Hacker News Reader

My best friend (and first co-founder) died in a crash after hitting a tree at 48mph in a BMW 5-series.

I used to hold the same assumptions you did, particularly #'s 4 & 5. In my friend's case, the firewall gave & the engine came into the cockpit & exploded, splitting the driver in half & burning my friend past the point of recovery.

The fireball from the explosion marked the tree, the street, & the lawn for a 20-30 foot radius around the crash site, unbelievable that it could be created by one car.

It made me realize that the engines in these cars are optimized for serious performance and they can only be so safe. In this case, a C250 is getting 200+ horsepower out of a small 1.8l engine. Cranking at 80mph, I'm not sure there's anyway to avoid this sort of explosion or for the safety measures to kick in fast enough.

Just my two cents. Obviously I don't know the details here, but I did want to add that even a 48mph collision into a tree at a particular angle can very well create a really large explosion.

-h

> 7. Who are these LANewsLOUDLABS people? Why are they filming a) the red light at that gas station, b) the accident site shortly after (but going through side streets as opposed to simply going straight and making a right turn?) and c) have an LAPD police scanner (LAPD uses trunked communication, you need a $500+ scanner, of course, accessible to anyone (and legal) with $500.00. But a, b, and c just seem odd...

> 8. You can tell briefly that the car used by "news" above has a silver exterior. I'm not sure of the make/model, does NOT really sound like a V8 to me, maybe a turbo 6... Driver saying "oh shit" seems genuine, if that makes a difference.

If there was a conspiracy here (and I am not saying one way or the other), then why would these people be involved? Why would the conspiracy organizers throw in extraneous details that would only serve to arouse suspicion?

It's like 9/11 conspiracies... if you were a shady CIA dude who wanted to start a war by flying some planes into buildings, why wouldn't you actually just fly planes into buildings? All the things that 9/11 conspiracy theorists point to are not things that would make sense from the perspective from a conspiracy organizer. Thermite, empty drone planes, missles? Why not just actually use a plane?

Similarly, why not just let the local news cover the planned crash as they normally would, or not give a shit if they don't? If I were planning some sort of conspiracy, that's how I'd do it...

Firefighter/EMT, with roughly a decade of experience. I've seen many (at least dozens) of high speed crashes, and several (half a dozen) fiery wrecks.

> 1) He was going fast, really fast.

Yep

> 2) He ran a red light (there's always a reason for this: alcohol, bad judgment, being chased by someone, etc.)

Yep

> 3) Vehicle burst into flames - but when?

Likely at the moment of impact. There are a number of possible ignition sources. The most likely is some amount of fuel (this wouldn't need to be much) splashing on something hot enough to ignite it. Once it's burning, it wouldn't take long for it to spread to other fuel sources (including brush and grass underneath the vehicle).

> 4) Engine and transmission over 200 feet away from crash site (tree)

See point 1. He was going very fast. I've seen similar things happen at similar speeds.

> 5) That roof is gone, there's a big hole with flames shooting out - but this car has a panorama sunroof. That glass shattering + high impact collision = hole.

Makes sense.

> 6) Any arson specialists, chemists - feel free to chime in on the pattern, color, position, spread of the burns at 3:00 of the video.

The burn pattern is pretty consistent with most vehicle fires I've seen. The primary fuel source isn't the gas, it's the cushions and other plastic stuff on the interior. The gas likely started the fire, but it's extremely unlikely the tank failed catastrophically, so the amount of gas available to the fire was likely pretty minimal (just what was leaking out of a small puncture or something like that). Note how the paint is burned off the top 3/4 of the driver's door, as if the fire were coming down from the top. That's due to the contents of the car burning, not the fuel underneath the car.

> 7) The cockpit is intact - so is the drivers seat - the engine is gone, the car is badly damaged in the front, but if there was no fire, I'd say bad injuries but alive. Fire killed the guy.

There's no way to know what his condition was prior to the fire. If he was unbelted, he was dead. Even if he was belted, that's a huge deceleration for his body to deal with. In 'straight line' deceleration like that, the heart keeps moving when the rib cage stops (either after hitting the seat belt or the steering wheel), but the aorta is anchored to the rear of the chest cavity, so it gets torn, so the heart is no longer able to produce any meaningful impact, blood pressure falls almost instantly and some definition of death occurs within seconds. There are plenty of other ways to end up dead (or dying) in a car collision, that's just a moderately common one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_aortic_rupture#Featur...

