Quality - What It Means
Thread Starter
Quality - What It Means
There is evidence in at least one thread here that some people have no understanding of the meaning of quality. Poster ArnoldE gets it but most don't seem to understand.
Quality is fitness for purpose. No more, no less.
To put that in context, it means that the builder has repeatably produced exactly what the designer called for and the goods reliably meet the performance specification.
To make Arnolds point, someone saying that "The BMW XYZ is higher quality than an Australian built Commodore" is talking through their hat. They are confusing what the design intended to deliver with the quality of the execution of the manufacture.
To put that another way, if I intend to design a bland family vehicle and that is what I reliably deliver then that is good quality. The same if I intend to construct an airline economy meal out of cardboard. If its good quality edible cardboard that doesn't poison the punter, then its good quality.
As for BMW versus Commodore, over the years our family had a number of serious problems with the cars made by der liddle elves in der Black Forest, like a diff spraying itself all over a freeway, multiple electronics failures and so on. A friend just had a BMW clutch replaced after ten thousand Kms, and I paid $3500 for a new Mercedes ECU after one just died for no reason.
It may also be a surprise to learn that the sheet metal tolerances of Australian cars are at least Five times tighter than anything in aircraft sheet metal, with the possible exception of fully machined and then bent Boeing and Airbus wing skins, but I'm not even sure if they are that good. God knows what the tolerances are on the B787 carbon fibre but I suspect that they were/are part of its problems.
Also ask anyone about how FA18 sheet metal spares were delivered - four pilot holes because the thing was never designed for interchangeable assembly unlike the Gippsland Aviation Airvan.
Quality is fitness for purpose. No more, no less.
To put that in context, it means that the builder has repeatably produced exactly what the designer called for and the goods reliably meet the performance specification.
To make Arnolds point, someone saying that "The BMW XYZ is higher quality than an Australian built Commodore" is talking through their hat. They are confusing what the design intended to deliver with the quality of the execution of the manufacture.
To put that another way, if I intend to design a bland family vehicle and that is what I reliably deliver then that is good quality. The same if I intend to construct an airline economy meal out of cardboard. If its good quality edible cardboard that doesn't poison the punter, then its good quality.
As for BMW versus Commodore, over the years our family had a number of serious problems with the cars made by der liddle elves in der Black Forest, like a diff spraying itself all over a freeway, multiple electronics failures and so on. A friend just had a BMW clutch replaced after ten thousand Kms, and I paid $3500 for a new Mercedes ECU after one just died for no reason.
It may also be a surprise to learn that the sheet metal tolerances of Australian cars are at least Five times tighter than anything in aircraft sheet metal, with the possible exception of fully machined and then bent Boeing and Airbus wing skins, but I'm not even sure if they are that good. God knows what the tolerances are on the B787 carbon fibre but I suspect that they were/are part of its problems.
Also ask anyone about how FA18 sheet metal spares were delivered - four pilot holes because the thing was never designed for interchangeable assembly unlike the Gippsland Aviation Airvan.
Last edited by Sunfish; 24th Sep 2012 at 22:45.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Depends on which model Commodore.....
VL was definitely the best in my experience. VN & VP were lemons. My VR was pretty good, surviving a few years of DRW!
But a few years ago I took my kids to a VW meet at the Yarra Glen racecourse. We met a guy with a Porsche 356 Speedster. The engine sounded a little rough, & the guy apologised saying, "I need to take her out & thrash her a bit"...
Not bad for a mid 1950s car!!!!!
VL was definitely the best in my experience. VN & VP were lemons. My VR was pretty good, surviving a few years of DRW!
But a few years ago I took my kids to a VW meet at the Yarra Glen racecourse. We met a guy with a Porsche 356 Speedster. The engine sounded a little rough, & the guy apologised saying, "I need to take her out & thrash her a bit"...
Not bad for a mid 1950s car!!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: london
Age: 52
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunny, I normally read your posts and agree or they go way over my head, but in this instance I feel I need to clarify a couple of things.
Quality does not equal fitness for purpose. No more, no less.
