Driving Techniques: Emergency Braking

[Mike Rotch]

I would like your opinions on the two methods of executing an emergency stop.

For most of my driving career I have simply stepped with force on the brake pedal when having to stop in a hurry. I have never locked brakes, and in cars that lack ABS, I have found the most effective method is to manually simulate ABS by gently modulating the brake pedal, rather then simply keeping it depressed.

Then a week or two ago I was approaching a robot ("lights" in other lingo) at about 70kph when it changed to amber and a car crossed at the intersection ahead of me. I jumped on the brakes and changed from 4th to 3rd gear, letting out the clutch relatively slowly. This action drastically shortened my braking distant.

My question: Is emergency braking using a combination of braking and engine braking bad w.r.t. loss of grip and front end stability?

edit: My car is Fwd - thanks Glut

 

[Glut]

It depends on the car. On modern cars (especially sports orientated cars) the brakes will provide more stopping force than engine braking, so there's no point. Also, letting out the clutch slowley is causing the force that was going to be used stopping the car on the clutch instead, so it's not great for the clutch and still not providing any advantage.

As for modulating the brakes: the ideal stop has you putting your foot on the brake just enough so that the wheels almost (but never quite) lock up. So they're still spinning, just as slowley as possible.
At about that time (from memory - it's been a while since I've driven non-abs cars) you should hear a slight screeching from the brakes themselves, but not the tyres.
By modulating, you're not actually doing anything, except on drum brakes where you get a better distribution of brake wear by pumping the brakes (say if you were going down a hill - not emerency braking) this doesn't apply for disc brakes, though.

With front end stability, it should be fine unless you lock up. On ABS brakes, you will get shudder when the ABS is engaged.

 

[Mike Rotch]

The theory behind modulating is that in an emergency situation it is a risk to try find that degree of braking that is on the border of locking the brakes.

By modulating (and simulating ABS to a lesser degree) one can apply virtually maximum braking pressure, but due to the modulating, the chances of reaching that "virtual lock-up" are increased, before decreasing brake pressure to normal emergency braking levels, before returning to "virtual lock-up" again.

 

[DQuaN]

Over the years I have developed a habit of stepping on the clutcch whenever I brake. In an emergency stop, the best technique is to press hard on the brake whilest having the clutch still engaged. On most cars alot of force is needed to lock up the wheels so as long as you don't panic and slam on the anchors with all your might there wont be a problem. ,If you do feel the wheels starting to lock up then ease of the brake slightly to allow the tyres to gain traction again and then push the brakes once more. I actually locked up the wheels during my driving test, but I immediatley let off and on again and controlled the stop so I passed. Normally if you lock the wheels (i.e. loose control of the car) in your test, It is an instant fail. Luckily I corrected the mistake instantly thus keeping control of the car.

 

[TS1AWD]

In most cases that I have had to use an emergency stop or.. just f*ing around, I mash the pedal and downshift HARD to whichever gear is the lowest I can hit without nailing the 7500rpm rev limiter. The ABS has been long since gone out of the car since I had purchased it, the normal weight reduction and I just dont like ABS, I like to be able to control the cars movement such as when Im rallying for positioning the rear end of the car going into a drift and what not for a corner.

My 91 TSi originaly had its wimpy single piston tiny donut rotor breaks on the fronts and were the worst thing for stoping. I have now upgraded to a beefy dual piston caliper with some nice sized PowerSlot rotors with MetalMaster carbon metallic pads all around, being pushed together with Motul Racing break fluid. Since this break upgrade, I have had to use the downshifting alot less agressively due to the bigger brakes.

 

[MazKid]

I'n my 323 I usually gradually add more force to the brakes beyond my normal stopping. Once I can judge where I need to stop I usually will let off and brake again to reduce the heat created.

I have locked up. It's fun. I have only locked up once or twice on the street in the rain, but sometimes in my school parking lot kids run out infront of me to stop me because they know it pisses me off, so I'll lock em up to scare them out of the way. And it's funny.

 

[///M-Spec]

Modern brake systems are good enough to point where on most cars, the TIRE is the limiting factor on scrubbing speed as soon as possible. Any extra engine braking you pick up by being in a lower gear doesn't help very much. Better to focus your attention on avoiding whatever it is you are emergancy braking for in the first place, IMO.

