Lord_Reed:

Both sad and funny seeing as the Honda was parked. The Benz was not even a staff member's car and the Honda had just been repaired for this same type of accident.

Apart from the fact that the Honda car was stationary and thus recieved almost all the resultant force from the moving body(Benz) which is enough to set the other body(Honda) into motion if all conditions were perfect, I see another reason here why the Honda would have crashed like that.

Lord_Reed confirmed this same Honda car just got repaired of the same kind of accident, inferior and a poor work during rebuilding of this car may have contributed as well.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/reviews/momentum/momans.cfm

Basic rules of momentum and momentum changes in physics here for anyone to check.

Momentum will always be conserved in a collision.

One question answered on that page is:

Q: When a moving object collides with a stationary object of identical mass, the stationary object encounters the greater collision force.

A: FALSE - In any collision, the colliding objects exert equal and opposite forces upon each other as the result of the collision interaction. There are no exceptions to this rule.

I think this proves my case. Enough of shouting; more of physics!
Nature wanted momentum conserved and of course naturally dented the Honda to enable momentum conservation.

sauer: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/reviews/momentum/momans.cfm

Basic rules of momentum and momentum changes in physics here for anyone to check.

Momentum will always be conserved in a collision.

One question answered on that page is:

Q: When a moving object collides with a stationary object of identical mass, the stationary object encounters the greater collision force.

A: FALSE - In any collision, the colliding objects exert equal and opposite forces upon each other as the result of the collision interaction. There are no exceptions to this rule.

I think this proves my case. Enough of shouting; more of physics!
Nature wanted momentum conserved and of course naturally dented the Honda to enable momentum conservation.

but the benz and the honda are not of equal mass, why is your physics so flawed?

sauer: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/reviews/momentum/momans.cfm

Basic rules of momentum and momentum changes in physics here for anyone to check.

Momentum will always be conserved in a collision.

One question answered on that page is:

Q: When a moving object collides with a stationary object of identical mass, the stationary object encounters the greater collision force.

A: FALSE - In any collision, the colliding objects exert equal and opposite forces upon each other as the result of the collision interaction. There are no exceptions to this rule.

I think this proves my case. Enough of shouting; more of physics!
Nature wanted momentum conserved and of course naturally dented the Honda to enable momentum conservation.

You contradict yourself. How does energy dissipation via vibrations to the structure translate to conservation of momentum?

surugede:

if you are stationary and i run into you, who will be more injured?

ask the 'BIG SHOW' or 'MARK HENRY'

d

Lord_Reed:

Both sad and funny seeing as the Honda was parked. The Benz was not even a staff member's car and the Honda had just been repaired for this same type of accident.

Make d owner go ask for village

coogar:

but the benz and the honda are not of equal mass, why is your physics so flawed?

Of course, they are not of equal mass. You no read my earlier posts? That's only a point from which to proceed with a sensible argument. The idea is to refute cOOgar's earlier hypothesis that the stationary body will always suffer. Gerrit?

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.

coogar: 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!

BoboYekini: You contradict yourself. How does energy dissipation via vibrations to the structure translate to conservation of momentum?

I don't contradict myself, bro. Conservation of momentum meant energy had to go somewhere, do something. Not just go lost. The Honda was simply unable to dissipate the energy transferred to it, so the energy had to go somewhere.

Are people really arguing this?

I guess y'all haven't seen a moving car that rammed into a stationary car with the moving one sustaining more damage.

I can't even believe the headbutt example, so y'all don't know that if you as a person run into a much stronger person with the intent to cause damage with your head, na you and your head go hear am? Make una dey dey jonse.

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.

u mean if i knack ur head against the wall its d wall dat will take more damage? abeg ur physics no work for dis one oo.

I dont know why everyone is obsessed with amount of physical damage on the Honda.
When it comes to vehicle safety, physical damage is not directly proportional to passenger injuries or fatality.

Infact, looking at the pictures, and assuming that both collided with the same momentum, the honda car, in this instance would have been safer for the driver and passengers.

