PT Cruiser survives an IED

[robinjoe]

A small Improvised Explosive Device (bomb) was placed and detonated under a PT Cruiser. See news story:
http://tinyurl.com/zz7tu

It's good to know the gas tank didn't explode, and damage to the car was minor.

Any suspects? I'm guessing it was one of those jealous Mini Cooper S drivers.

[quicksilverdon]

The Maffia. [:I]
No, it would've blown the car away if it were the Maffia. [:0]

[fritz_t_coyote]

quote:Originally posted by robinjoe


It's good to know the gas tank didn't explode,

Gas tanks rarely 'explode' outside of Hollywood. Rupture and spill flaming gas, yes, but not 'Big Hollywood Movie Explosions'.

[Hooligan]

Fritz, it sounds as if you have had Fire Fighters training. The tires on a vehicle are more dangerous exploding than the gas tank.

[robinjoe]

quote:Originally posted by Hooligan

Fritz, it sounds as if you have had Fire Fighters training. The tires on a vehicle are more dangerous exploding than the gas tank.

Doesn't it depend on how empty the tank is? My understanding is that a near-empty tank is more likely to explode because of the fumes, which are explosive (whereas the gasoline will just burn).

I would think that a bomb's explosion would be more likely to introduce a spark to the gas-air mixture within the tank than a normal crash.

[fritz_t_coyote]

robinjoe: click on Hooligans name... note his past profession.

gas tanks are not designed to explode. They rupture too easily and merely dump out burning gasoline, which is not a day at the beach, but is not KABOOM.

As for cars powered by LNG .... those cylinders scare me.

And Dont Get Me Started on Hydrogen Cars. (Can you say "Hindenberg"?)

(Hooligan: Back in the 70s I was on a CD/Aux PD team and had just enough first responder training to keep from making things worse. My incident scene contribution was usually limited to directing traffic.)

quote:Originally posted by robinjoe

Doesn't it depend on how empty the tank is? My understanding is that a near-empty tank is more likely to explode because of the fumes, which are explosive (whereas the gasoline will just burn).

I would think that a bomb's explosion would be more likely to introduce a spark to the gas-air mixture within the tank than a normal crash.

[Hooligan]

If you remembger the Chevy Corvairs and Ralph Nader vs. the Corvair gas tank. I guess the Ford Pinto's had the same problem when rear-ended. Gas tanks were redesigned a short time after.

[fritz_t_coyote]

quote:Originally posted by Hooligan

If you remembger the Chevy Corvairs and Ralph Nader vs. the Corvair gas tank. I guess the Ford Pinto's had the same problem when rear-ended. Gas tanks were redesigned a short time after.

Naders big gripe against the Corvair was the rear engine combined with swing-arm independent rear suspension could cause a transition to oversteer that was different from tradition American Understeer.

Also: GM won ALL of the Corvair lawsuits. But by then, the damage was done, and the economical, great handling "poor man's porsche" was doomed by Nader's Big Lie.

The Pinto Gas tanks: Mounted too far back, too easy to rupture in an accident.
Rupture, Fuel Spill, and Crashing Cars Not Done Moving= Sparks.
This caused gasoline fires, (not Big Hollywood Movie Explosions), often with tragic results.

I still thing automakers should be required to use racing-style 'fuel cells' (the kind with self-sealing connections and internal bladders, not the kind that makes electric for H2 and O2).