Case in point. When I used to autocross, my local region had a course feature that was the same every month: a single pivot cone out in the middle of nowhere; you were supposed to head out, brake and then turn around. Most of the faster cars entered the braking zone around ~70-75 in 3rd gear. It was a tough braking test because you pretty much had to scrub ~55mph in the blink of an eye.

Even on stock brake pads, my car completely overwhelmed the stock Pilot Sports. I rode the ABS about half the way in. When I started running R-comp tires, I could dig SIGNIFIGANTLY deeper into the turn. In fact, the ABS rarely came into play until I upgraded my street pads for autocross pads.

I spent a lot of runs experimenting with downshifting from 3, 2 then 1st. Or just holding the clutch in and going from 3 to 1. I discovered that most of the time, it didn't matter. I was in fact better off concentrating on getting my braking points perfect.

Of course, Glut is right when he said it depends on the car. On mine, it did NOT matter if I downshifted or not. I don't think it does on most cars with a decent braking system.

One other thing to keep in mind. The sudden addition of engine braking on a FWD car may 'surprise' the driveline and tires enough to cause a momentary lockup if you are not executing your downshifts perfectly. Not something you really want to deal with when your life is possibly on the line.


M

 

[Mike Rotch]

Originally posted by ///M-Spec


Even on stock brake pads, my car completely overwhelmed the stock Pilot Sports. I rode the ABS about half the way in. When I started running R-comp tires, I could dig SIGNIFIGANTLY deeper into the turn. In fact, the ABS rarely came into play until I upgraded my street pads for autocross pads.

Bear in mind that not everybody runs wide profile tyres on thier everyday cars.

I spent a lot of runs experimenting with downshifting from 3, 2 then 1st. Or just holding the clutch in and going from 3 to 1. I discovered that most of the time, it didn't matter. I was in fact better off concentrating on getting my braking points perfect.

Braking points? When I am trying to avoid T-boning car turning across the lane ahead of me in traffic, that isnt much help. I am not talking track racing here.

Of course, Glut is right when he said it depends on the car. On mine, it did NOT matter if I downshifted or not. I don't think it does on most cars with a decent braking system.

You did pick up from my post that I dont have ABS?

 

[///M-Spec]

Mike, what I'm getting at is this: if your braking system is good enough that you can lock up the tires at will simply from the torque your brakes are apply to your wheels, why would adding any extra braking force from the drivetrain help?

It wouldn't. Your tires are the limiting factor. Executing a downshift is just a needless distraction.


M

 

[Mike Rotch]

Ok. I see the point you are making. 👍

However, next time you are in a deserted parking lot, take your car up to a decent speed in 4th, brake and simultaneously put your car in 2nd whilst easing the clutch out and tell me if you cant feel the engine braking making any sort of a difference. I maintain that it does.

 

[Duke]

Oh, it definitely makes a difference, that is true. But what ///M is really saying is that if you are not using all the available force the braking system alone can generate... why not just push harder on the brake pedal instead of also downshifting?

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by DQuaN
Over the years I have developed a habit of stepping on the clutcch whenever I brake.

Isn't that bad for your clutch? (I always assumed you were supposed to depress the clutch when you were down to ~1000 RPM).

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Sage
Isn't that bad for your clutch? (I always assumed you were supposed to depress the clutch when you were down to ~1000 RPM).

You don't need to clutch in until the car has slowed down enough to lug in the current gear. If you're not going to change down when coming to a stop, just brake a bit and when you get to the point where you would change down, then just put the clutch in, bump it into neutral, and let the clutch out.

Assuming it's adjusted properly, holding the clutch in won't wear it; it just rides on the throwout bearing. Slipping the clutch half in, half out, or riding it (using it to hold the car on a hill or edge forward with the engine racing) is what wears it.

But I just find it more comfortable to slip the car into neutral and get off the clutch than I do to hold it in for a long time.

 

[Famine]

If you press the clutch, you disengage the engine from the car - even if you press the clutch pedal and raise it again as in a gear change. Now, if you're applying full braking force you run the risk of locking the tyres up as they have only the brakes applying force to them and not the engine (well, gearbox. Well, drive/halfshaft, but you know what I mean). This is also why you shouldn't change gear whilst cornering.

No ABS + full braking + clutch disengaged = BAD.