Trying to consolidate all the red flags in one place:

1. "How is another question." No it isn't. Gasoline is how cars blow up when they hit trees.

2. "Video dissolves moments later (something was cut from it)" This is called editing; it's used when interesting things stop happening.

3. " over 200 feet" Or, as some reports have it, 'over 100 feet'. Shouldn't be hard to measure the exact distance from Google maps or someone can go there.

4. "not sure a C-250 fuel tank (17.4 gallons) could create that big of a fireball?" This is random FUD. It's not hard to find images of similar sized cars exploding on Google.

5. "All electrical systems, fuel, combustion, etc. would be disconnected for this reason." The fuel tank isn't made of adamantium.

Your answers are not scientific, even as pat as they may be.

Cars don't "blow up" though they may catch fire.

Images of cars exploding on Google?

Adamantium?

Whatever, just keep repeating this sort of stuff and maybe some more people will believe you.

> Adamantium?

Sophomore year high school physics time, back of the envelope edition:

  Car mass: ~1500kg
  Car velocity: lower bound, 80mph?  lets call it 35 m/s

  Ek = 1/2 mv^2

  Wolfram Alpha cheat: .5 * 1500 kg * (35 m/s)^2 = .91 megajoules

Stopping that car with a tree dumps damn near a megajoule of energy somewhere (and that is before you consider the potential energy in the gas!). You can bet your ass a significant portion of that energy is going to be spent rapidly "disassembling" that car.

This is a more compelling argument since it presents actual substance, but it doesn't change what I was saying about the post I was replying to, nor does it change what was posted.

Congrats on your sophmore year high school physics, not real big on passive aggressiveness but I am big on logic and well-reasoned arguments. :P

>>> Congrats on your sophmore year high school physics, not real big on passive aggressiveness

The irony.

That's ... just like your opinion man. I am enjoying the mod-bombing though. :D

"Cars don't "blow up" though they may catch fire."

Gasoline fuel tanks can explode. Google it.

"Images of cars exploding on Google?"

Google it. It's a thing.

"Adamantium?"

This is called making a point through absurdity. Fuel tanks are made of steel or plastic. Neither of those is unbreakable.

"Whatever, just keep repeating this sort of stuff and maybe some more people will believe you."

Maybe. I do have the full backing of the Conspiracy of Lizard Peop---

> Gasoline fuel tanks can explode. Google it.

They do, but it's extremely rare (thanks to modern inventions like pressure relief valves). When a fuel tank explodes, it's not because the fuel inside detonates, it's because the fuel inside is being vaporized by the heat of the external fire, and that vapor takes up a whole lot more space, resulting in a huge pressure increase, resulting in a BLEVE. If a pressure release valve can vent the pressure before that happens, no explosion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_liquid_expanding_vapor_...

That being said... I doubt there was actually an explosion. The car simply caught fire. There were certainly pops and bangs as various compressed gas cylinders (for things like air bags, doors, bumpers, seatbelts, etc) BELEVE'd, but I seriously doubt there was any major explosion. The 'bomb' sounds were simply the crash itself.

As a young child I vividly recall my parents car catching fire and burning out. I think it was a Morris Marina. Fuel line perished and by design genius, it crossed the exhaust something like seven times we were later told. Anyway, the fire caught and was though the dash before the car came to a halt. We bundled out, and moments later the fire brigade turned up, as the station was just around the corner. They were very relieved that the fuel tank was full, and this significantly decreased the risk of explosion. It seems logical too, as a lack of vapour makes it harder to ignite.

Vehicle fires are some of the most nerve-wracking fires you'll ever respond to...

Always approach from a corner, sweep the hose stream under the vehicle to push out any burning fluids, then flood the interior with as much water as you have.

There are so many things in a car that will try to hurt you... Those little hydraulic cylinders that prop up your rear hatch? When those heat up enough to cook off, they'll drive that rod through your leg... The compressed gas cylinders that give the bumpers their 'bumpiness' will kick the bumper out hard enough to break a knee... Hopefully the fire hasn't gotten hot enough to ignite the magnesium that is in a lot of modern vehicles... And here's hoping electric car manufacturers really know their stuff... A lithium fire doesn't sound like fun at all.

if I may go slightly off-topic, what is it with the conspiracy "gurus", where they can have a lot of really good, sourced (seriously) information, but then they throw the crazy in there to completely discredit themselves? I bet David Icke has enough charm/charisma to be elected to office and affect real change in the world, if he would just stay quiet about the lizard people.