How?
Physics.
Modern cars are built with numerous crumple zones in the fronts and rears. The crumple zones are designed to crumple and absorb the force of an impact, thereby dissipating and spreading the residual force throughout the vehicle chasis.
By absorbing much of the force and crumpling, the passenger is somewhat shielded from the destructive force of impact because less of the force of impact is passed through the drive and passengers.

In the case of the the mercedes Benz car, the crumple zones did not fold, so the force of impact would have had more of an effect on the passengers because the crumple zones did not absorb any of the force.

So looking at the pictures,The Honda car would have been a safer vehicle for the passengers.

Up Honda!

plaetton: I dont know why everyone is obsessed with amount of physical damage on the Honda.
When it comes to vehicle safety, physical damage is not directly proportional to passenger injuries or fatality.

Infact, looking at the pictures, and assuming that both collided with the same momentum, the honda car, in this instance would have been safer for the driver and passengers.

How?
Physics.
Modern cars are built with numerous crumple zones in the fronts and rears. The crumple zones are designed to crumple and absorb the force of an impact, thereby dissipating and spreading the residual force throughout the vehicle chasis.
By absorbing much of the force and crumpling, less of the force of impact is passed through the drive and passengers.


In the case of the the mercedes Benz car, the crumple zones did not fold, so the force of impact would have had more of an effect on the passengers because the crumple zones did not absorb any of the force.

So looking at the pictures,The Honda car would been a safer vehicle for the passengers.

Up Honda!

^^^^Thank you!

You took the words right out of my fingers.

I do not necessarily agree with your "Up Honda", "The Honda car would have been a safer car for passengers" viewpoint (After all, it was a Mercedes Benz engineer who invented the passenger safety cell + crumple zones in the 1950s . MBenz has a long and proud history of active and passive safety systems which continues to this day. I would like to think that even though as you said, 'crumple zones exist in order to crumple and absorb impact', they must STILL retain a measure of strength and rigidity up to a pre-determined point. It is only when this point is breached that the safety cell suffers visible damage and the crumple zones visibly 'crumple'. I guess the safety cell of the MBenz being discussed on this thread had not yet reached that pre-determined break point, and that's why it still looks intact. But I digress).

Your key point about energy absorption is noted though. That's why some cars are almost intact after an accident and yet there are no survivors. And some other cars are written off in an accident and yet the passengers walk out of the wreckage on their own two feet with little or no harm done to them. I think Saab made this a big selling point in its adverts in the 1990s.

On a lighter note, where are nairaland's resident tribalists? We all know who they are. How come they have nothing to say on this thread? Is it because the thread has tough equations, mathematical symbols and greek letters? Somebody answer me!

Afam4eva: This reminds me of an accident that happened 2 years ago when a Ford car ran into about five cars with very little scratch but you needed to see the bad shape of the five cars. American and German cars are the strongest but are expensive to maintain.

That should've been an OLD model ford. Ford and other GM products are fibre platisc now...since after thier bailout i think.

o gaaaaaaa ooo

Benz: u get mouth? Oshi!

Honda: Maka why na?

Benz: Eh!? Your Fada! or make I nod u again?

You can never compare honda with benz..don't u knw cars have weight in tonnes? Which one is more rugged and stable on roads... Just carry a cow or two inside d 2cars and see which one wud move faster... Ds na common sense now...its like comparing Ford cars with Nissans or mazda...this shud b done practically...make una use una carS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Pako no b buttiii.........tea no b lk ogi....

plaetton: I dont know why everyone is obsessed with amount of physical damage on the Honda.
When it comes to vehicle safety, physical damage is not directly proportional to passenger injuries or fatality.

Infact, looking at the pictures, and assuming that both collided with the same momentum, the honda car, in this instance would have been safer for the driver and passengers.

How?
Physics.
Modern cars are built with numerous crumple zones in the fronts and rears. The crumple zones are designed to crumple and absorb the force of an impact, thereby dissipating and spreading the residual force throughout the vehicle chasis.
By absorbing much of the force and crumpling, the passenger is somewhat shielded from the destructive force of impact because less of the force of impact is passed through the drive and passengers.

