Lagusta: Abeg make we bone physics joor, this is practical.... The materials used to make a german machine are more durable, stronger and even more appealing to the eyes than those japanese toys

are u now trying to tell me that if it rammed into a trailer, na the trailer go first spoil baa?

Abeg make una no vex me for here ooo

dnt mind them.
U've given a very nice example here.
To test the strength of a new car, it is being made to collide wit a forged iron, in this case, d car gets damaged. And wen it rammed into a stationary trailer, it get damaged regardless!
Jes accept the point, the benz is stronger here.
Forget law of physics here follow law of power: the lower power bows!

Honestly, am appalled at the scientific knowledge displayed on this thread. Most people are just arguing for the sake of it. This case is indeed inelastic collision, with most of the energy converted into other forms, e.g. deformation of the Honda because it was the weakest.

I'm totally stunned that some people will proceed to comparing this to headbutting. Headbutting? Headbutting? Christ! Skeletal material? This is so far from subject. Some still are comparing it to bullets hitting a stationary person. Oh my!

If you seek to prove the hypothesis of the stationary object taking more damage, at least do that scientifically. Not just talk about it.

ziccoit: A moving object rammed into a stationary object. Which would be more damaged?science must have explained this in detail.

don't mind that ignorant fool.He never heard of Newtons 1st n 2nd laws.terrorist

simple physics...this is not a matter of german or american model. Newton's second law of motion explains this better. we should be more concerned if the benz is d one that is damaged here.

sauer:
Am not so sure about this. Theoretically, this would be an elastic collision where mass and energy will be conserved, even though we know there'll still be some loss to environment.

Because one body was stationary, it had zero velocity; it'll be set in motion by the other body of roughly equal mass. The theory says nothing about the stationary body getting more damaged than the moving body. Apparently, its potential energy was insufficient to take the full force of the moving Mercedes. As a result, it had to give way.

It is simple.. Avoid too much grama weh de confuse u..
PRACTICAL: jst stand errect at a point and let sm1 just suddenly tap u at your back. And tell me what your neck feel afterwards..

coogar:

the stationary object would be more damaged - that's physics......
if they collided with the same speed, then the smaller object would take more damage. it's about the mass and the velocity.

Olodo . . . its all about the strength of the materials comprising the two systems - Honda and Mercedes Benz. If a stationary wooden object gets rammed into by a another object covered in a malleable substance like soap or candle wax, do u think the wood will get damaged/deformed more at the expense of the malleable material? The wood may bounce back and change position based on the momentum(high Mass or high velocity) of the malleable object because action and reaction are equal and opp but will hardly get damaged. It is a purely a Strength of Material thing.

gboss4sure: Forget physics, if na the M Benz jamed a trailer now would you have brought physics into it.

How can you bring a trailer into the discussion Do you know how many tons an average trailer would weigh
This discussion pertains to objects of similar weight category. U don expect to punch a wall and the wall would cave.. except in movies.
Wise up dude!

BABE!:


Now the question is, are the skeletal materials for both cars the same ? Are their masses even the same ?

If a 150lbs human being headbutt a stationary 70lbs hard rock, the human being will suffer the most.

If the Honda was made of a much more stronger/relective material, it's very possible that more damage would have been done to the Benz.

Material does play an important role.

if a 150lbs human being headbutt a stationary 70lbs hardrock, the human being would suffer the most because his head weighs less than 20lbs. the point of contact is only his head and not his total 150lbs weight.

Sibrah: Olodo . . . its all about the strength of the materials comprising the two systems - Honda and Mercedes Benz. If a stationary wooden object gets rammed into by a another object covered in a malleable substance like soap or candle wax, do u think the wood will get damaged/deformed more at the expense of the wood? The wood may bounce back and change position based on the momentum(high Mass or high velocity) of the maleable object because action and reaction are equal and opp but will hardly get damaged. It is a purely a Strength of Material thing.

you must have failed physics in class - why are people bringing up ridiculous examples. the benz and the honda are both cars, shaped almost the same way and the point of collusion is almost the same surface area.....now they are using soap rammed into wood.

who is the olodo? with this idiotic logic of yours, it's not hard to see why you failed physics in your junior high!

