> The actual ingredients are literally on the safety data sheet

This is an oversimplification, in a way that is likely not obvious to a lot of people on this (software-focused) forum. An SDS does not have to list exact amounts, does not have to disclose some details of how an ingredient or mix of ingredients was processed, and (depending on jurisdiction) may not have to identify some "safe" ingredients at all. Some ingredients may be identified in relatively vague ways, that are sufficient for safety purposes but do not reveal the exact product. As the SDS you linked to says "The specific chemical identity and exact percentages are a trade secret". An SDS is certainly very helpful to reverse-engineering a product, but it doesn't tell you everything.

All that said, yes, the main strength of WD-40 is its marketing and ubiquity, and claims about its secrecy have more to do with marketing than anything practical.

WD-40's advantage is that it's not terrible to get on your skin when you're out working, and it's cheap.

The people who use it are looking for cheap, mostly.

Source: farming. We have many different lubes and penetrating products for when we're in the actual shop, but in the field, nothing beats wd-40 for getting back to work fast, or unsticking some shit when all you have is a hammer and you just know when that fucking bolt comes loose it's going to throw rust and dirt all over your face.

> actual ingredients are literally on the safety data sheet

From the data sheet: "The specific chemical identity and exact percentages are a trade secret."

The petroleum base oils alone cover thousands of candidate chemicals.

> WD-40 consistently performs worse than nearly any other available penetrating oil.

The video’s test showed wd-40 worked slightly better than kroil and pb blaster, which all performed in the same range, being not much better than nothing. That’s particularly interesting because of how often kroil/pb come up as recommendations to use instead of wd…

Acetone+atf did better and liquid wrench penetrating fluid did the best, but *nothing* beats heat.

> WD-40 themselves have come out with improved "Specialist" formulations that mostly just copy other, superior products.

We all know that there is something better for the job than WD-40, its value comes from its convenience, affordability, availability, brand recognition, and the number of cases where it is "good enough".

The "specialist" brand is what its name imply, specialist products, all of them better for a specific application, but none of them as universal as the original. The original formulation is not magic, but it is the one we are familiar with and it works well enough when you don't have anything better for your specific job.

“WD-40 performs worse than oils” because WD-40 is not an oil, it’s not even a lubricant. It’s a water protector. many make mistake using WD40 for lubricating everything because it’s mainly for water related applications. There are flavours of WD40 that are more “oil”.

Fun fact: WD-40 is not a penetrating lube/oil!

Iirc WD-40 = Water Displacement, formula #40

It was originally designed to displace water for corrosion resistance and cleaning. (Edit I think it was originally used for de-icing in an aerospace context?) You probably will never need a single can of WD-40 in your life. Try PB Blaster or Liquid Wrench!

> It's a terrible long term lubricant (because it's designed to evaporate, it actually concentrates gunk and grime).

I recently read that WD40 isn't actually a lubricant but a lubricant remover. So as you write you'd use it to remove gunk but then follow it up with an actual lubricant.

On the last two bottles of WD40 I came across (im Germany) I checked the back and it indeed said that it's not a lubricant but a lubricant remover.

(Disclaimer: can't read the article past the intro where it does call it a lubricant...)

Once you know that WD stands for “water displacer”, everything makes sense. It’s an adequate short term lubricant but its real purpose is to separate water from sensitive materials.

Lubricant analysis is a commonly available service. It's normally done on lubricating oil for large engines (heavy trucks, locomotives, ships) as a diagnostic tool. The usual tests are mostly to see what properties of the oil or engine are degrading. Full analysis of new oil to validate that it conforms to specification is available.[1]

Hydrocarbons are rather well studied.

[1] https://oilanalysislab.com/

> If it wasn't eminently obvious, most of these "secrecy" programs are marketing fluff.

Yep, and equally obvious is that keeping some piece of paper in a bank vault for PR doesn't change the fact the "secret" formula still needs to be turned into millions of gallons of product in factories around the world, so people in supply chain procurement and manufacturing processes have to have practical knowledge of how to make it.

It was also not really intended as a lubricant but as something to get water off equipment and mechanical components. “WD” stands for “water displacement.”

As you say, there are much better lubricants out there.

> It's a terrible long term lubricant (because it's designed to evaporate, it actually concentrates gunk and grime).

You're not supposed to use it (and similar products) like that tho. You're supposed to use it to flush out the gunk and grime by dissolving it, all it is supposed to do is to make stuff that doesn't move, move, enough to fix it now and maybe prepare a bit for putting proper lubricant.

Like, it's not fault of their formula that people are using it wrong

Afaikr, wd-40 was never supposed to be a lubricant - it was created to remove moisture in rocket assembly - plain oil is probably a better lube

The SDS here may not be sufficient to deformulate as many of the CAS# reported are generic and represent a broad class of compounds. Probably easier to just go run it on a GC.

>The actual ingredients are literally on the safety data sheet:

The only CAS number listed in that data sheet that doesn’t return Molecular Formula: Unspecified is carbon dioxide. The other 98% of the formulation is just sort of vague references to petroleum distillates.

One hilarious fact about WD-40 is that there is a bicycle chain lubricant by Muc-Off that does WORSE than original WD-40 in chain wear tests.

(I know WD-40 is a bad lubricant, that's what makes this so funny)

not meant to be a lubricant, wd, water displacement. Use as a solvent, then lube with something better.

It's not a lubricant, though. It's designed for replacing water from electrical connectors.

The real deal with WD-40 (and Coca Cola) is the brand name.

I thought it was mostly meant to protect against rust due to moisture in the ambient air so I put it on tools in my basement. But if it's evaporating, maybe it's not so great at that.

But yea, like Coke or McDonalds, the brand is probably worth far more than the secrecy of the recipe.

I learned the whole "not a lubricant" lesson the hard way in 2009 when my idle pulley was squeaking on a long drive. I stopped and bought a spare and sprayed it down with WD-40.

Forty miles from my destination, it seized. Sadly, not knowing it was reverse thread, I stripped it with a breaker bar and had to have the truck towed.

WD-40 is great for cleaning, particularly threads, but also metal surfaces. It generally doesn't eat plastic, isn't a crazy skin or respiratory irritant.

I use it a ton to clean off threads of stuff exposed to the elements. Get dirt, old oil/grease, water, and any grit or rust or other things out of threads so they tighten properly and don't get jammed up with stuff.

If something I'm working on is dirty, it gets a spray of WD-40 and a rag to help not foul up the inside of whatever I'm opening.

It's such garbage, and it's frustrating to see stuff like this on the front page.

"It's a terrible long term lubricant" it's not even a lubricant