The technique of "pumping" the brake - called "cadence braking" - is the accepted way of braking, on the road, to be able to slow down and maintain the ability to change the car's direction whilst braking. Of course with ABS you just mash the brake pedal flat.

 

[Mike Rotch]

Originally posted by Famine

No ABS + full braking + clutch disengaged = BAD.
[color]

. Better end that method then.


Thanks everyone for their input 👍

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Famine
If you press the clutch, you disengage the engine from the car - even if you press the clutch pedal and raise it again as in a gear change. Now, if you're applying full braking force you run the risk of locking the tyres up as they have only the brakes applying force to them and not the engine (well, gearbox. Well, drive/halfshaft, but you know what I mean). This is also why you shouldn't change gear whilst cornering.

No ABS + full braking + clutch disengaged = BAD.

Well, actually, this isn't really true, Famine.

When you are deaccelerating (assuming you have the throttle closed, like you would when you take your foot off the gas to make an emergency stop), the engine is not driving the wheels. Vice versa - the wheels are driving the engine. With the throttle at idle and the intake butterfly closed, the engine is still trying to breathe air as if you were sriving at X rpm, though it is only getting enough fuel and oxygen to idle. This means that compression, coupled with the high vacuum generated by the engine breathing against the closed throttle body, is actually dragging the wheels toward a slower speed as it winds down toward idle.

So putting the clutch in does not increase the risk of lockup, because you are reducing the deacceleration force applied to the drive wheels. In fact, you will need to brake harder to make up for the lack of compression braking.

The reason why you want to avoid gear changes during cornering (or, to heall-and-toe them if you must) is not really the risk of lockup. You want to avoid it because changes in the engine braking (caused by putting the clutch in or letting it out, indeed) are only applied to the drive wheels. This upsets the chassis balance not only through sudden weight transfer, but because you are radically altering the brake bias towards the drive wheels while you're braking, just as if you suddenly spun the knob on an adjustable proportioning valve.

The technique of "pumping" the brake - called "cadence braking" - is the accepted way of braking, on the road, to be able to slow down and maintain the ability to change the car's direction whilst braking. Of course with ABS you just mash the brake pedal flat.

These are of course both correct. What you are doing when you pump the brakes is repeatedly braking across the threshold of maximum deacceleration. If you simply slm the pedal down, obviously the wheels lock up and you skid, losing steering control and gaining stopping distance. If you are too panicked to threshold brake - modulate the brakes right on the threshold of locking up - pumping the brakes allows the wheels to unlock every time you release the pedal, giving you back control every moment or so, and allowing you that moment of threshold braking before you lock the wheels again. This is exactly what ABS does for you, except more accurately and more quickly.

 

[Mike Rotch]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Well, actually, this isn't really true, Famine.

When you are deaccelerating (assuming you have the throttle closed, like you would when you take your foot off the gas to make an emergency stop), the engine is not driving the wheels. Vice versa - the wheels are driving the engine. With the throttle at idle and the intake butterfly closed, the engine is still trying to breathe air as if you were sriving at X rpm, though it is only getting enough fuel and oxygen to idle. This means that compression, coupled with the high vacuum generated by the engine breathing against the closed throttle body, is actually dragging the wheels toward a slower speed as it winds down toward idle.

So putting the clutch in does not increase the risk of lockup, because you are reducing the deacceleration force applied to the drive wheels. In fact, you will need to brake harder to make up for the lack of compression braking.

Smokes. So for a FWD, depressing clutch whilst emergency braking does not increase the chances of locking up the front wheels, but lessens the braking potential of the car? Ideally you want to only depress the clutch when the engine reaches idle speed, after braking.

By the same token then, changing to a lower gear means the engine compression would enhance braking ability, but increase the probability of a lock-up?

The reason why you want to avoid gear changes during cornering (or, to heall-and-toe them if you must) is not really the risk of lockup. You want to avoid it because changes in the engine braking (caused by putting the clutch in or letting it out, indeed) are only applied to the drive wheels. This upsets the chassis balance not only through sudden weight transfer, but because you are radically altering the brake bias towards the drive wheels while you're braking, just as if you suddenly spun the knob on an adjustable proportioning valve.