Newtons 1st law says-A body remains in its stationary state or in constant motin unless external force is added(intoduced)Then 2nd law says dt"Action n reaction are equal and opposite".Poster I hope ur empty head can apply d laws rightly to d both car.MILLITANT

coogar:

if a 150lbs human being headbutt a stationary 70lbs hardrock, the human being would suffer the most because his head weighs less than 20lbs. the point of contact is only his head and not his total 150lbs weight.

Multiply the weight of the head by 10= 200lbs. If 10 men headbutt a 70lbs stationary HARD rock, they will all suffer.
The position of the rock might change, but the rock won't get the bruises.

When you're less busy, lets do some practicals.

BABE!:

Multiply the weight of the head by 10= 200lbs. If 10 men headbutt a 70lbs stationary HARD rock, they will all suffer.

When you're less busy, lets do some practicals.

they would destroy the rock.......if 10 yokozunas ram their backsides on a 70lb rock, the rock would flatten!

coogar:

they would destroy the rock.......if 10 yokozunas ram their backsides on a 70lb rock, the rock would flatten!

Depends on the material of the rock!

otokx: Honda no get weight compared to Benz na.

Try end of discussion.
Driving a benz makes me feel old. I don't know about you.

coogar:
the benz and the honda are both cars, shaped almost the same way and the point of collusion is almost the same surface area.....now they are using soap rammed into wood.

They're comparing soap and wood because, if Honda is made of a stronger material, the damage done shouldn't have been that much, or at least the Benz should be bruised equally.

Twin-Tiger:
Newtons 1st law says-A body remains in its stationary state or in constant motin unless external force is added(intoduced)Then 2nd law says dt"Action n reaction are equal and opposite".Poster I hope ur empty head can apply d laws rightly to d both car.MILLITANT

kaii, who be dis?? When mature minds are talking, you are here opening your toilet mouth...

The 2nd law states that the product of the mass and acceleration is a constant i.e F=ma

the third law states that action and reaction are equal and opposite....

So please, go back to 2go, or write GCE again,

you just came here abusing everybody, who is the terrorist and the militant now

coogar:

benz would not become stationary, it would still move after the collision, honda would also move some distance and thus taking some impact from the benz. that's simple logic. if the material both cars are made of is the key then the benz is considerably weightier than the honda. thicker material means bigger mass so m1 and m2 are not equal!



yes it does -
a moving object holds all the aces provided the moving object and the stationary object have roughly equal mass.

Of course, m1 is not equal to m2. I only set out with the variables you provided yourself up there. Remember? That's how I came about v2.
My argument is only that it had more to do with the material the Benz is made up of, and you just confirmed this, that the Benz is considerably weightier than the Honda. Proceeding from here, we can see why the Honda got dented.

Benz would move of course. That's because this is not a purely elastic collision. It can't be an elastic collision. In spite of that, the most of the energy involved in the collision didn't translate into full motion of the Honda. If the Honda subsequently moved at the speed at which the Benz hit it, then it wouldn't have got dented.

coogar:
you must have failed physics in class - why are people bringing up ridiculous examples. the benz and the honda are both cars, shaped almost the same way and the point of collusion is almost the same surface area.....now they are using soap rammed into wood.

who is the olodo? with this idiotic logic of yours, it's not hard to see why you failed physics in your junior high!

They are both cars but aren't made of the same material. Most newer cars have more plastics in them than the older cars. If action and reaction are equal and opp. You shld know that the impact on both sides are equal but the material strength will of the materials largely involved (Bumper and parts directly connected to the bumper) in the impact will determine the level of deformity experienced on both sides. The line of arguement you are presenting is what confused novice present anytime they get into such arguments as a result of accidents.