To take your FA-18 panel as an example. Say it came pre-drilled, was made of the correct spec. material and was painted and polished (or prob. not polished but dulled to avoid radar) to the highest standards of excellence, then this is quality. If the holes don't line up, it is not fit for purpose.
(For the record, when I was in the military, I don't recall fitting many replacement panels that were supplied pre-drilled).
Or, a person may catch the bus to work everday. It is undeniably fit for purpose, however arriving at the office in a Rolls Royce is quality.
Your examples of car parts failing confuse the issue too. Mechanical components tend to wear out slowly, like a tyre or poss. your BMW diff spraying the Autobahn. As such, these components can be nursed until the end of the day/trip/servicing cycle. (They can also fail, spectacularly, without warning: take QF32 for example).
Electrical components tend to fail without warning and this can be after many years of useful service or at the first attempt to switch it on. Just think of a simple household light and that middle of the night need to visit the loo.
It also comes as no surprise that car tolerances are closer than aircraft. I assume that a car is not subject to quite the same stresses or strains that an aircraft is throughout its lifetime.
Quality does not equal fitness for purpose. No more, no less.
To take your FA-18 panel as an example. Say it came pre-drilled, was made of the correct spec. material and was painted and polished (or prob. not polished but dulled to avoid radar) to the highest standards of excellence, then this is quality. If the holes don't line up, it is not fit for purpose.
(For the record, when I was in the military, I don't recall fitting many replacement panels that were supplied pre-drilled).
Or, a person may catch the bus to work everday. It is undeniably fit for purpose, however arriving at the office in a Rolls Royce is quality.
Your examples of car parts failing confuse the issue too. Mechanical components tend to wear out slowly, like a tyre or poss. your BMW diff spraying the Autobahn. As such, these components can be nursed until the end of the day/trip/servicing cycle. (They can also fail, spectacularly, without warning: take QF32 for example).
Electrical components tend to fail without warning and this can be after many years of useful service or at the first attempt to switch it on. Just think of a simple household light and that middle of the night need to visit the loo.
It also comes as no surprise that car tolerances are closer than aircraft. I assume that a car is not subject to quite the same stresses or strains that an aircraft is throughout its lifetime.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quality:
In manufacturing, a measure of excellence or a state of being free from defects, deficiencies, and significant variations, brought about by the strict and consistent adherence to measurable and verifiable standards to achieve uniformity of output that satisfies specific customer or user requirements. ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."
I think that this sums it up.
In manufacturing, a measure of excellence or a state of being free from defects, deficiencies, and significant variations, brought about by the strict and consistent adherence to measurable and verifiable standards to achieve uniformity of output that satisfies specific customer or user requirements. ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."
I think that this sums it up.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 3rd world Oz
Age: 54
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quality
Sunny, do yourself a favour and find a copy of "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance."
Essentially it is the story of a man that literally lost his mind after trying to define quality, a very enjoyable read.
Essentially it is the story of a man that literally lost his mind after trying to define quality, a very enjoyable read.
Moderator
"the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."
Or, a person may catch the bus to work everday. It is undeniably fit for purpose, however arriving at the office in a Rolls Royce is quality.
I am currently going through the agony of an ISO 9002 certification renewal.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cam
I believe that some people confuse the term quality with "Quality Management". Quality as is term is indefinable, and can mean different things to different people. But! Quality management is about producing an item to a defined standard within a specified budget. If those paremeters are met then the product should be fit for purpose.
Last edited by cam; 25th Sep 2012 at 07:46. Reason: spelling
Thank you Cam, exactly right 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If those paremeters are met then the product should be fit for purpose.
As bdcer said, the VL is the only decent commodore ever made, and they had to use a nissan eng/trans and ford (borg warner) diff to do it.
Though in the last week I have had serious flashbacks to my apprenticeship, re-assembling the doors on one of these for the first time in over 20 years.....reminds me why they stopped production. 
As for the BMW clutch failure, sounds more like driver error, 3rd pedal from the right is not a foot rest, the 4th one IS.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hasherucf
If I'm right ArnoldE drives a Mitsubishi Magna ?