In the case of the the mercedes Benz car, the crumple zones did not fold, so the force of impact would have had more of an effect on the passengers because the crumple zones did not absorb any of the force.

So looking at the pictures,The Honda car would have been a safer vehicle for the passengers.

Up Honda!

Yes, you are right. I did want to mention this point.

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

According to the Impulse-Momentum Theory, they would both receive thesame impact. Their initial momenta where different, but the initial total momentum is same as the final total momentum(Momentum is conserved). The change in the Honda's Momentum is same as that of the Mercedes meaning they had thesame impulse. However, the benz had a lesser damage because of its structural advantage over the honda. Conclusion: benz(European) is made with 'stronger' materials than honda(Asian).

Richfella:

That might explain a lot too.

Serious 'panel-beating' locally and all. Some parts might even have been tied too .

Exactly, that Honda looks rusty, and it has been involved in an accident before.

If na me be the honda owner,i go just collect the mercedez key Drive COMMOT...i may be nice enough to wave goodbye @ the new honda owner.HEHE

Sir Method:
According to the Impulse-Momentum Theory, they would both receive thesame impact. Their initial momenta where different, but the initial total momentum is same as the final total momentum(Momentum is conserved). The change in the Honda's Momentum is same as that of the Mercedes meaning they had thesame impulse. However, the benz had a lesser damage because of its structural advantage over the honda. Conclusion: benz(European) is made with 'stronger' materials than honda(Asian).

Bro, exactly!

Your head is there. If two cars 'jam' themsef, both of them go hear am - EQUALLY. Who come damage pass na anoda mata.

elampiro:

Exactly, that Honda looks rusty, and it has been involved in an accident before.

Hmmm...my fellow mechanic in the house .

BTW, HBD! Invite me make I come chop rice .

igbsam: We all know that Benz is more stronger than honda cars. But don't be confused about the level of damage done to the honda car. Expect the parked car to be the most damaged than the one in motion. Why you think say stray bullet they kill person wey dey motionless ? lol.....pardon me, na play i dey o!

If the person dey move at the speed of the bullet hit the stationary bullet, na the same result my brother.

Check the 3rd Law of Motion.

My BENZ is fantastic!

Lord_Reed:

Both sad and funny seeing as the Honda was parked. The Benz was not even a staff member's car and the Honda had just been repaired for this same type of accident.

The Honda is defo CURSED!!!

Lord_Reed: Here's the Honda

Cheii, chineke God, see the engine of car wey dey naija as the colour don brown pass brown. Walahi, cars for naija dey sufa well well.

.

Please dont be too carried away by the momentums of physics, Newtons third law states that to every action, there is equal and opposite reaction, so since the collosion is elastic, the strenght of the car comes into consideration

Ref: PHY 101[color=#000099][/color]

coogar:

you can easily tell apart the people that skipped physics classes in high school to chase grass-cutters in the bush.



the momentum of the moving object would cause extensive damage to the stationary object. it would set it in motion and the force that sets in motion would damage the stationary object. that law applies to any collusion.

Not necessarily,you have to put into consideration other force factors playing out in a scenerio like that. 1st is law of inertia which is d amount of force required to get a stationary body to move in whatever direction, 2nd is the potential energy of the stationary body which is a function of its position and/or configuration.the configuration is d key thing here...d honda car materials are not in any way comaparable with that of the benz and that's why d damage is dat severe.d elastic properties of d honda material which sets how much force it can endure before deformation occurs, its impact test number all play a pivotal role in how much force it can withstand during a collision.
Also note that car designers now build car bodies in such a way that during collision,d way it deforms helps dissipate the force of collision so that d riders dnt exerience d brunt of the force.I know some new volvo models do this.
There are too many forces and design/manufacturing factors to consider to just rule this only to a case of elastic or inelastic collision.

The repair cost of the Benz is still gonna be higher than that of the Honda

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

na wah for you ooo.comparing a Benz to a jap end of discussion. The handling of the Benz n weight of similar year even earlier year would beat any jap hands down. Benz are one of the most engineered automobiles in the world. And how on earth can a 2003 c class make you feel old, d car is even smaller than an 03 accord.