On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Golden California Girls wrote:

> Al Eisner wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Golden California Girls wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, and I fully understand not ever wanting to eat a hamburger at BK,
>>> Wendy's or McDonands if there is an In-N-Out anywhere within 100 miles.
>>
>> You must own stock!
>>
>> But in any case, In-N-Out doesn't satisfy the original criteria, since
>> it's not a fast food place. Typical time delay is similar to that of
>> good non-chain burger places (unless one goes at very-off hours).
>
> So (for you) fast food is only possible if it is cook before order?

I would emphasize some combination of that with speed ("fast") -- that is,
that the restaurant "generally" be fast, which is usually acieved by
pre-cooking the food (except perhaps for a last step, like crisping up
fries). Still, the various responses suggest it isn't so clear-cut a
definition. I wouldn't agree with the issue of paying before eating --
e.g., Sizzler, which those addressing felt was NOT a fast-food place,
takes payment on ordering. Delivery of the food to your table may
also be a good test (i.e., most places that do that are probably not
fast food places).

However, in my initial comment I was certainly emphasizing the "fast".
In'n'Out is rarely fast, even if the line to order is short. If I order
a burger at a place I think we'd all agree is non-fast-food, such as
The Counter or Kirk's on the mid-peninsula **, it doesn't take any signifi-
cantly longer to arrive than it does at IN'n'Out, although perhaps you
would distinguish those places by their table-service (or at least
table-delivery).

** I see this thread is cross-posted, so I should note that these are
places in the San Francisco area.
--

Al Eisner
San Mateo Co., CA

In article
anford.edu>, Al
Eisner > wrote:


> However, in my initial comment I was certainly emphasizing the "fast".
> In'n'Out is rarely fast, even if the line to order is short. If I order
> a burger at a place I think we'd all agree is non-fast-food, such as
> The Counter or Kirk's on the mid-peninsula **, it doesn't take any signifi-
> cantly longer to arrive than it does at IN'n'Out, although perhaps you
> would distinguish those places by their table-service (or at least
> table-delivery).

In-N-Out does a very healthy drive-through business. Indeed, this is
pretty much how they started, in the layouts which lasted into the
1990s.

I call any place with a drive-through lane, that is popular, a fast
food place.


--Tim May

In article
anford.edu>,
Al Eisner > wrote:

> However, in my initial comment I was certainly emphasizing the "fast".
> In'n'Out is rarely fast, even if the line to order is short. If I order
> a burger at a place I think we'd all agree is non-fast-food, such as
> The Counter or Kirk's on the mid-peninsula **, it doesn't take any signifi-
> cantly longer to arrive than it does at IN'n'Out, although perhaps you
> would distinguish those places by their table-service (or at least
> table-delivery).

Having just dined at The Counter this weekend, I would disagree with
your assertion that they do not take significantly longer to deliver
meals than In-n-Out. Our meal went:

1) Order (t=0)
2) Receive drinks (t+5minutes)
3) Receive fries/onion strings (t+10 minutes)
4) Receive burgers (t+20 minutes)

This is not unusual for The Counter; the fries are treated (by them) as
an appetizer.

You're asserting that it takes 20 minutes to receive your burgers at
In-n-Out? I've never waited that long inside, even when the line was out
the door (e.g., Vacaville, weekend lunch, summer weekend).

Steve

--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Steve Fenwick wrote:

> In article
> anford.edu>,
> Al Eisner > wrote:
>
>> However, in my initial comment I was certainly emphasizing the "fast".
>> In'n'Out is rarely fast, even if the line to order is short. If I order
>> a burger at a place I think we'd all agree is non-fast-food, such as
>> The Counter or Kirk's on the mid-peninsula **, it doesn't take any signifi-
>> cantly longer to arrive than it does at IN'n'Out, although perhaps you
>> would distinguish those places by their table-service (or at least
>> table-delivery).
>
> Having just dined at The Counter this weekend, I would disagree with
> your assertion that they do not take significantly longer to deliver
> meals than In-n-Out. Our meal went:
>
> 1) Order (t=0)
> 2) Receive drinks (t+5minutes)
> 3) Receive fries/onion strings (t+10 minutes)
> 4) Receive burgers (t+20 minutes)
>
> This is not unusual for The Counter; the fries are treated (by them) as
> an appetizer.

I guess that matches my maximum-wait experience at The Counter. I've
only been there about four times, so perhaps I don't have adequate
statistics. Still, they are serving something in less time. Kirk's,
which I've been to many more times, is decidedly faster, with waits
rarely more than 10 minutes.

> You're asserting that it takes 20 minutes to receive your burgers at
> In-n-Out? I've never waited that long inside, even when the line was out
> the door (e.g., Vacaville, weekend lunch, summer weekend).

Definitely, I've seen 20 minute waits at In-n-Out. And I don't recall
ever having a wait less than 10 minutes. Also, given the atmosphere of
the place (which is very fast-food like) the wait *feels* even longer.
--

Al Eisner
San Mateo Co., CA

Al Eisner wrote:
>
> Definitely, I've seen 20 minute waits at In-n-Out. And I don't recall
> ever having a wait less than 10 minutes. Also, given the atmosphere of
> the place (which is very fast-food like) the wait *feels* even longer.

Don't know which In-and-Out that was, but I've seen them serve 50 orders inside
20 minutes with a wait from order to serve on the order of five minutes. Must
depend on the location and the manager.