Really proceeding from a beautiful example Lagusta gave: if the Benz had rammed into a trailer, the trailer would get more damaged, right? smh!

sauer:
Of course, m1 is not equal to m2. I only set out with the variables you provided yourself up there. Remember? That's how I came about v2.
My argument is only that it had more to do with the material the Benz is made up of, and you just confirmed this, that the Benz is considerably weightier than the Honda. Proceeding from here, we can see why the Honda got dented.

i disagree......if the benz rammed into a stationary identical car, the damage would be the same. the honda is a car too made of steel, it's not a sheep or a bag of diapers.

Benz would move of course. That's because this is not a purely elastic collision. It can't be an elastic collision. In spite of that, the most of the energy involved in the collision didn't translate into full motion of the Honda. If the Honda subsequently moved at the speed at which the Benz hit it, then it wouldn't have got dented.

some of the energy would be converted to sound, heat, etc. in a nutshell, the picture is not conclusive enough.

Sibrah: They are both cars but aren't made of the same material. Most newer cars have more plastics in them than the older cars. If action and reaction are equal and opp. You shld know that the impact on both sides are equal but the material strength will of the materials largely involved (Bumper and parts directly connected to the bumper) in the impact will determine the level of deformity experienced on both sides. The line of arguement you are presenting is what confused novice present anytime they get into such arguments as a result of accidents.

so compare like for like.......don't use wood and wax as examples when the issue is about 2 cars.

sauer: Really proceeding from a beautiful example Lagusta gave: if the Benz had rammed into a trailer, the trailer would get more damaged, right? smh!

trailer is heavier....massive enough to take the momentum of the benz. let a speeding hummer ram into a stationary cocacola truck and let's see who would come off worse!

coogar:

they would destroy the rock.......if 10 yokozunas ram their backsides on a 70lb rock, the rock would flatten!

You clearly did not comprehend the topic concerning Newton's law with studying physics. They only thing that could help ur argument is the surface area of impacted area from both cars which appears to be favourable to the Honda in this case.

lol@headbutting
Upon further ponder,

INERTIA + ROLLING RESISTANCE
Both objects where reluctant to change state. The Mercedes wouldn't stop, the Honda wouldn't budge. The deciding factor( assuming equal strength of materials ) would be resistance to roll. Obviously the Honda had more resistance to its motion (probably in 'park') so, upon collision its tires would drag instead, dissipating most of the kinetic energy as vibrations(damage) along its structure.
The Mercedes would rock freely on its tires.

I don't even think weight or momentum plays much part in this.

i disagree......if the benz rammed into a stationary identical car, the damage would be the same. the honda is a car too made of steel, it's not a sheep or a bag of diapers.

Okay good. If the Benz rammed into a stationary identical Benz: think about it for a minute bro. . . .Identical. Stationary. The damage to both cars SHOULD, theoretically, be the same, everything being equal.

some of the energy would be converted to sound, heat, etc. in a nutshell, the picture is not conclusive enough.

I agree the picture is not conclusive. However, it doesn't mean we can't draw reasonable inferences. To this end, your earlier conclusions were wrong and from indications it appears you have seen this. You should admit you were wrong.

sauer:
Okay good. If the Benz rammed into a stationary identical Benz: think about it for a minute bro. . . .Identical. Stationary. The damage to both cars SHOULD, theoretically, be the same, everything being equal.

the damage to both cars cannot be the same - the stationary object would definitely come off worse. what are you telling me? it would absorb most of the impact while waiting like a sitting duck with the windows shattered!

I agree the picture is not conclusive. However, it doesn't mean we can't draw reasonable inferences. To this end, your earlier conclusions were wrong and from indications it appears you have seen this. You should admit you were wrong.

how can you draw inferences from assumptions?
if the honda had rammed into the benz in a stationary position, the benz would come off worse as well.

Physics class has started.........please make una wait 4 me oooo*where is my paper and biro?*

BoboYekini: lol@headbutting
Upon further ponder,

INERTIA + ROLLING RESISTANCE
Both objects where reluctant to change state. The Mercedes wouldn't stop, the Honda wouldn't budge. The deciding factor( assuming equal strength of materials ) would be resistance to roll. Obviously the Honda had more resistance to its motion (probably in 'park') so, upon collision its tires would drag instead, dissipating most of the kinetic energy as vibrations(damage) along its structure.
The Mercedes would rock freely on its tires.