After the boxy wedge shaped TM TN TP models (which were worse than anything Jaguar ever produced) came the lovely TR, and things went forward from there.
Seriously, the only against the magna was underpower (even the later V6 failed to correct it properly) and front wheel jive.
They are well thought out, well built and a joy to work on.
Quality on wheels all round.
At the time the TR was released, the rival honda accord was probably one of the nicest cars is build quality and ease of maintenance. The TR magna shot it down in flames.
Last edited by jas24zzk; 25th Sep 2012 at 12:35.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quality is producing an item that meets all projected usage requirements, including severe service, calculated overloads, and other normally-expected abuse in the items projected use.
The item should perform without failure, deformation, or other mechanical deterioration, over the projected life span of the item.
The item must be able to cope with wear and tear and not be degraded by expected working conditions, or degraded by contact with expected contaminants under normal usage.
Problems arise when items are used outside their planned usage parameters, or are abused beyond any expected normal levels of stress.
Quality Control is producing an item to consistently meet the precise specifications set for that item - as regards material of construction consistency, strength, heat treatment levels (where required), dimensions, tolerances, fit - as well as any other specified engineering parameters, such as resistance to rust, chemicals, temperature extremes, UV light, and other degrading forces.
Many European vehicles do not meet Australian operating conditions satisfactorily, as they are designed to meet European operating conditions, which are often substantially different to Australian conditions.
One item that bugs me is the constant lack of attention in motor vehicle design, to electronic and electrical robustness, and protection from adverse elements in operation.
Exposed and poorly protected wiring harness connectors and other electrical connectors, that become coated in salt (via salt-laden moisture from strong sea breezes) - that also become coated in ironstone gravel dust, which is corrosive and which reacts rapidly with metals and metal coatings - are a primary factor in vehicle breakdown problems.
The second factor is the continued replacement of steel parts with varying types of plastic components. Window regulator gears are one typical source of complaint in this reduction in build quality, but they are not the only item.
"Lowering build cost" is a mantra practised by all manufacturers. The instant an item is produced, it meets competition, and the bean counters are always looking for ways to save a dollar.
Every 5c saved in construction of a finished item, goes towards the bottom line.
If 5c can be shaved off the cost of producing just one component - and there's 100,000 of those components being produced annually - then the savings are substantial.
Quality is represented by an item that is still performing reliably long after its designed and expected lifespan has been reached.
I can recall reading just recently how the Toyota 4 cyl 5R series engine of the 1970's was designed to have an operating life in commercial use of 300,000 miles (500,000 kms).
I have rarely seen one of those motors worn out. They suffer other ailments such as severe corrosion in the cooling system, which usually ends their life - but they would have still been running if the cooling system hadn't been neglected.
This is what was typical of the quality provided by early Toyota, that gave Toyota its legendary name for build quality. If only they hadn't dropped quality levels in their pursuit of massive production increases, then they would still have had that reputation for quality.
The item should perform without failure, deformation, or other mechanical deterioration, over the projected life span of the item.
The item must be able to cope with wear and tear and not be degraded by expected working conditions, or degraded by contact with expected contaminants under normal usage.
Problems arise when items are used outside their planned usage parameters, or are abused beyond any expected normal levels of stress.
Quality Control is producing an item to consistently meet the precise specifications set for that item - as regards material of construction consistency, strength, heat treatment levels (where required), dimensions, tolerances, fit - as well as any other specified engineering parameters, such as resistance to rust, chemicals, temperature extremes, UV light, and other degrading forces.
Many European vehicles do not meet Australian operating conditions satisfactorily, as they are designed to meet European operating conditions, which are often substantially different to Australian conditions.
One item that bugs me is the constant lack of attention in motor vehicle design, to electronic and electrical robustness, and protection from adverse elements in operation.
Exposed and poorly protected wiring harness connectors and other electrical connectors, that become coated in salt (via salt-laden moisture from strong sea breezes) - that also become coated in ironstone gravel dust, which is corrosive and which reacts rapidly with metals and metal coatings - are a primary factor in vehicle breakdown problems.