These are of course both correct. What you are doing when you pump the brakes is repeatedly braking across the threshold of maximum deacceleration. If you simply slm the pedal down, obviously the wheels lock up and you skid, losing steering control and gaining stopping distance. If you are too panicked to threshold brake - modulate the brakes right on the threshold of locking up - pumping the brakes allows the wheels to unlock every time you release the pedal, giving you back control every moment or so, and allowing you that moment of threshold braking before you lock the wheels again. This is exactly what ABS does for you, except more accurately and more quickly.

Agreed and agreed, totally.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Mike Rotch
Smokes. So for a FWD, depressing clutch whilst emergency braking does not increase the chances of locking up the front wheels, but lessens the braking potential of the car? Ideally you want to only depress the clutch when the engine reaches idle speed, after braking.

Well, yes, but that brings us back to ///M-Spec's original comment: if you are not braking as hard as possible, why not just brake harder? That's probably easier to do in a panic situation than worrying about the clutch and when is the ideal time to put it in. The other thing is, if you do lock up the drive wheels with the clutch out, the car will probably stall, possibly depriving you of power steering or making the car balk if you let the clutch out again. Also too much to worry about during an emergency.

Remember the first half of the racer's credo: When in a spin, both feet in. Under a panic stop, your best bet is to stomp the clutch in when you brake, and then do your best to modulate the brakes with your right foot. But braking is really paramount and concentrate on that rather than wasting time making a precise decision on what to do with the clutch.

By the same token then, changing to a lower gear means the engine compression would enhance braking ability, but increase the probability of a lock-up?

This is correct. But as said above, if you are braking to a stop and are not braking fully, why not just brake harder? Brake pads are easier to replace than clutches.

There's no real need to change down when slowing to a full stop. The real reason that you change down when approaching a turn is to smoothly get the engine in the appropriate gear and at the appropriate revs to accelerate after the turn-in, not to help slow the car at the braking point.

Typically when I slow for a traffic light, I change down from 5th to 4th, because the ratio is not that much shorter, but the engine will tolerate a slower wheel speed in 4th without lugging. I then brake without clutching for a second or two until the engine gets down to moderately low revs, then I clutch in and bump the car into neutral, using brakes only to come to a full stop. I also drive a FWD car with manual and no ABS.

And for what it's worth I've got 85,000 miles on my original clutch, all 4 rotors, and original rear brake pads, and I got 60,000 out of my front pads, so driving that way isn't using up the car very much.

 

[Famine]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Well, actually, this isn't really true, Famine.

[...]

So putting the clutch in does not increase the risk of lockup, because you are reducing the deacceleration force applied to the drive wheels. In fact, you will need to brake harder to make up for the lack of compression braking.

So then instead of an additional decelerative force applied to the wheels, you only have two forces acting upon the tyres - friction from the road and friction from the brakes. Therefore it's easier to apply the brakes too hard and overcome the friction on the tyres from the road - or in other words, depressing the clutch increases the risk of locking up...

However, I am only talking about people who mash the brake pedal flat at the slightest sign of trouble without ABS, rather than sane people who can actually drive a car. With the clutch engaged they are less likely to lock the wheels up.

 

[phattboy]

Just to throw another cog in the wheels so to speak... While you consider engine braking as assist you have to consider the car and a whole lot more.

For example:

With a rear drive car, there is also the factor of whether or not you have four-wheel disk brakes or disks up front and drums out back. There is how well maintained adjustment has been to them to think about. I suppose you should really think about weight shift, how well maintain the suspension parts have been, tire pressure, wheel alignment...yadayada... And then there is the weather conditions...yadayada

Every car is going to have it's peculiarities specific to that car. My real two cents here is that you do whatever you need to do to stop the car and that may well be different in every situation. I don't think there is a "set" generality that can be applied here other than familiarity with the car, upkeep and awareness level from the time you get in the car.

It's all touchy-feely...

phattboy

 

[///M-Spec]

I think this is also worth mentioning. Remember our friend the friction circle? If you are applying 100% braking force through your front tires, they don't have much left to steer with.

In emergancy stopping situations, you always want to leave a little in reserve in order to STEER the car quickly if you need to.

This is where ABS proves its value. It allows you to apply max brake pressure without fear of lockup and leaves you in control of steering.

Originally posted by Mike Rotch
However, next time you are in a deserted parking lot, take your car up to a decent speed in 4th, brake and simultaneously put your car in 2nd whilst easing the clutch out and tell me if you cant feel the engine braking making any sort of a difference. I maintain that it does.

