Chairman’s Report
Andrew Goddard, Chairman, Verification of Lubricant Specifications
Responding to a changing lubes landscape Some 4 or 5 years ago VLS became aware of the need to have procedures in place to handle complaints based around the marketing claims made by some suppliers.
Up to that time all the complaints received could be assessed by simple testing the product, for example if a complaint called into question the low-temperature performance of a gear oil then simply buying a sample and having the Brookfield viscosity measured at the appropriate temperature would settle the issue.
It was acknowledged that things would get more difficult if the complaint challenged the claims that were being made for a product. If the oil had a formal OEM approval then things are straightforward as the OEM has done all the checking but if the claim was something like “meets the requirements of …” or “recommended for use in …” then the whole matter gets much more difficult.
Clearly the limited resources of VLS could not run to the engine testing that might be required to adjudicate the case so we had to find for another approach.
We looked at many of the market general formulations that were available from the biggest four additive companies and, after much consideration, we decided that if the blender obtained a simple letter from their Technology Provider underwriting the claims made this would be sufficient for our needs. Procedures were duly drawn-up and published and we then waited to see whether any cases would come in to cause us to follow this new approach.
Since then we have had quite a few complaints concerning the proliferation of claims being made on some products and with the experience we have gained from these, taken together with the way the market has developed over the last few years, now recognise that some changes to our procedures are required if we are to continue driving high standards
52 LUBE MAGAZINE NO.150 APRIL 2019 in the UK Lubes industry.
Our new procedures, which have been published on the VLS web site, now ask for a higher level of assurance from Technology Providers in cases revolving around marketing claims.
For example, if the product makes any claims to current ACEA sequences or current API claims then the Blender would be asked to have their Technology Provider provide the Candidate Data Package underpinning these claims.
In the case of claims for suitability against OEM requirements, the lubricant marketer would be asked for a letter from their Technology Provider detailing how they support the suitability of the actual formulation being blended (rather than just the additive system) against the OEM claims.
We at VLS appreciate that there is a degree of commercial sensitivity to much of this information and that is why it is primarily handled by a member of our Technical Review Panel who is not an employee of any member organisations and who works under terms of the greatest confidentiality.
These new procedures allow VLS to request much more robust and relevant supporting data for any recommended application and so will give VLS more effective teeth in adjudicating this complex area. Additionally, if ACEA claims are being made and the supporting Candidate Data Package is not forthcoming then we will pass the information onto ATIEL/SAIL for their additional consideration as the marketer would not be compliant with the requirements of EELQMS.
LINK
www.ukla-vls.org.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
