At the cost of letting a fire burn and potentially causing more damage and risk?
I’m all for the guys window getting smashed, but not when it is obviously hampering their ability to put the fire out, not to mention kinking the hose.
If they damaged the car as a part of their job? no issues.
If the person who parked there got a massive fine, get the car towed, whatever the law says, sure!
But a dude whose job it is to stop a fire that's currently happening and instead he decides to enact his revenge on some car, wasting time that could be crucial and taking law into his own hands?
No thanks.
But I don't even live over there, you can keep shit like this and be happy about it for all I care.
If my momma was burning I'd be pissed they were currently having anger issues and unnecessarily breaking a window to prove a point instead of just doing their job first.
Firefighters are mostly awesome. This is not a part of that.
No shot. The easier way was to back that truck up 2 feet or run it over the hood. It's definitely to set a precedent and send a message. But it did take time and compromise water flow.
So then give a ticket. Don’t take risk on the block burning down to prove a point. Break the window when necessary, what the ff has done here was actually harmful to putting out the fire.
It's not to teach them a lesson, it's the distribute the weight of the hose in a fashion the car can handle. Windows are cheaper to replace than the frame of the car.
Can't believe I'm engaging with you on this, but on the off chance you're serious:
The roof of the car will handle the distributed load better than the doors, seats, and anything in the interior that the hose is sitting on. The roof provides a continuous surface for the hose to rest on.
But even aside from all that, unless they recently started using a 50% tungsten solution in those water lines to fight fires, the hose is nowhere near heavy enough to damage the frame of the car.
Also when they’re done they get to drag the hose back through the interior of the car spilling as much water as they can inside of it. This is malice. They could have parked the truck a couple of feet back and saved a lot more time.
The car was parked too close to the hydrant for what’s legal in NYC for sure. But they didn’t need to spend time breaking its windows when a building was burning down in front of them.
I can't believe I'm engaging with you. You underestimate the weight and force of a fire hose. Try it someday. Again windows are cheaper the replacement and the hose needs to be stable... smh
You do see that they would have to purposefully angle the line with sharp angles to get it through the car windows when they could just lie it in front of the car and have a direct line to the rig?
Ya know, what they would do if the car weren’t there?
Assuming an inner diameter of 2.5" for the hose and 6' (or 72") for the width of the car, the weight applied on the roof of the car is volume of water in the hose times the density of water in pounds per cubic inch, or (pi x 1.25 x 1.25 x 72) x 0.036=12.7 pounds.
Force of the water flowing through the fire hose is negligible in this case, because the water is flowing out along the axis of the hose and the weight applied on the car roof is perpendicular to the axis of the hose.
So unless the fire hose weighs 50 pounds per foot, and I'd bet my paycheck that it's no more than 5 pounds per foot, the weight of the hose and water is not anywhere near enough to damage the frame of the car by sitting on the roof.
Please, I'm begging you, show me where my math is wrong.
The weight of the hoses? Let's say 8 feet of 4" hose, that's about 4lbs of hose and 160lbs of water. If the car's roof is compromised as to need replacement by 164lbs of static weight, then you may as well replace the car since it's made of paper mache.
4lbs of hose? You're clearly underestimating how heavy those are. Plus the force of the hose when fully extended. Keep telling me you've never handled one of these without telling me you've never handled one of these. Smh
Rubber is 0.75lbs/foot. Or around 80lbs for a 100ft section, with couplings. So maybe 6 lbs of hose for an overestimated 8ft section. Go on, demonstrate more your dearth of knowledge... How much hypothetical weight do you think would be on the car? Also, how much weight do you think the roof can take?
Have you ever seen a 3" hose under pressure? They don't bend, it has to be a gentle curve. Think very oversized garden hose made of layers ending with sandpaper (rough canvas) on the outer layer. If you kink the hose, no water. If you kink the hose and then release it rapidly you get a water hammer. You have then, most likely, damaged the hydrant.
You can't say "more" when you don't have a comparison of what it would look like without going through the windows here.
For all we know, that's fewer kinks than would have been present by bending the hose around or over the car. I kinda doubt it, but we don't know because there isn't a video of them doing that to this vehicle.
There is no flaw. You can definitely say things in comparison when you can make a reasonable assumption. In this case, the photo has several serious bends from the drivers window and out the passenger window. The hose is also positioned to go over the car even in the picture I attached. It can easily go over the car and have less links that way.
You can, but it won't hold weight if you are just speculating. You don't know if that's the best way to run he hose or not. Maybe this is a better way to ensure the hose remains still? It prevents it from being a tripping hazard, for sure.
Are you a firefighter with experience, or just another kniw-it-all who thinks their "reasonable assumptions" hold any weight?
There is zero scenario where draping the hose on top of this car and allowing it to find its own path between the hydrant and the engine results in more kinks than forcing it through the small rigid openings of two car windows.
1) Was it possible that the engineer could've pulled the rig back 10 feet to match with the intake? The rear supply line wasn't compromised or in use, but the attack line on the opposite side of the rig probably was in use, eliminating the ability of the engineer to disengage the pump (which was supplying water pressure to the attack line) and engage the drive shaft to reverse the necessary amount for the hookup.
2) The insurance adjuster is barely going to cover the damage to the roof of that car, instead of replacing a few windows. You're looking at a minimum of 1056 cubic inches (40lbs) of water pushing down, then you've got nearly 2.5x as much pulling down on both sides of the vehicle.
The engineer knew he needed a more level working area to account for gravity working against him, so he took the window pathway. He also knew that the crumple zones on the exterior area of the vehicle's doors worked better to evenly distribute the weight needed as the supply line inflated.
Remember that the weight of the supply line will also increase should the exterior sheaths become soaked.
So you're looking at over 120lbs of pressure, plus the static PSI from the hydrant itself.
Those car doors were built to endure such pressure, and I'm making the highly educated guess that the engineer knew this as well.
If the engineer has time, maybe dress the underside of the supply line area in contact with the door frames with towels, but this is something that an insurance adjuster will discuss with FDNY in the background and most likely rule that the engineer was justified in their decision.
Those hoses are super heavy when charged, and the outside of the hose often like sandpaper. It'll be vibrating and moving around as the pressure changes. You don't want that on your hood, trust me.
Fixing a window is much easier than fixing a dented hood and painting it. I've done both these repairs. Hood was a couple thousand dollars vs $200 for a window ($275 after re-tinting).
It's a silly measure, considering well under 1% of people do their own auto body repairs. Do you really think the idiot that parked this way does their own body work? You and I both know that's incredibly unlikely.
A 10 ft length of 5" dia. hose filled with water weighs in around 84 lbs. Even if you double that length. 168 lbs is not going to compromise a car's roof.
with the pressure coming from that hose going over the roof is not going to be good and it will reduce flow and waste pipe. Also, fuck that car he deserves it.
5.0k
u/[deleted] Jul 10 '24
I really wanted to know what happened so I went looking. If anyone is interested, our friend here starts his smashing around 18:32
Full Video here!