as on the protected parts, as I stated earlier.
That said, our Patent searcher has not turned up ANY issued Patents for any technology at the USPTO outside of our own 3 Patents. I have not seen any US Patent numbers posted on the EPS sites, or in any ads, and I have not seen any of their parts etched with a permanent US Patent issue number.
I believe that someone has a misunderstanding of what a Patent really is, and the rules and regulations pertaining to advertising protected products.
So, EPS, please post the ISSUED US Patent numbers that you retained with your PATENTED product. You should be proud enough of it to have it memorized, just like I have all 3 of mine. You might consider posting that number in your signature, just like mine are. Anyone can go to Google Patents and read all about our technology, see the drawings, and all the things that the US Patent Office believed made the item novel enough to be Patent protected.
We've done all the processes to attain an issued US Patent. That including all the development work, the drawings, the filings, the 25,000 dollar checks being stroked, and the years worth of waiting, and paying 350 bucks an hour to our Attorney to answer questions from the USPTO. If someone is stating that something is "Patented" then I expect them to have undergone the same hassles, expenses, and sleepless nights as I have. All to keep some copycat from stealing your idea.
If you don't have an issued Patent, well, you might consider begging for forgiveness to the powers that be.
08-23-2017, 10:05 PM
#55
Rennlist Member
dizzz iz gone a be goooood....
08-23-2017, 10:41 PM
#57
A mod might consider adjusting the thread title. Confusion around retrofits is going to happen, but misinformation is a little irritating for those that actually put the money into their 996/986 by having the IMS Solution installed. I imagine the irritation is amplified for people like Jake that went through the trouble to develop, patent & support the product.
08-23-2017, 11:34 PM
#59
Former Vendor