Mike, decent 4th gear speed in a BMW M3 is 90+ mph. There aren't many parking lots I would try this in. FWIW, the brakes on the car can easily exceed a street tire's ability to decelerate it. My car stops just as quickly with the clutch in or out. You will have to take my word for it, unless you're passing through Florida any time soon in which case I'd be happy to take you for a ride and show you.


M

 

[phattboy]

Mike, decent 4th gear speed in a BMW M3 is 90+ mph. There aren't many parking lots I would try this in.

Well, there is the parking lot at Boeing

FWIW, the brakes on the car can easily exceed a street tire's ability to decelerate it.

And if they can't, you need to have your brakes redone or you're driving a Zonda in GT3 (In which case, why bother?).

phattboy

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Famine
So then instead of an additional decelerative force applied to the wheels, you only have two forces acting upon the tyres - friction from the road and friction from the brakes. Therefore it's easier to apply the brakes too hard and overcome the friction on the tyres from the road - or in other words, depressing the clutch increases the risk of locking up...

However, I am only talking about people who mash the brake pedal flat at the slightest sign of trouble without ABS, rather than sane people who can actually drive a car. With the clutch engaged they are less likely to lock the wheels up.

That still doesn't make any sense. You're not seeing it logically for three reasons:

1) The tires have X amount of traction. In the case of an emergency stop, this is all being used for deacceleration. Simple physics. The tires don't give a hoot where that deaccelerative force is coming from: brake pads or engine drag; it's all just rotational energy of the wheel hub being disappated through the system, either by compression braking or being converted into waste heat via the brake pads.

If 70% friction braking + 30% compression braking = 100% of your traction, then 100% friction braking = 100% of your traction. You cannot outbrake the grip your tires can generate, regardless of the source of the braking force.

If you remove the compression braking from the equation, you simply push a little harder on the brake pedal to supply the additional force. Given that any car with a well-functioning (non-ABS) brake system has the braking power necessary to lock up the wheels by stamping on the pedal, the total capacity of the brake system is not the issue.

2) Compression braking only acts on the drive wheels, whereas friction braking acts on all four. As I said earlier, this screws up your brake bias. This means that if you are threshold braking at the drive wheels because of friction force + compression force, you are underbraking at the wheels that are getting friction only. Those wheels are no longer using all of their available traction to slow the car, and you are lengthening your stopping distance by some amount.

3) Even coming at it from your assumption, it doesn't work that way:
"... you only have two forces acting upon the tyres - friction from the road and friction from the brakes. Therefore it's easier to apply the brakes too hard and overcome the friction on the tyres... . With both compression braking and friction braking acting on the tires, you don't need to brake as hard (push the pedal as far) as you would by friction braking alone. Therefore, leaving the clutch out and simply mashing the brake pedal to floor puts you even farther past the lockup point than if you had the clutch in... meaning your panic braking with the clutch out is overwhelming the tires even worse than you would be if you had also put the clutch in.

 

[Mike Rotch]

Originally posted by neon_duke
That still doesn't make any sense. You're not seeing it logically for three reasons:

1) The tires have X amount of traction. In the case of an emergency stop, this is all being used for deacceleration. Simple physics. The tires don't give a hoot where that deaccelerative force is coming from: brake pads or engine drag; it's all just rotational energy of the wheel hub being disappated through the system, either by compression braking or being converted into waste heat via the brake pads.

If 70% friction braking + 30% compression braking = 100% of your traction, then 100% friction braking = 100% of your traction. You cannot outbrake the grip your tires can generate, regardless of the source of the braking force.

If you remove the compression braking from the equation, you simply push a little harder on the brake pedal to supply the additional force. Given that any car with a well-functioning (non-ABS) brake system has the braking power necessary to lock up the wheels by stamping on the pedal, the total capacity of the brake system is not the issue.

2) Compression braking only acts on the drive wheels, whereas friction braking acts on all four. As I said earlier, this screws up your brake bias. This means that if you are threshold braking at the drive wheels because of friction force + compression force, you are underbraking at the wheels that are getting friction only. Those wheels are no longer using all of their available traction to slow the car, and you are lengthening your stopping distance by some amount.

