Executive Summary
Starting in January 2021, grease manufacturers are able to use the NLGI High-Performance Multiuse Grease mark on products that meet the testing specs. Some readers predict minimal obstacles to formulators striving to meet these new requirements, citing the attainability and the abundance of high-performance greases already on the market. Others expect barriers such as cost and lack of access to testing, particularly for smaller manufacturers—but most readers agree that the specification will lead to improved greases.
Q.1 What obstacles do you think will occur with the High-Performance Multiuse Grease Specification from NLGI?
Might not be suitable for all applications.
The uninformed still wanting to use a cheap grease.
I do not believe there are any obstacles for formulating or manufacturing to meet the NLGI High-Performance Grease Specification.
I think the obstacles will be minimal. The specs were designed to be a stretch but attainable and reflective of high-performing greases already on the market.
The biggest obstacles to the development of high-performance multiuse (HPM) greases and those with tags (HL, CR, LT and WR) include limited access to test equipment, competing appetites of tests and limited experience with unique tests.
The cost.
Acceptance across industries.
High-performance grease additives.
Existing greases in machinery, conservative maintenance professionals, slow uptake on new standards and methods.
Products meeting the NLGI HPM specification can be formulated. In fact, many current products potentially meet the specification requirements. HPM is a specification for a good multipurpose grease but does not contain any requirements that cannot be met with current base oil, additive and thickener technologies. The HPM add-on specifications, such as CR or LT, may be a bit more challenging, but again, can be produced.
I do not foresee any obstacles. I don’t believe the HPM grease specifications “push” grease products into a higher level of performance. I think the specifications represent performance achievement that is already routine using existing technology.
Cost of final product.
Possible interactions between the components and difficulties in predicting their effect on the properties of the final lubricant.
First, we need to evaluate the current greases for their HPM grease level, then consider what tweaks need to be made, see what the cost/price changes will be and finally marketing strategy to recommend/convert existing uses in the field.
Potential shortages of some ingredients.
Nothing. I think it will challenge those making and selling greases to conform to these specifications and truly make sure their internal published data is accurate.
I think there will have to be tradeoffs with additive selection. Also, if there is not a read across on the base oils selected, will there be enough capacity to guarantee supply?
Achieving consensus on the performance characteristics that meet or exceed common requirements so as to satisfy the “multiuse” descriptor while, at the same time, having good compatibility with other greases prevalent in the market.
Performing or having testing performed for the two SRV methods due to cost and availability. However, this specification/certification is going to raise the bar for multiuse grease performance. It’s about time!
Grease manufacturers might be very slow adopting and accepting the new NLGI High-Performance Multiuse Grease Specification.
Do you think synthetic greases handle contamination:
Better than non-synthetic greases
25%
The same as non-synthetic greases
75%
Based on responses sent to 15,000 TLT readers.
Availability of an oil base and modifying additives.
Price.
Testing parameters and metrics to be included in the new specification and also to be agreed upon between the bearing and grease manufacturers.
I don’t expect any obstacles beyond what is normal for formulating any product. Also, you can select which features of HPM grease you want to include. You don’t need to formulate everything into one product.
Agreement in what (tests/parameters/limits) actually defines a High-Performance Multiuse Grease.
Convincing buyers it is worth the extra cost if the specification increases the manufacturing cost. Lubrication frequency varies widely from application to application depending on speed and environment. How will the specification change that? Is there grease compatibility or process contamination issues?
Availability of lithium seems to be a reoccurring topic. Messaging is inconsistent and confusing to the end-users.
I think the specifications and categories are way overdue and now provide at least some guidance as to applicability of greases. As an end-user, I’m not sure what you mean by the “formulation of the grease.” It surely will place more demands on the manufacturers and that will add to the cost, but lubricant cost is insignificant when compared to the damage that is avoided.
The formulation of grease to meet HPM should not be an issue. The specification was designed to be higher than current greases but achievable. High-quality base oils need to be used, and an up-treat of additives is needed to pass the enhanced requirements.
