When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Ok....so I see there is a patent. What exactly does it cover? The entire assembly or just a part of it?
I read it, it covers the "patented thrust control". The fact that they use a NJ204 that only has thrust control in "one direction". The "patented thrust control" allows thrust control in "both directions" similar to the NUP204E and NUP204 used by RND and MBMortorsports except the they (NUP204E and NUP204) use the inner race and the "patented thrust control" of the NJ204 uses the outer race.
To clarify
NUP204E RND and NUP204 MBM uses the inner race for 2 direction thrust control
NJ204 EPS uses inner race for 1 direction thrust control, BUT with "patented thrust control" uses the outer race for 2 direction control
To clarify further
The standard NUP and NJ cylindrical bearings use the ends of the rollers for thrust control as designed at the bearing factory.The EPS NJ with "patented thrust control" uses the ends of the outer race to control the thrust with there own thrust washer/flange.
Last edited by Porschetech3; 08-24-2017 at 10:03 PM.
My failure analysis says it looks like a classic production/manufacturing stack-up issue. Looks like the axial clearance was not sufficient, hence the discoloration of the flange and roller bearings plus the signs of the outer race spinning in the IMS tube/housing.
For instance if the axial running clearance was spec'd at .008-.012 and 4 dimensions determine the total axial length, ie flange thickness, snout length, race width, thrust washer thickness, each dimension tolerances at +- .003(bearings and races are usually dead nuts on .0005) if you had flange +.003, snout +.003, thrust washer +.003, you could end up with a width that was +.009..and a axial clearance of .0000!!!
I think they should do like FSI does on their IMS Solution, check EACH assembly for radial clearance before boxing !! or that would leave it to the installer to pre-assemble it to check axial clearance before installation.
No back story with the photo, so it's all a guess, right? Do you think that perhaps that could also have been the result of a bad install? If this was indeed a fresh install, then I would want to know why they felt the need to go back into the engine again so soon? Could something else have failed and dirtied the oil and caused some of that wear to perpetuate? While the bearing looks like ****, it does still look like it was letting things turn. Botched install?
As someone with a relatively immediate decision to make, it would be good get the scoop on these photos. Where were they discovered?
No back story with the photo, so it's all a guess, right? Do you think that perhaps that could also have been the result of a bad install? If this was indeed a fresh install, then I would want to know why they felt the need to go back into the engine again so soon? Could something else have failed and dirtied the oil and caused some of that wear to perpetuate? While the bearing looks like ****, it does still look like it was letting things turn. Botched install?
As someone with a relatively immediate decision to make, it would be good get the scoop on these photos. Where were they discovered?
I don't think it was a botched install, I think it was a machining error in the flange that resulted in insufficient axial clearance. When the center bolt/nut was torqued, it squeezed the outer race up to the flange with 0 clearance or maybe .00001 clearance. It could get no oil either from forced lubrication or splash, then the bearing outer race heated up turning blue along with the flange and friction caused the outer race to spin in the tube, probably made a squealing or screeching noise. as it was trying to lock up.
EPS claim they have had no failures in 5000 installations. Pity their name is clearly visible in the photo.
We need more IMSB products .But not the false claims.
Nothing wrong with a roller IMSB. To their credit EPS did heed earlier complaints about the Thrust deficiency.
But is it really necessary to now insist they limit their product claims to those that are honest? If they don't , a reasonable Rennlister would be skeptical about all their product claims.
For example ,their discredited Rear Main Bearing Support. Pity ,they have some useful sounding ideas: https://www.europeanpartssolution.com/
Last edited by Schnell Gelb; 08-25-2017 at 12:28 PM.
Also, the reason we are digging up old threads is that we, like most on the forum, want to provide consumers with as many facts as possible. We will be responding to ALL of your questions shortly. Thanks to all that have commented on this thread.
Last edited by EPSAuto; 08-30-2017 at 11:56 AM.
Reason: Respond to second question.
Good question.
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.
Please note that our patent(s) are NOT provisional. As you can see from our previous reply, we have provided a link to both our site, where our patent is listed, and a link to the actual patent.
I, like you, have spent countless hours working on our patents, so I'm very aware of the difference. Obviously, we are very proud of them but listing them all in our signature might be a bit much. For your reference, here is a list of all of our current patents. Our next production run of IMS Bearings will have the patent number listed.