3) Even coming at it from your assumption, it doesn't work that way:
"... you only have two forces acting upon the tyres - friction from the road and friction from the brakes. Therefore it's easier to apply the brakes too hard and overcome the friction on the tyres... . With both compression braking and friction braking acting on the tires, you don't need to brake as hard (push the pedal as far) as you would by friction braking alone. Therefore, leaving the clutch out and simply mashing the brake pedal to floor puts you even farther past the lockup point than if you had the clutch in... meaning your panic braking with the clutch out is overwhelming the tires even worse than you would be if you had also put the clutch in.

I during this discussion I have at some point agreed with both Duke and Famine, I'll have to say now (until I print out this thread and really go through it concentrating) that the area in red makes the most sense to me. Nevermind that though, top notch points being made 👍

In a related note, I had to throw out the anchors this morning to avoid going through an amber-red traffic light that caught me out on the way to work. Instead of doing my normal "clutch in straight away" I left it for a second then put it in. All the while trying to remember the salient points made in this thread.

Let me try summarise things (Mike ---> ):

Duke is saying: Compression braking (via gearbox manipulation) whether through clutch compression or putting the car in neutral simply means that you are not utilising the full potential of braking force of the discs/tyres. Thus the clutch should be depressed during the stopping procedure.

Famine is saying: By releasing the engine from compression braking - via declutching - the only braking force stopping the car is brake + tyre Vs road friction, thus the chances of locking up are increased. Thus on a non-ABS car, the clutch should at least remain engaged during the stopping action.

If I have mucked up and jostled points made previously, please feel free to beat me up during recess to take my lunch money

Mike, decent 4th gear speed in a BMW M3 is 90+ mph. There aren't many parking lots I would try this in. FWIW, the brakes on the car can easily exceed a street tire's ability to decelerate it. My car stops just as quickly with the clutch in or out. You will have to take my word for it, unless you're passing through Florida any time soon in which case I'd be happy to take you for a ride and show you.

Heh. Just trying to make a point. Also, I totally agree on keeping a degree of traction in reserve for steering - that is why in non-ABS cars like my so un-BMW Corolla I use cadence braking.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

One thing that us non-ABS users need to remember is to roll off the pedal as the speed drops.

So, if I'm braking from high speed to low speed (say 70mph to 0), I will leave the car in gear and stamp the middle pedal. Once the speed drops to about 30mph, I push the clutch and concentrate on modulating the brake pressure, rolling off the pedal as I get to about 10mph.

If you're faced with an emergency avoidance scenario, you're probably best coming off the pedal altogether at around 15mph, to allow your fronts to use the available friction to steer around the obstacle. And you ABS users need to worry about the tail when cornering at limit braking...

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Mike Rotch
Duke is saying: Compression braking (via gearbox manipulation) whether through clutch compression or putting the car in neutral simply means that you are not utilising the full potential of braking force of the discs/tyres. Thus the clutch should be depressed during the stopping procedure.

You got the main point right, but the beginning isn't quite there, because of a typo or misunderstanding.

Putting the clutch in or putting the car in neutral removes compression braking from the equation. This braking force can be replaced, and distributed more evenly over all four wheels, by simply pressing the brake pedal harder, with no additional danger of lockup. Threshold braking is threshold braking, no matter where the precise location of the threshold may be.

All of this is (in my argument anyway) only considering stopping in a straight line in the shortest distance. Of course you need to vary the braking force in order to leave traction for steering.

I've also read, and successfully used, a panic stop method where you do simply spike the brake pedal to near lockup in order to dump as much velocity as possible in the early stages of the event. While the car is near ballistic but scrubbing speed very quickly, you use that time to decide where you want to put the car and steer for it, then release the brakes as required to reorient the car's path, then clamp them again... repeat as necessary or possible. The point is to get maximum braking done during those fractional seconds while you are deciding how to change course, when velocity is highest and distance covered is the greatest.

During a multi-car chain reaction on the freeway in front of me some years ago I was able to use this connect-the-dots method to thread my way through 2 or 3 gaps in the collisions ocurring around me.

 

[Mike Rotch]

Originally posted by neon_duke
You got the main point right, but the beginning isn't quite there, because of a typo or misunderstanding.

Yea. I retyped the first sentence thrice, but it still ended up like a dogs breakfast.