The second factor is the continued replacement of steel parts with varying types of plastic components. Window regulator gears are one typical source of complaint in this reduction in build quality, but they are not the only item.
"Lowering build cost" is a mantra practised by all manufacturers. The instant an item is produced, it meets competition, and the bean counters are always looking for ways to save a dollar.
Every 5c saved in construction of a finished item, goes towards the bottom line.
If 5c can be shaved off the cost of producing just one component - and there's 100,000 of those components being produced annually - then the savings are substantial.
Quality is represented by an item that is still performing reliably long after its designed and expected lifespan has been reached.
I can recall reading just recently how the Toyota 4 cyl 5R series engine of the 1970's was designed to have an operating life in commercial use of 300,000 miles (500,000 kms).
I have rarely seen one of those motors worn out. They suffer other ailments such as severe corrosion in the cooling system, which usually ends their life - but they would have still been running if the cooling system hadn't been neglected.
This is what was typical of the quality provided by early Toyota, that gave Toyota its legendary name for build quality. If only they hadn't dropped quality levels in their pursuit of massive production increases, then they would still have had that reputation for quality.
Last edited by onetrack; 25th Sep 2012 at 15:41. Reason: sp...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or, put more simply
Beer, the universal specific. When I was a lad, beer was infinitely better. (Full stop). Why, because the lads knew what a ****e beer tasted like and, they just would not drink it. Times change and the new "fellahin" being raised and fed on a less quality accepted the deficiency as normal. Ergo: marginal beer becomes normal, bad beer acceptable; and, the hell of it all. Bad beer rules and the mutts keeps drinking it.
Go for 'em Sunny. Quality etc......
Go for 'em Sunny. Quality etc......
Last edited by Kharon; 25th Sep 2012 at 15:57.
Thread Starter
Oh Dear! Poor Mr. Hilter - demonstrating the exact fallacy that cost Britain most of its automotive industry:
I learned the hard way that Britain had lost its way when it came to quality.
I first bought a used Triumph motorcycle in 1969 and then discovered that for an oil change it was necessary (and specified in the manual for chrissake!) to remove the engine mounting bolts, loosen the chain and raise the engine in the frame to remove the sump plug which was located directly above the frame downtube.**
Some years later I bought a Jaguar XJ6 - and discovered exactly the same problem - brilliant conceptual design followed by miserable detail design and rotten execution: Lucas electrics - says it all really.
Let me tell you Mr. Hilter; a 1972 Mazda 323 has more "quality" in it than a Range Rover or Jaguar and probably still has to this day if Britain hasn't learned that basic lesson.
Of course the Mazda 323 is an "inferior" compared to the great name of Jaguar. However it starts every day. It does exactly what its designer intended it to do, no more and no less. It does it reliably. It is easily maintainable because its designers designed it to be easily maintainable. In other words, it is fit for exactly the purpose its designers intended it for. A Jaguar is not, unless endless unscheduled visits to the garage are part of the design brief.
Craigieburn also understands. I love "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance". While this is a work of philosophy the key question - confusing the name and outward characteristics of something with its true nature is brought out in a story about motorcycle maintenance:
Our hero, call him Phaedrus, is riding across America with a friend who is riding a BMW. The BMW handlebars are slipping and they need to be shimmed to get some compression and stop it. They need some shim. Phaedrus cuts up an aluminium can to make a shim......
The friend refuses to let him fit it to his BMW to fix the problem because the shim is made from a Coke can and is not a BMW shim even though that item would be identical.
Phaedrus tries to argue with him but his mind is made up - the shim is not named a BMW handlebar shim, so the problem cannot be fixed. Same deal as Mr. Hilter - a BMW shim must be quality, one made from a Coke can cannot be.
One can argue that a Bonanza is quality, but the old C172 still seems to chug along all right. The worst "quality" aircraft I've flown is a Tobago - brilliant design features like gull wing doors which permanently leak - right on where the POh is kept, and ribbon style gauges that require tapping all the time to get them to work.
