You are not theoretically wrong
But let's just see how it goes.
In such case, the car would have to fly (more like jump) over the obstacle. Now either
1. it goes down fast, definately harming the driver like falling from the sky.
2. Or it sustains its elevated position long enough to land smoothly. (Or stay in the air) Meaning any living thing under it would be torched by those thrusters. Plus damage to the obstacle. (Someone pointed it out that the car used for demonstration behaves too light and possibly lacks a lot of gear. Real weight needs a lot of thrusting)
Either way, those engines are more safery hazards than feul consumption problems
And if it fails to avoid the accident, the odds that one of those tanks gets punctured is high considering the space they take up. That would just turn the whole vehicle into a bomb.
You’re talking about something catching on fire vs what would be more akin to a bomb going off.
A doubt a car bursting into flames is going to turn pieces of the car into flying shrapnel the same way a pressurized tank rapidly degassing would. If the gas tank is punctured, you still need a flame or spark. A fender bender can cause a pressurized tank to rupture and instantly release all that stored up energy.
2
u/autoadman 18h ago edited 17h ago
You are not theoretically wrong
But let's just see how it goes.
In such case, the car would have to fly (more like jump) over the obstacle. Now either
1. it goes down fast, definately harming the driver like falling from the sky.
2. Or it sustains its elevated position long enough to land smoothly. (Or stay in the air) Meaning any living thing under it would be torched by those thrusters. Plus damage to the obstacle. (Someone pointed it out that the car used for demonstration behaves too light and possibly lacks a lot of gear. Real weight needs a lot of thrusting)
Either way, those engines are more safery hazards than feul consumption problems