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, e

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.