** Yes I know, there was no need to change the oil. Wait long enough and it drained itself all over the garage floor.
Quality does not equal fitness for purpose....................
...........................
............a person may catch the bus to work everday. It is undeniably fit for purpose, however arriving at the office in a Rolls Royce is quality.
...........................
............a person may catch the bus to work everday. It is undeniably fit for purpose, however arriving at the office in a Rolls Royce is quality.
I first bought a used Triumph motorcycle in 1969 and then discovered that for an oil change it was necessary (and specified in the manual for chrissake!) to remove the engine mounting bolts, loosen the chain and raise the engine in the frame to remove the sump plug which was located directly above the frame downtube.**
Some years later I bought a Jaguar XJ6 - and discovered exactly the same problem - brilliant conceptual design followed by miserable detail design and rotten execution: Lucas electrics - says it all really.
Let me tell you Mr. Hilter; a 1972 Mazda 323 has more "quality" in it than a Range Rover or Jaguar and probably still has to this day if Britain hasn't learned that basic lesson.
Of course the Mazda 323 is an "inferior" compared to the great name of Jaguar. However it starts every day. It does exactly what its designer intended it to do, no more and no less. It does it reliably. It is easily maintainable because its designers designed it to be easily maintainable. In other words, it is fit for exactly the purpose its designers intended it for. A Jaguar is not, unless endless unscheduled visits to the garage are part of the design brief.
Craigieburn also understands. I love "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance". While this is a work of philosophy the key question - confusing the name and outward characteristics of something with its true nature is brought out in a story about motorcycle maintenance:
Our hero, call him Phaedrus, is riding across America with a friend who is riding a BMW. The BMW handlebars are slipping and they need to be shimmed to get some compression and stop it. They need some shim. Phaedrus cuts up an aluminium can to make a shim......
The friend refuses to let him fit it to his BMW to fix the problem because the shim is made from a Coke can and is not a BMW shim even though that item would be identical.
Phaedrus tries to argue with him but his mind is made up - the shim is not named a BMW handlebar shim, so the problem cannot be fixed. Same deal as Mr. Hilter - a BMW shim must be quality, one made from a Coke can cannot be.
One can argue that a Bonanza is quality, but the old C172 still seems to chug along all right. The worst "quality" aircraft I've flown is a Tobago - brilliant design features like gull wing doors which permanently leak - right on where the POh is kept, and ribbon style gauges that require tapping all the time to get them to work.
** Yes I know, there was no need to change the oil. Wait long enough and it drained itself all over the garage floor.
Last edited by Sunfish; 25th Sep 2012 at 20:50.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right sunny,
its a given, that if it was made by the pommes, you need a whole different tool kit, and a degree in muppetry to fix anything they produce. On any day, it'll be a given that you're fixing something, or dialing for a tow truck
its a given, that if it was made by the pommes, you need a whole different tool kit, and a degree in muppetry to fix anything they produce. On any day, it'll be a given that you're fixing something, or dialing for a tow truck
'Sunny' that was a good read thanks Reminds me of when I was a mech in another life where I did my apprenticeship mostly on Pommie junk, Jags featured well in my early years. I owned a Jag once (420G) the biggest of them all at the time. I bought it 'cause I liked the look of it & the 'quality' ( a very subjective word) was in the feel/look of the machine, that's where that word ended. Typical of ALL Pommie junk they had no idea of anything beyond looks. The 'E' type the best 'looking' car ever I reckon but that's where it ended, a mechanical monster!
The DH104 I used to 'drive' flew great felt very stable but man the ergonomics in the cockpit was zero! I don't think the word Ergonomic had been dreamed up way back then even if it had have the Pommes would just make another cuppa & say now where shall we put this switch?
At the end of the day 'quality' has a price tag attached to it & really has very little meaning to anything. My idea of a 'quality' car is one that does the task in the most basic way, the rest is pure window dressing:-).
