causewahala:

I expected some smart alec to come up with that!

Anyways, the bullet proof, most common being the kevlar fibre is made up of advanced woven fibers that absorbs the impact and disperse the energy of the bullet reducing its speed until it stops(we've trashed action and reaction enough on this thread, u should have a hang of that by now).

The essence of the bullet proof is to protect the wearer. The bullet proof itself is indented but owing to the material with which it was made, the dent is not that pronounced, however the wearer feels a bit of trauma!

Question is why doesn't materials like Kevlar shatter like a skull does? If it is a simple case of transfer of force to the stationary object then all materials should shatter when impacted by another however this is not always the case and so I don't know why you want to compare apples to orange.

The accident occurred in a car park so there was not much space for the Benz to accumulate much speed like a speeding bullet.

BTW in my OP I didn't offer an opinion as to why the Honda was much more dented than the Benz so I wonder why the reference to my line of work.

Lord_Reed:
Question is why doesn't materials like Kevlar shatter like a skull does? If it is a simple case of transfer of force to the stationary object then all materials should shatter when impacted by another however this is not always the case and so I don't know why you want to compare apples to orange.

The accident occurred in a car park so there was not much space for the Benz to accumulate much speed like a speeding bullet

I thought I explained that the material used to produce kevlar is highly advanced! A bullet shot into your chest need not shatter your whole chest, it could even make a neat hole and exit on the back, it depends on the material it comes in contact with, skull, kevlar vest, soft tissue, metal. . . they have varying degrees of resistance and composition! The principle however remains thesame, its just outcome that differs.

Lord_Reed:

BTW in my OP I didn't offer an opinion as to why the Honda was much more dented than the Benz so I wonder why the reference to my line of work.

I had doubts before but this your response to me erased all doubts! How can u be asking why kevlar vest don't shatter like skull?

BashToks:


The bullet analogy is so on point!!! GBAMEST to you!!
To me there's not much need for physics here sef.. Logic is enough.

Indulge me, will ya? Explain to reeds before he comes after me again.

causewahala:
it depends on the material it comes in contact with, skull, kevlar vest, soft tissue, metal. . . they have varying degrees of resistance and composition! The principle however remains thesame, its just outcome that differs.

So in other words the materials used in the cars also determine how much damage is done.

If the Honda was parked at Neutral position without the hand brakes, the damage would have been very minimal or unnoticeable. At this position, the Honda would have absorbed the impact of the crash and rolled away from the Benz, since there would have been a very minimal or no-resistance at all. That is to say, the two cars would have rolled away at the speed of the on-coming vehicle.

As it stands, since the Honda was most probably parked in the Park position with the hand brakes on, my thinking is that it (Honda) absorbed the impact of the on-coming Benz and put up resistance by not rolling away. Hence, the severe dent.

The German Benz might be built of titanium, while the Japanese Honda may be built of plastic. What I definately know is that, they both apply different technologies to save lives and also have very minimal damage on the vehicles in the event of a crash. I hope I do make sense.

#JustThinkingAloudAnyways#

Too many waec level and discovery channel physics being displayed Here.

Any one with an engineering background would never wonder why kevlar a composite material is tougher than the human brain which is brittle. The material properties of both are defined by their electron arrangement,chemical make-up and matrix etc
Toughness and hardness are different material properties.

Flyboy Zee: If the Honda was parked at Neutral position without the hand brakes, the damage would have been very minimal or unnoticeable. At this position, the Honda would have absorbed the impact of the crash and rolled away from the Benz, since there would have been a very minimal or no-resistance at all. That is to say, the two cars would have rolled away at the speed of the on-coming vehicle.

As it stands, since the Honda was most probably parked in the Park position with the hand brakes on, my thinking is that it (Honda) absorbed the impact of the on-coming Benz and put up resistance by not rolling away. Hence, the severe dent.

The German Benz might be built of titanium, while the Japanese Honda may be built of plastic. What I definately know is that, they both apply different technologies to save lives and also have very minimal damage on the vehicles in the event of a crash. I hope I do make sense.

#JustThinkingAloudAnyways#

Actually we had a number of these arguments in earlier posts, but the reason it's untenable is this:

If that vehicle were a huge trailer in "park" position, will the trailer suffer the dent then? Ask that question.
If the Honda could conveniently dissipate the energy from the crash, even in park position it won't suffer that much damage. Look at the damage again, please.
I'm of the opinion that if the Mercedes had hit the Honda from the rear, the damage couldn't have been as much. Rear ends of cars are built to better dissipate energy than front ends. Explains why most rear ends crashes are often quite minimal.

As a final note, am pretty sure you must have seen crashes in traffic, where the cars are indeed not in park position. Yet front-end or rear-end collisions produce quite massive damages to the cars involved. The physics demands that for conservation of momentum, energy must indeed go somewhere.

Lord_Reed:

So in other words the materials used in the cars also determine how much damage is done.

That was your intent from the word go, you and your posse of german machine! Na una sabi, my Japanese machine works well for me!

causewahala:

That was your intent from the word go, you and your posse of german machine! Na una sabi, my Japanese machine works well for me!

You really live up to your name. Who made the conclusion that the nature of materials in a collision will factor in what happens? You did. I simple filled in the blanks and then you are insinuating crap. As I pointed out my OP did not contain any opinion, you brought one so take responsibility for it.

