F3018630 Red Natural-Surface Panel System Archive clarifies a LOPO page published in 2013. The record paired model F3018630 with red colour and a nominal 300 × 600 × 18 mm format, while the title used “natural surface” and “curtain wall system.” Those phrases remain historical descriptors only. They do not verify a current finish, a complete system or any building-specific performance.
F3018630 archive snapshot
The model, colour and format below help trace the legacy entry. The old page also included broad statements about composition, environmental benefit, recyclability, performance, certification, weight, production, packing, port, payment and lead time. All such claims and generic tables belong to the 2013 context and require current verification for any new proposal.
| Archive model | F3018630 |
|---|---|
| Archive description | Natural-surface curtain-wall system panel |
| Archive format | 300 × 600 × 18 mm, nominal |
| Archive colour | Red |
| Current status | Legacy product and system wording; present scope unverified |
This is the only original body image. It remains for recognition but is not a verified natural-surface close-up, an accurate red benchmark, a system drawing or proof of current manufacture.
Clarify the natural-surface wording
“Natural surface” might once have distinguished an unglazed appearance from another finish family, but the old title does not define the clay body, firing, texture, relief, sheen or variation. It should be treated as a search clue, not a present technical category. Ask LOPO to identify the nearest current finish and explain its process and appearance.
Review labelled physical samples at close range and normal facade distance under representative light. Record model, colour, surface, date and sample status. Ask for a representative range showing variation rather than one selected piece. Photography can support coordination, but the approved physical benchmark should govern the intended red tone and surface character.
Separate the panel from a curtain-wall system
The archive title does not define a complete wall build-up, attachment method, substructure, interfaces or project responsibilities. A ceramic panel is one component within a building-envelope proposal. System behaviour depends on the exact current components, project geometry, substrate, exposure, design criteria, testing scope and coordination by qualified parties.
Request a clear description of what LOPO is offering now: product only, selected accessories or a defined system scope. The appointed facade team should evaluate the proposed assembly for the actual building and jurisdiction. Do not infer wall-level performance from the legacy title, photograph, model code or nominal thickness.
Use colour and format for early design studies
The archive recorded red and a 300 × 600 mm face. Those fields can guide preliminary palette and module studies, while the 18 mm thickness remains a former nominal value. They do not establish current availability, tolerance, mass, strength, span or compatibility. Obtain a dated drawing for the exact candidate before detailed coordination.
Study orientation, joints, openings, corners and transitions visually. Qualified professionals must resolve movement, interfaces and the building-specific support proposal using current system information. This archive provides no generic loads, spans, support spacing, anchors or installation instructions. If a successor differs from the old record, update elevations, schedules, quantities and approvals consistently.
Replace old claims with project-relevant evidence
Former claims about 100% natural clay, sustainability, recyclability, fire, frost, thermal or acoustic behaviour, weather resistance, durability, impact, certification, capacity, ranking, weight and delivery remain historical only. Generic tables cannot define F3018630 today or establish the performance of a complete facade assembly.
Archive boundary: F3018630, red, the nominal 300 × 600 × 18 mm format, “natural surface” and “curtain wall system” preserve the 2013 entry. Only a current identified proposal, approved samples, dated drawings and applicable evidence can define a live project scope.
Ask for documents that name the exact model, components, source, specimen, date and scope. Let the qualified project team determine which reports, declarations and approvals apply. Reconfirm availability, quantity, samples, packaging, programme, delivery and payment through a current quotation rather than relying on old web fields.
Explore current products and facade references
Review the current terracotta panel overview for present colours, surfaces and format discussions.
Browse terracotta cladding projects for facade composition and material ideas.
Visit the rainscreen cladding gallery to study red ceramic elevations in context.
Use the LOPO contact page to request current samples, drawings and scope information.
Built references can support aesthetic research, but their products, wall systems, evidence and approvals are not transferable by appearance alone.
Request a current F3018630 clarification
Share the project location, facade area, elevations, red target, desired surface, adjacent materials, approximate quantity and programme. Cite F3018630 and the archived format, and explain the performance requirements that the project team has established separately for the complete wall proposal.
Email roger@lopoterracotta.com or use the contact form. Request current product and system-scope identification, representative samples, dated drawings, applicable evidence and project-specific commercial information.
Keep a register of the proposed product, components, samples, drawings and evidence with clear identifiers, dates and owners. Reconcile the approved appearance with the quotation and technical pack. If today’s recommendation differs from F3018630, replace the archive code consistently in elevations, schedules, quantities and approvals rather than allowing old system wording to fill gaps in current information.
Before the proposal advances, confirm which party is responsible for each product and system document and how the scope interfaces with other project work. Mark samples as inspiration, range or production benchmarks. Keep appearance approval separate from technical review of the proposed assembly, and record any assumptions still awaiting drawings, evidence or project-team resolution in a dated decision log. Revisit that log when a sample, drawing or scope changes so approvals remain aligned with the exact current proposal.