The presence of very many OEMs, which have their own unique demands and requirements for approval of greases.
Right now it’s not formulation work. It’s seeing if existing products can meet the specs. It hasn’t been adopted or around long enough to have any new product requests. I think some of the limits will restrict existing quality products from carrying the mark, leading to some new products needed to meet the requirements.
The thickener fiber formation process.
The better performance itself, absolutely.
User perception of cost versus benefit.
Q.2 Why do you feel that way?
Many applications have unique requirements, where a multiuse may not work.
The development of the specifications used input from all concerned parties, including OEMs, end-users and grease and additive suppliers. I took part in two discussion groups who reviewed and commented on the proposed specs, which led to subsequent revisions.
People generally don’t like change. It will take time for people to realize the benefits.
Many grease additives are not environmentally friendly.
Grease resists change.
I was part of the Steering Committee that put together the HPM and related specifications.
Grease tends to be a humble product, and proven performance is not as straightforward as may be for oil using oil analysis.
High complexity requires long and costly experimental and simulation studies carried out at various levels of complexity and dimensions.
Chemically complex but a very good challenge for the future.
Don’t want to put the cart before the horse—maybe some of this has been taking place already, but don’t rush in until everything is in place.
Additive compatibility is not always guaranteed to work with a specific formulation, and the cost of performing the multitude of tests required makes the final product unattractive to a buyer.
Do you believe that a high-performance specification will:
Improve the consistency of top-tier performance greases
39%
Make no difference in how users will view these greases
20%
Begin a process for having specifications for all levels of grease
41%
Based on responses sent to 15,000 TLT readers.
There are reports of a lithium shortage.
Have faith in the industry and grease formulators and marketers.
The more you try and make something multipurpose, you have to compromise on the additives to try and achieve the goal.
Trying to be everything to everyone might not always work.
There are only a handful of third-party test labs who do the test, and purchasing your own test equipment is expensive. But the testing is worth it, as it allows certification to the most important grease specification there is.
Anything new takes time to adopt and be accepted by everyone.
May cost more to additize formulas to meet performance requirements.
Different views on importance of testing metrics and what constitutes a positive/negative outcome or overall agreement on a baseline.
Lack of current grease technology background.
I have participated in a number of product specification programs. If you have a number of parties (OEMs, users, component suppliers, testing societies, manufacturers and distributors), there are frequently disagreements in gateways, timing, limits and funding.
Look at all of the greases available now—the number of manufacturers and the multitude of greases available now. Perhaps a specification that can be set is this: When is a high-performance grease needed? There are sales people who need to be educated. Finding a solution for a grease application should be engineered, not sold because the label says “high-performance.”
Shortage of lithium is real. Feedback from the field, customers and sales.
All things considered equal, do you think a high-performance grease should:
Be able to extend greasing intervals safely on equipment
82%
Cost more
11%
Not really make a difference at all
7%
Based on responses sent to 15,000 TLT readers.
In your question about how synthetic greases handle contamination, it seems to me that the additives are far more important than the base oil or the thickener. The synthetics will generally have low oxidation rates but, in most applications, that’s a minor problem when compared with moisture and solids.
I drafted the original HPM Specification that was tweaked by the Steering Committee, of which I was a member, into its present format.
We have years of experience with the European SNR-FEB2 test, SRV tests and real fretting examinations. Greases perform completely differently in these tests, as they test completely different properties.
Each OEM has its own unique needs, which all need to be addressed. Most likely, we could have a situation where, coincidentally, there could be 30 OEMs with over 30 unique needs, which need to be captured in the grease functionality.
In some areas, the specs are more challenging than others. I think it will lead to most folks creating a product that meets the specs similar to motor oil. You can go to an auto store and everyone has a version of oil that meets the current API specification. Then people will buy on brand recognition.
Because it’s the complicated process.
Because end-users are looking for better reliability for their assets, and they have to demonstrate it with results.
Grease is to be more important in EVs. Grease will become a larger part (in volume/mass) of lubricants in EVs and could have tougher requirements than today’s greases as well.