Re: Technofix DOF with new option of staggered double row ??

Previous threads have confirmed a zero failure rate for Technofix DOF with the current bearing alternatives - so far, so good.Great in fact !
I just want to ask a theoretical question.No squabbling please.

But an even better(??) bearing option for the single row cars would be the staggered double row bearing ? It could have DOF to ensure adequate lubrication also?
Yes, I know - why do you want to improve on zero failure ? We've been through that already on the prior thread. Anyway ,as Pedro's slogan says: "expect the best but always try for an upgrade :-). Sorry Pedro.

Much would depend on the availability of the 1-1/2 row/staggered dual row bearing . It is a combo of the 6024/5024 but with an annular exterior groove for the wire retainer. Unlikely to be available off the shelf but easy to custom modify. I don't mean the ceramic balls version that is patented (?) - just a plain-Jane steel balls version.
The other problem with this staggered dual row is the installation tools. So far ,they are prohibitively expensive and are Pro-only.Can't this be simplified for diyers?
The staggered row bearing had a patent granted in 1907 (yes! -before Pedro was born) so we are not 'treading on anyone's toes'.
And I am empatically not suggesting copying someone elses patented tool/product design.I am hinting at a different ,much 'dumber' ,diy-friendly ,use-at-your-own-risk design .Different material,different market,different price point,different tools-all different -just diy accessible.
I'll leave the country now and hope to escape rendition.

A dual single row bearing already exists, it is called the single row pro. I have installed them in cars already and they work great. If you check out LN Engineering they have what you are looking for and the necessary tools to install them in engines. The process is simple and works well. I'm sure Jake and Charles have already patented his idea for the bearing and installation tools along with other ideas similar to his.

Thanks for your contribution.
Actually it's full toungue twisting name is :"Gen 2 Single Row Pro IMS Retrofit". Just so we discuss the right apples and oranges.

I was hoping for a version with significant 'improvements/differences' to honor the patent holders:

1. Steel ,not ceramic balls in the staggered dual row bearing.
2. diy-friendly install - just like Technofix DOF.
3. Reasonable price for the bearing kit - just like Technofix DOF .
4. Add DOF -just like Technofix !
Do I sound too much like a Technofix devotee ?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2015 12:52PM by tonyd. (view changes)

Yes you do. I hope he is paying you well. :-) I prefer a product that is test and works vs cost. Doing it once the right time is what is important to me.

This is probably a good place to like Technofix products?
Staggered dual row bearings are generic.
The first of many variations were published way back when Germany was Prussia and had a king ! Once I got as far back as 1907 ,I stopped.
As I have repeatedly said I am discussing an improvement that addresses a different (diy)market than the LN product.The LN product is pro only or diy with no support.
[www.google.com]
[books.google.com]

Feel free to develop such a thing. Be sure to amortize the costs of lawyers, testing on multiple engine over multiple years, documentation, user support, tool development, etc etc. I figure about a million if done right.

And then you have to figure the costs of marketing against the more than half a dozen products already out there that are known and have some exposure in the real world.

Distribution costs are significant too.

Be sure and include some reserves for warranty.

Mike,
You misunderstand. I am not developing a product. I am simply asking "why not ?"
Fortunately the realities did not deter Feelyx either - if you recall that discussion - and eventually , it was a productive outcome.
The engineering is all that interests me.
What do you think of the feasibility of a DIY-install-friendly version of the staggered dual row IMSB +/- DOF?
The issue is the tool to compress the wire retainer & then install the compressed assembly into the tube.? If so , I there is already a generic solution( ?) like a piston ring compressor. Same concept?.

That is the issue that Jake addressed with the Faultless IMS tool. The Single Row Pro IMSB is loaded into a small compression tool, similar to a ring compressor. The tool has one side for bearing insertion, and the other for extraction. There’s a built in taper that acts like a tapered sleeve piston ring compressor that aids in the loading of the bearing, fitted with its locking clip. You can then mechanically install the bearing with the twist of a wrench. This means no hammering/ beating on the bearing, and less chances of critical errors.

So it sounds like what you are proposing is already invented and is art belonging to Jake, and he’s paid the money and taken the time to complete the patent process. This is something that no one else that sells IMSB components has done to date. Lots are Patent Pending but never have their patent numbers on file, or nothing ever happens after the provisional patent period ends. Others have no record at the USPTO at all, though they are advertised as patent pending. I know Jake is waiting to get that document, there’s no telling what he’s going to do with a green light.

As far as staggered bearings go:

I think you must be talking about is a self aligning ball bearing where the outer raceway is spherical shaped and has no individual ball tracks. In this type of bearing, there are two rows of staggered balls (so as to minimize the width) that are captive to the inner ring, which is free to ‘swivel’ in relation to the outer ring (hence no outer ring ball tracks). This type of bearing is used only when a self-aligning feature is needed because not only are they much more expensive but the load rating is significantly less than a standard deep groove or angular contact type bearing. These bearings also have a very poor ability to handle thrust loads.

Amon
I'm a Mech Eng.I have been through the patent process.I am totally rebuilding an M96 now. I know how the part and the tool work.
I refered to generic parts for that reason.
Using generic parts infringes nobody's intellectual property.
This is a discussion about ideas ,not patents.

