Document yJrjeK1qzNq12O8jenRXyOdD

ziaReMON* CORPORATION r - -- - t. L. Sealy jUBJECT: ASBESTOS SUBSTITUTES PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT DESPONDENCE MAR-19 FROM: Frank C. Skelton DATE: April 26, 1976 CCt W. N. Bockay A. c. Rogers F. V. Strobl R. A. Ward-""'' Answering your memo of 3-3-76 to R. C. Roger* and Item #3 of Mr. Batogowski'a 3-30-76 letter. I'm certain that most friction material producers ara working on low Asbestos or non-Asbestos friction materials. Thera are two main current competitors to Asbestos usage. These are fiberglass and semi-metal lies. Both of these materials represent major product coat penalties. The usual grades of Asbestos used in disc pads and brake linings cost from $.03 to $.18 per pound. Chopped strand fiberglass starts at about $.40 per pound. Specific knowledge of the cost of semi-metallic materials is not known except for general refer ences as to being "substantially more'*. Besides their cost penalty, these materials also present performance compromises like noise, increased wear, increased wear on mating surfaces, poor "cold" performance, compatibility with existing rotor and disc materials, etc. The majority of this work is, in my opinion, bsing carried on with the OEM vehicle manufacturer'* because of their control over the mating disc and braka drum materials and the other component# of the brake eyatem should attendant system# changes be required for proper function of a non-Asbestos friction material. * Yes, we (Maremont) ara working on low Asbastos and non-Aabestoa material concepts. Our effort he* been with the fiberglass or fiberglass like materials, work in this area is and will be for the near term future, a low kay type effort since we do not anticipate any near term redice 1 change in friction materiel composition. Frank C. Skelton FCSidp