First of all, please understand that we have zero interest in falsely advertising our products. The two ads you are showing are from different times. When we first developed the IMS Bearing we were using a 11mm cylindrical bearing. Our current IMS Bearing uses a 15mm cylindrical bearing. The roller bearing only has a surface contact area of approximately 1mm.
As we conducted further research and continued to develop our product we were able to increase both our warranty and our claims. We apologize if these seemed to you like false advertisement, but if you notice we only increased our warranty and our claims, not decreased. This was just a result of never receiving one single claim of failure and the evolution of the product.
We are making a great effort to ensure that all of our distributors and retailers worldwide have our latest product information. Again, we appreciated your comments and the opportunity to clarify.
YMMV, but I live in Miami and have gone into Vertex on several occasions to purchase various maintenance items. They have been priced fairly, professional and have been satisfied with my experiences.
In my opinion, anytime you can have a supplier/manufacturer on a forum answering questions about their products is a huge plus to expanding our collective knowledge and making decisions when servicing our cars.
Just wanted to thank everyone that has commented on this thread and to Reenlist for providing this great platform. In an effort to not be redundant we are going to answer all of the questions and comments that have been made together in this one post.
I first want to clarify that the LN bearing that we were referring to in our initial thread was specifically to ball bearing solutions. In retrospect, although the initial question was based on an LN & EPS comparison, I should have said ALL ball bearing solutions and not just LN. Our intent is not to bash any competitor but to bring forth product knowledge to the community. However, contrary to Schnell Gelb’s comment, the EPS IMS cylindrical bearing solution DOES use a completely different technology than ALL other cylindrical or ball bearing solutions. I’ll explain the difference further in our posting.
Schnell Gelb, you mention that the L& N Roller Bearing has significant enhancements over the EPS generic bearing. Can you please elaborate on these significant enhancements?
Schnell Gelb also asked why we make an oil feed if lubrication is not the problem? As noted on our website, we developed this product due to some misleading information on the internet which made some installers feel that it was important to implement this modification. We do not think it is a requirement, but definitely an improvement.
Quadcammer you asked about the location of the IMS Bearing. To clarify, the IMS Bearing is about 2.0 inches above the sump plate base line. The IMS is below the oil level meaning it is submerged in oil. That is the reason why on the original bearing the grease gets washed out. The overwhelming presence of oil penetrates the bearing seals and washes the grease out of the bearing. Again, the oil or lubrication is not the problem but rather the lack of bearing support is what causes the IMS to fail. All that is needed is a bearing that can properly support the the load over time to avoid the IMS failure!
AWD GUY was wondering about the legitimacy of our claim of 5000 units sold. I don’t think we really have a way to prove this, but here are some numbers and facts to consider. We have been selling our IMS Bearing since 2013. During that time, at Vertex alone, we have rebuilt just around 800 engines. All with the EPS IMS Bearing and recently with our Rear Main Seal #8 Bearing. In addition to our retail sales via our websites, we have multiple retail outlets and are distributed by Worldpac in the US. Most importantly, we have a very strong presence in Europe via distribution from Design911 in the UK and Rose Passion in France.
Sneaky Pete presented some pictures of a supposed “failed IMS”. Pete, thank you for sharing and taking the time to locate these. Can you please let us know where you found those images? Was there any other information with it? If there really was an issue with our part why would the customer not do a warranty claim with us? I would be very interested in tracking down the source of these images and have the full story come to light. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it did I would really like to know and learn what we can do to prevent whatever went wrong. Believe me, I would still be very proud of a 1/5000 failure rate.
Rolex11 suggested he start a new thread asking EPS IMS Bearing users to come forward with data. I definitely don’t see any harm in this. We are all here to learn and ultimately serve the community as best we can. You definitely have our blessing.
Dporto said "So the patent is for a washer ("Thrust control device")? WTF ?" Definitely not! Our patent invention is based on an innovative way to use cylindrical bearings with thrust control. This allows separating the axile load from the radial load. Below I will explain the significance of this “thrust control”. This patent is not just for IMS Bearing and can be applied to various other applications beyond Porsche.
Schnell Gelb also claims that somehow our patented claim is false and that our product is generic. By now I think you have all seen the patent and our bearing is FAR from generic. I’ll explain the significance of the patent and the details of the bearing next.