Lord_Reed:

You really live up to your name. Who made the conclusion that the nature of materials in a collision will factor in what happens? You did. I simple filled in the blanks and then you are insinuating crap. As I pointed out my OP did not contain any opinion, you brought one so take responsibility for it.

Answer truthfully if you can, do you own a german machine or not?

I don't need to make any crappy conclusion about nature of material, its there staring anyone with a thinking faculty in the face! I had to break it down to you cos you didn't cotton unto that fact!

causewahala:

Answer truthfully if you can, do you own a german machine or not?

I don't need to make any crappy conclusion about nature of material, its there staring anyone with a thinking faculty in the face! I had to break it down to you cos you didn't cotton unto that fact!

I own both a Japanese and a German car and both are great in their own rights. I don't over hype either; they both have advantages and disadvantages.

You didn't need to break anything down for me, I have sufficient knowledge of physics thank you.

Lord_Reed: I own both a Japanese and a German car and both are great in their own rights. I don't over hype either; they both have advantages and disadvantages.

You didn't need to break anything down for me, I have sufficient knowledge of physics thank you.

Na who ask u hw many brands of cars u get?

You and your physics knowledge You just had to take the bait!

Lord_Reed:

So in other words the materials used in the cars also determine how much damage is done.

^^^First it was this

Lord_Reed:

You really live up to your name. Who made the conclusion that the nature of materials in a collision will factor in what happens? You did. I simple filled in the blanks and then you are insinuating crap. As I pointed out my OP did not contain any opinion, you brought one so take responsibility for it.

^^^^ Then this! Now you talk of an inherent physics knowledge that hardly ever comes to the surface even when it could have saved your blushes about kevlar vest and ur comparing apple and orange speech!

Oh well, I'm done making wahala on ur thread. . . till we meet on another thread, Einstein!


PS: Principle never changes, outcome does!

causewahala:

Na who ask u hw many brands of cars u get?

You really are just a contentious fellow. Who asked this:

causewahala:

Answer truthfully if you can, do you own a
german machine or not?

I gave you your wish yet you are contending.

Oh well, I'm done making wahala on ur thread. . . till we meet on another thread, Einstein!

Yeah bye bye Heisenberg.

Lord_Reed:

Yeah bye bye Heisenberg.

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.

Yeah more correct. Leave the olodos who never did physics in sec. Schl alone..

.

No need for physics but common sense. If a man is found on his bed stabbed to death but there is no blood stains on the bed...would you conclude he was killed there? The Honda in pic is so damaged but not a piece of debris on the ground...how is that possible? Is it not more likely the car was involved in an accident somewhere else and hauled to the parking lot? Look at the condition of the parking lot and figure who would drive at a speed to cause such damage? I cant believe people swallowed this story.

...

A lot of people here just argue blindly. Surely law of physics is involved. It depends On the weight of the car and the velocity before impact. It is normal that the moving car will have less damage than the stationary car. Also the point of impact should be put into consideration. Let's look at at it the other way round, if the Benz was stationary and the Honda hit it while on speed, the Benz will take more damage, though might not be as bad as the Honda is right now.

Now a lot of people are trying to say the benz is stronger. Yes this is TRUE. Benz are built with with more premium material than Hondas. I mean what do u expect? Hondas are built with the best of both worlds, combining luxury with economy while Benz are mainly high end. Let's take a look at the prices. A 2013 Honda Accord ex which is the flagship car of Honda is sold for about $26,000 whereas a 2013 mercedez Benz c350 which which is about the lowest trim is sold for about $42,000. That is about twice the price of the accord. So how can u compare both cars? People should be realistic. The Honda Accord are mainly economy, u can't compare the mileage and maintenance to that of benz. Ok I might be going off topic here but just saying this because some people don't even put things into consideration, they just jump to say Hondas are craps. Not everyone can afford a benz. They both have their pros and cons.

BACK to the topic, Let someone break a brick on ur head with force and see if you won't get hurt. But if u knock ur head on the brick with force, u can break the brick without u getting hurt.

I have twice witnessed a head on collision between an audi 80 tiger face n a toyota camry tiny light,gushh d toyota looked like as if it had hit a truck,d audi only had d fenders slightly out of positioning. Wat does d law of physics have to say concerning dis? At least av witnessed two different collisions between dis two cars and d toyota gets more damaged at d end.

LordReed:

the Honda had just been repaired for this same type of accident.

And there you have it.

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

In mechanics, they had these me impact on each other.

elviszzz:
I have twice witnessed a head on collision between an audi 80 tiger face n a toyota camry tiny light,gushh d toyota looked like as if it had hit a truck,d audi only had d fenders slightly out of positioning. Wat does d law of physics have to say concerning dis? At least av witnessed two different collisions between dis two cars and d toyota gets more damaged at d end.

the impacts are the same. the reason one gets more damaged is simply because of the difference in their structural integrity(the iron in one is stronger and thicker than that in the other)

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 an inelastic collision. momentum is the product of velocity and mass, so in essence, the initial momentum of the moving vehicle is more than that of the stationary vehicle. That said, it is also worthy of note that the force required to make a stationery vehicle from moving is high hence it reluctance to start an unexpected motion will be another factor. The other factor responsible for this is that the hinder car was just repaired from a similar problem which will have reduced the impact stress of the material used in the production of the vehicle.