Steko, all I'm saying is your post and the followup you made are not very useful because: Strawmen up the wazoo, arguing from hyperbole (Adamantium, Lizard People reference?), of course Google is a thing (this part of your post is a non sequitur).

People like you are just as bad as the conspiracy nuts mate. All I'm asking is less noise and more signal bud.

The conspiracy nuts are worse.

> Adamantium?

Don't drink it.

Don't smoke it.

What do you do with it?

I did a fire training with the ALMS safety team a few years back at Sebring. We started with lighting 1/4 gallon of 100 octane (15% ethanol) race fuel then by the end we used 1 gallon spilled on the concrete. The 1 gallon fire was over 20 feet high and took 20 seconds for a volunteer to put out with AFFF-AR suppressant. That demonstration woke all of us up very fast considering the cars carry upwards of 19 gallons.

Here, I'll try to deal with the fire, which I admit is impressive.

Night time photography with amateur video equipment usually results in overexposed frames, especially when filming fire. It makes videos of fires appear as though the fire is bigger than it would have appeared in person. Keep that in mind while viewing the video. Try it out some time with your cell phone.

That the car is completely engulfed isn't suspicious. All of the upholstery is flammable. Cars burn quickly once the interior becomes involved because they are usually not starved for fuel (upholstery) or air (windows broken, doors open).

The car should be engineered so that there will not be a fuel tank breach in a non-fatal collision. If we assume this is so, we can assume:

1. Velocity was high enough to breach the tank with impact. Engine/transmission being ejected can help us find the velocity at impact. It continued to travel some distance indicating a high velocity, as most crashes never have the engine/transmission separate from the vehicle.

2. Tank was damaged by the collision with the curb or by collision with the fire hydrant immediately prior to final collision, weakening it, making it more likely for the tank to rupture and spill fuel.

3. Vehicle tampering. The car could have been tampered with to make a fire more likely.

4. Manufacturing defect. (unlikely)

If we assume 1. it doesn't necessarily mean the crash was fatal, just that Hastings was unlucky. Mercedes have lots of safety built in. Hastings was young and fit enough to survive an airbag collision. In any case, this one shouldn't be rejected until the final velocity is calculated. Looks plausible to me.

Personally I lean towards 2, making Hastings very unlucky. Two means that the final collision caused a catastrophic failure of the tank and probably doused fuel all over the car, which later ignited[1], and moments after that caused a secondary ignition of the upholstery, burning him. I hope he was unconscious.

I don't like to think about three, even though it isn't without precedent. Talking about three is even worse. I'd say this is least likely, but I wouldn't rule it out. This whole affair smells, and I don't like it one bit.

[1] The source of ignition was probably the catalytic converter, or an electrical short/spark.

Cars are quite combustable, even without fuel. Firemen hate car fires. Pretty much everything inside them burns pretty horribly.

It's like modern homes and offices. I forget the statistics, but it was something like 30 minutes to get someone out of a house in the old days, now down to 10 minutes. And they say it takes forever to get rid of the smell of burning plastic, if they've gone in while it's burning.

It looks like LAnewsLOUDLABS are graffiti artists who stay up all night filming accidents and crime scenes to sell to TV stations. Regarding the scanner, you can listen to LAPD with an iPhone app. The car starting on fire is similar to what happened in Ryan Dunn's accident.

> 2) He ran a red light (there's always a reason for this: alcohol, bad judgment, being chased by someone, etc.)

This is the most interesting part of the story to me. Even if he was drunk, I'm finding it hard to believe he would race through a light at that speed.

This is the most interesting fact. There's video cameras everywhere and he had to know that. The reasonable answer seems to be a medical issue.

Really? Maybe it's just my perspective reading safety reports in the Navy, but "drunk guy driving fast in completely wrong area" is not at all unusual.

In regards to #7, it looks like they film stuff like this often

http://www.youtube.com/user/LAnewsLOUDLABS/videos

I bought a Uniden trunked scanner for $140 from Radio Shack in 2000.

#2 - footage shows 3 cars run the red light in rapid succession, which was edited out of the version on Youtube.

1min 9s on: http://embed.newsinc.com/Single/iframe.html?WID=2&VID=248956...

It's the exact same sequence repeated 3 times, not 3 different cars.

Good point.

How do you know he was going 80+ mph? That second video looks really sped up.