I don't even think weight or momentum plays much part in this.

Oga, when you design cars you design them to take hits whether in park or moving positions. You factor in the amount of material and material quality that'll ensure that vibrations are even distributed around the car's streamlined body in case of hits.
Design and strength of material play pretty much equal roles here. Apparently, the Honda suffered more cause it couldn't successfully dissipate the energy the Mercedes transferred to it.

coogar:
so compare like for like.......don't use wood and wax as examples when the issue is about 2 cars.

That's waht i have been trying to say. In the making of car parts there are no hard and fast rule guiding which material goes into any component. An old benz i made of so many thick and relative more tensile steel as against The Honda car which is manufactured from Plastic/less tensile steel material to maximize profit. Get educated and stop derailing a interesting thread.

the damage to both cars cannot be the same - the stationary object would definitely come off worse. what are you telling me? it would absorb most of the impact while waiting like a sitting duck with the windows shattered!

You still don't mention how the stationary object would come off worse. That it's a "sitting duck" is not enough. It's an inanimate object and it is not aware or unaware, so no element of surprise as you might have in humans (shock).
Prove this first. Refer to external physics link bro.
Have you not witnessed rear end collisions that leave the moving vehicle worse off? It's only so cos rear ends are designed to reflect most of the energy from such collisions.

sauer: Honestly, am appalled at the scientific knowledge displayed on this thread. Most people are just arguing for the sake of it. This case is indeed inelastic collision, with most of the energy converted into other forms, e.g. deformation of the Honda because it was the weakest.

I'm totally stunned that some people will proceed to comparing this to headbutting. Headbutting? Headbutting? Christ! Skeletal material? This is so far from subject. Some still are comparing it to bullets hitting a stationary person. Oh my!

If you seek to prove the hypothesis of the stationary object taking more damage, at least do that scientifically. Not just talk about it.

You should know that everybody does not read science. Like some one said earlier, a lot of people here choose to run into the bush chasing grasscutter than attending Physics class when they were in secondary school .

mZ sleeq: Physics class has started.........please make una wait 4 me oooo*where is my paper and biro?*

Abi you take style wan take off? olodo!

I agree with those who believe that because the honda was stationary, it had more damage. It's a simple theory and it's true....take for instance, two guys...one's standing at a point and another runs and pushes him from nowhere, the stationary guy will fall because of the force. Now, imagine they are running from different sides towards each other , there is a tendency that both will fall or the stronger one will stand. You just can't prove that the honda's not strong because of this, try placing another benz in the honda's place and let's see what's going to happen..

sauer:

Oga, when you design cars you design them to take hits whether in park or moving positions. You factor in the amount of material and material quality that'll ensure that vibrations are even distributed around the car's streamlined body in case of hits.
Design and strength of material play pretty much equal roles here. Apparently, the Honda suffered more cause it couldn't successfully dissipate the energy the Mercedes transferred to it.

bros, I just read you earlier submissions. I think we argue from the same premise i.e. inertia.
As per material strength, initially I was going to argue with you on that 'honda suffered because of design' but then I think you may be right.
Looking at both cars, that Mercedes' design looks at least 10 years older than the Honda's. And considering that newer model vehicles are designed to absorb impact as damage to the superstructure thus protecting occupants, rather than standing girikpa like lump of fufu, I will agree that the Honda suffered because it's body is made of less hardy materials.
@the german fans, lets try this again with a Mercedes of the same model year as the Honda.

Sibrah:
That's waht i have been trying to say. In the making of car parts there are no hard and fast rule guiding which material goes into any component. An old benz i made of so many thick and relative more tensile steel as against The Honda car which is manufactured from Plastic/less tensile steel material to maximize profit. Get educated and stop derailing a interesting thread.

I concur bros, but remember that the 'Plastic/less tensile steel material' is also for safety considerations.