Wmk2
Reminds me of when I was a mech in another life where I did my apprenticeship mostly on Pommie junk, Jags featured well in my early years. I owned a Jag once (420G) the biggest of them all at the time. I bought it 'cause I liked the look of it & the 'quality' ( a very subjective word) was in the feel/look of the machine, that's where that word ended. Typical of ALL Pommie junk they had no idea of anything beyond looks. The 'E' type the best 'looking' car ever I reckon but that's where it ended, a mechanical monster!The DH104 I used to 'drive' flew great felt very stable but man the ergonomics in the cockpit was zero! I don't think the word Ergonomic had been dreamed up way back then even if it had have the Pommes would just make another cuppa & say now where shall we put this switch?
At the end of the day 'quality' has a price tag attached to it & really has very little meaning to anything. My idea of a 'quality' car is one that does the task in the most basic way, the rest is pure window dressing:-).
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 26th Sep 2012 at 07:12.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: london
Age: 52
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunny, thanks for the good (as usual) read, but please, I neither want nor deserve your pity.
I know sod all about cars except that RR are supposed to be good 'quality'. Must've read it somewhere as I've never owned one. Also used the bus analogy as I didn't want to upset too many by singling out one brand of car that I've heard was not such good 'quality', (apologies to all bus enthuiasts).
I know even less about bikes as I've only ridden one once, when I was 13 or 14, on a boggy field, somewhere in Ireland. The chain came off, followed by me, and I've never ridden one again. The Zen book sounds like a good read though.
And thanks for your review of 'The British Automotive Industry and Mr Hilter's Part in it's Downfall'. A worthy effort on my part as I've spent the last quarter century, and more than half my life, living in the same country as your good self. Oh, and I've never worked in the automotive industry - only aviation, where coincidently I did work on Jaguars, but they were designated 'Gr1' not 'XJ6'. (Hell, I don't even work on my own (American) car; I 'get a man' to do it and pay him).
As I said in my previous post, I enjoy reading yours. This one almost fell into the 'over my head category', but it was directed to me so I sort of got it.
taily, your point is moot. You're bringing cost/cost effectiveness into the discussion. My interpretation of Sunny's original point was that cost was immaterial. Hence it was a case of did the product carry out the task it was purchased for and if it did, was it to a high/higher/highest standard.
Therefore, in the bus you get to stop every few hundred metres, sit with someone you may or may not like and then get to walk the final few hundred steps to your place of work. In the RR you get to park in the company carpark, after driving to work in comfort, with your own choice of background music.
I know sod all about cars except that RR are supposed to be good 'quality'. Must've read it somewhere as I've never owned one. Also used the bus analogy as I didn't want to upset too many by singling out one brand of car that I've heard was not such good 'quality', (apologies to all bus enthuiasts).
I know even less about bikes as I've only ridden one once, when I was 13 or 14, on a boggy field, somewhere in Ireland. The chain came off, followed by me, and I've never ridden one again. The Zen book sounds like a good read though.
And thanks for your review of 'The British Automotive Industry and Mr Hilter's Part in it's Downfall'. A worthy effort on my part as I've spent the last quarter century, and more than half my life, living in the same country as your good self. Oh, and I've never worked in the automotive industry - only aviation, where coincidently I did work on Jaguars, but they were designated 'Gr1' not 'XJ6'. (Hell, I don't even work on my own (American) car; I 'get a man' to do it and pay him).
As I said in my previous post, I enjoy reading yours. This one almost fell into the 'over my head category', but it was directed to me so I sort of got it.
taily, your point is moot. You're bringing cost/cost effectiveness into the discussion. My interpretation of Sunny's original point was that cost was immaterial. Hence it was a case of did the product carry out the task it was purchased for and if it did, was it to a high/higher/highest standard.
Therefore, in the bus you get to stop every few hundred metres, sit with someone you may or may not like and then get to walk the final few hundred steps to your place of work. In the RR you get to park in the company carpark, after driving to work in comfort, with your own choice of background music.
Last edited by mister hilter; 27th Sep 2012 at 03:27.