<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3243" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ron:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>> It wouldn't be necessary, but it would be there, making the <BR>> assembly stiffer than your rib design intended, and adding an <BR>> accelerated aging feature as the high compression loads <BR>> crushed the panel. Avoiding that accelerated aging feature is <BR>> one of the reasons for switching to RC&S in the first place.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Jude:</EM></STRONG><STRONG><EM><BR></DIV></EM></STRONG></FONT> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG><EM>Ahh, so I can't have my cake and eat it.</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG><EM>Still, doesn't an RC&S panel experience similar high compression loads when it's humid out also leading to the accelerated aging. I hear what you're saying about wood, but if we're going to be consistent, why should there be accelerated aging on any type of panel if it's kept in a relatively stabile environment. </EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG><EM>I'm just trying to get a sense of that interchange of stiffness from compression verse rib support. I guess the hybrid covers the in between range, but I think the variations might be fascinating, soundwise.</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>