BTW, SKF have the prior patentin 1976 if you check the citation above but here it is.
[www.google.com]

Quote
mikefocke, '01S Sanford, NC
Feel free to develop such a thing. Be sure to amortize the costs of lawyers, testing on multiple engine over multiple years, documentation, user support, tool development, etc etc. I figure about a million if done right.

And then you have to figure the costs of marketing against the more than half a dozen products already out there that are known and have some exposure in the real world.

Distribution costs are significant too.

Be sure and include some reserves for warranty.

If that's the case, I want to be Pedro's new best friend. The man must be LOADED!.

From what Jake told me in his class in December the patent is due to issue in 3-4 months for the Single Row Pro system technology, (with ceramic, or conventional balls- they covered all the bases) and the IMS Solution Patent issues this month. I guess if someone wanted to do this sort of thing they could attain a license from the patent holders for enough money. Then again, knowing Jake, he’d tell them to shove their money up their ass, because he didn’t need it. That guy, he is a little radical, I’d hate to piss him off

... here it goes again:
The problem is not the bearing, it's the lack of lubrication (cooling).
The OEM bearing works just fine once it has proper lubrication as the DOF provides.
The other "solutions" in the market want you to believe that the bearing is not strong enough and that you need to reengineer that whole end of the IMS.
Happy DOF'ing
Pedro

Pedro Bonilla
1998 Boxster 986 - 311,000+ miles: [www.PedrosGarage.com]
PCA National Club Racing Scrutineer - PCA National HPDE Instructor - PCA Technical Committee (Boxster/Cayman)

---

Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar

"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting" ... Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney in "LeMans"

"If you wait, all that happens is that you get older"... Mario Andretti

"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose" ... Ayrton Senna

I "doff" my cap to you, sir :-).

The bearing is the weak point. It is a GM alternator bearing that is not designed for that use or that environment. Why do you think the bearing is not the problem?

Quote
amondc
The bearing is the weak point. It is a GM alternator bearing that is not designed for that use or that environment. Why do you think the bearing is not the problem?

If a crankshaft were starved of oil and then the crankshaft bearings failed, would the bearing be the problem?

... but that doesn't mean it's the weak point.
You have to look for the reason of why they fail, and it'd because of inadequate cooling due to lack of lubrication.
Once you solve the reason for failure, you'll find that the bearings are all strong enough.
Happy DOF'ing,
Pedro

Pedro Bonilla
1998 Boxster 986 - 311,000+ miles: [www.PedrosGarage.com]
PCA National Club Racing Scrutineer - PCA National HPDE Instructor - PCA Technical Committee (Boxster/Cayman)

---

Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar

"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting" ... Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney in "LeMans"

"If you wait, all that happens is that you get older"... Mario Andretti

"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose" ... Ayrton Senna

If they used a plain bearing like they did for 40 years it wouldn't fail.

Plain bearings require adequate lubrication too.

... that the traditional bushing/bearing was in fact lubricated.

They changed to a roller bearing that was supposedly sealed and lubricated, but had none of the properties needed to survive intact in the environment.

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

In the bearing there is a fiberboard or plastic/fiver seal that supposedly keeps the grease in and the oil out.

First of all, it doesn't. Its not oil-tight.

Second of all, it further breaks down, is breached more by hot oil, and the grease is washed away. This is what i mean by "not survive intact".
This appears to be true, both from first hand knowledge, second-hand, and from intuition after looking at the parts and assembly. I assume you have seen them too.

Every bearing i have seen out of the car has had this broken down, or very loose, and the grease partly or completely gone. That said, and to your point, most of those bearings were still operational. Some were loose, some were awful and dying, but many had survived - so far.

This underscores the complexity of the failure. If you follow Pedro's demo, they all should shed oil and fail. but they don't, at least not at the same rate. The bearing guy (Ed) has indicated that hgih levels of acid in the oil play a major role ( i think correct me if i quoted the wrong guy). But this also suggests that SOME oil remains even while spinning; it also suggests why cars driven more ( mine, yours, stefans) seem to last m=longer - certainly in miles, but oddly even in years. Both of mine were devoid of grease, had more play than they should, but were functional and would have likely remained so for ????? years.

In the end though, i was stating - and this is true - that the product as designed, with seals and grease, does not long survive. It changes to an oil-lubricated device early in its life and from there on the speculation begins.

Grant

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2015 09:21AM by grant. (view changes)

"If instead of using a roller bearing in the Boxster they had used a plain bearing there wouldn't be failures."

That's not true because the plain bearing would similarly require additional lubrication or it would fail in the same way. In earlier cars the plain bearings didn't fail because they had proper lubrication. With that design the roller bearings would also have been adequate.

In conclusion, the bearing type in this case is irrelevant to the failure rate.

Your point is sound, Grant; I just don't think that's what he is saying.

Another failure mode is the gear on the lay shaft or the drive key comes loose once in a while, develops play from the rougher idle (at least with the 996 Turbo), and the next thing you know: failure.

If there are enough examples out and about a number of them are going to fail over time and miles. Over enough miles and time, just about every failure mode will be manifested.

i'm slow.

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com