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?
See the comments from firefighters who say it is. I've seen a few of those, so what's your point? See the video where firefighters who are actively doing their job do so.
Do you have any actual articulable reasoning for "reasonably assuming" this is the worse way, or do you just assume it because you're addicted to outrage and/or a contrarian?
But man your life must be hard if you can’t even assume that there is a better way than picture and video shown.
🤣 But your logic isn't flawed 🙄 TF outta here with that crap, man. Ad hominem attacks because you're not capable of refuting my argument with anything substantial might make you feel better, but they expose your lack of logic immediately.
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.
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!