Porschetech 3 mentioned that we use an NJ204 bearing. We, in fact, did use to use that bearing but we no longer do. We only used the NJ204 bearing for about the first thousand units or so. Now we use a German made cylindrical bearing that has been customized for us at a nonstandard measurement of 15mm. The reason why we switched to this bearing was in an effort to use all the real estate available to spread the load over the largest possible area. Additionally, due to our patented thrust control, the roller is a free wheeling roller, meaning there is no contact on the sides of the roller. Unlike ANY other cylindrical bearing solution, our axis load (thrust control) is not applied to the rollers, instead, it is applied to the entire perimeter of the outer race. The main advantage of this technology is that the rollers are not loaded from the side.
Cylindrical roller bearings are not intended for carrying large axial loads When they are used for thrust control the roller becomes compromised due to the limited surface contact area on the sides of the rollers. The results of using a cylindrical bearing for thrust control will be similar to all other ball bearing solutions. In our system, we separate the radial Load and the axial load, the roller bearings do not carry the axis load (thus control) on the side, thus leaving the roller free to carry only one load, the radial load, which is the main load. The axial load is carried exclusively on the entire perimeter of the outer race.
Wildbilly32 - Boy these are some loud crickets!
Lastly, we would just like to say that EPS was born from the desire to provide the Porsche community with innovations that correct problems and bring forth: improved reliability, cost reduction, ease of installation and ultimately increase the lifespan of the vehicle. We are open to any comments anyone may have that will help us improve the products we offer. Just like many of you, we have come here to listen, learn and share. We look forward to your continued feedback.
I hear nothing but sadness, desperation and someone who found a way to keep the discussion at the top of the page by dragging an old dead thread out of the darkness. If that means you think you hear loud crickets I feel sorry for you, but whatever.
I have nothing against your product. I know nothing about your product nor do I want to know more. I am simply commenting on how your tactics appear to me...period.
I hear nothing but sadness, desperation and someone who found a way to keep the discussion at the top of the page by dragging an old dead thread out of the darkness. If that means you think you hear loud crickets I feel sorry for you, but whatever.
I have nothing against your product. I know nothing about your product nor do I want to know more. I am simply commenting on how your tactics appear to me...period.
😂🙄
I have no dog in this fight except I gotta give them credit for trying to explain.
I hear nothing but sadness, desperation and someone who found a way to keep the discussion at the top of the page by dragging an old dead thread out of the darkness. If that means you think you hear loud crickets I feel sorry for you, but whatever.
I have nothing against your product. I know nothing about your product nor do I want to know more. I am simply commenting on how your tactics appear to me...period.
Understood! You are definitely entitled to your opinion. Based on your previous comments I thought you would be glad we responded. Hence the winking smiley face emoji. I was just trying to make light of it, but I apologize if it rubbed you the wrong way.
To clarify, are our responses sad and desperate because they are late, or is it the responses themselves? Do you suggest we never respond? Or, don't you think it's best for the community to hear from all parties, even if it's a few months late? I do really wish we would have jumped on here to respond sooner, but we can only change the present.
Also, there are many negative things said on this thread about EPS. I don't really see how "implementing tactics to keep this post at the top of the page" will be beneficial to us.
Understood! You are definitely entitled to your opinion. Based on your previous comments I thought you would be glad we responded. Hence the winking smiley face emoji. I was just trying to make light of it, but I apologize if it rubbed you the wrong way.
To clarify, are our responses sad and desperate because they are late, or is it the responses themselves? Do you suggest we never respond? Or, don't you think it's best for the community to hear from all parties, even if it's a few months late? I do really wish we would have jumped on here to respond sooner, but we can only change the present.
Also, there are many negative things said on this thread about EPS. I don't really see how "implementing tactics to keep this post at the top of the page" will be beneficial to us.
I think the original bump on this thread is what was considered desperate. You bumped many threads on Rennlist, some over a year old and did a copy and paste plug for your product. I think the product is a well priced alternative on the market, but this type of "advertising" doesn't sit well in a technical forum. Jake and Charles will start a thread only when they have something new, use their knowledge to help others, and never ever bump old threads for advertising. Maybe try this and you will get more credibility.
08-24-2017 | 09:46 PM
