• Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Also in automobiles doors are expected to absorb the impact of side-collisions, which are very common.

    The more one merelly thinks about it beyond the purelly superficial first order perspective, the more reasons pop-up not to have a fuel tank on a door.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Tanks full of liquid do quite well a dispersing energy. Think of water barrels on the US highway. The liquid just needs to be able to escape.

      So we just need to make it an open fuel tank. Problem solved.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Wouldn’t it be better to make the fuel tank purposefully explode in case of a collision and direct the energy of the explosion outwards, like reactive armor?

        I mean, what could ever go wrong with that idea???

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Or, hear me out, add some nozzles that require very high pressure to activate that shoot flames at the thing trying to crash into you to scare it off or burn it up before it has a chance to get through the door. Then accidents will have to think twice–maybe even three times–before they pop up out of nowhere while you’re doing normal everyday things like sneaking through a red light (if you roll slowly enough, you can try to argue that you were pretty much stopped the whole time. It’s not a crime, it’s a great way to save time.)