Force= mass x acceleration. The honda will suffer.

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

A stationary object will suffer more now, why did u think 2 rams move backward then run toward each when they want to fight?
Why did u think that it pain u more when some body slap u than when u hit ur head with his palm?
Although the damage on the benz is too small but scientificaly because force =mass multiply by acceleration, the hunda will damage more.

coogar:

park a benz(G-wagon) and let a toyota landcruiser at 90 km/hr ram into it. let's put the durable german materials into test.

How dare u compare a gwagon wit landcruiser guy that's blasphemy,landcruiser my ass

coogar:

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

hmmm, now that was harsh, most of us know the law of inertia nah, and that special formula

m1v1+m2v2=v(m1+m2)

so as u can see, energy is conserved, there will only be a common velocity when the two masses collide....

Abi i no get am ni

Honda remain Honda, while Benz remain Benz. And dont forget that they are of diff. Company.

Given it's head-on and energy was conserved to a certain extent, the Honda will only become dented if it was unable to dissipate the energy installed by moving away at the same velocity at which the Mercedes struck it. This will happen when

1. There's an obstruction at the other end preventing this motion
2. The Honda's original inertia could not be overcome. Nevertheless the force of impact was enough to dent it.

The first case would make the weakness of the Honda excusable. The latter case, however, would imply that the Honda is much weaker than the Mercedes.

So I think.

Ofcourse the stationary vehicle will recieve more impact en subsequently more damage...from elementary physics, force is directly proportional to the product of the mass en acceleration...acceleration = rate of change of velocity therefore mass * acceleration = mass * rate of change of velocity...but mass * rate of change of velocity = momentum...therefore d moving vehichle has momentum determined by its speed/velocity while d parkd honda has zero velocity en zero force which xplains d damage done 2it..

How come almost everybody believed this story!!!! so a guy takes picture of two cars in a garage and says the two collided,and you pple are passing commenting...Nairaland..when una go get sense..when una go get sense. And this collision theory made front page...SMH

I bet nairaland albino that this pictures are product of photoshop

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.

That might explain a lot too.

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

Lagusta:
hmmm, now that was harsh, most of us know the law of inertia nah, and that special formula

m1v1+m2v2=v(m1+m2)

so as u can see, energy is conserved, there will only be a common velocity when the two masses collide....
Abi i no get am ni

you no get am at all....
let's assume the benz and the honda have equal mass.
m1 = 1200kg and m2 = 1200kg
v1 = 50m/s and v2 = 0m/s
the stationary car has no momentum. it's just there waiting to be räped. then the benz rams into it. what your formular is trying to prove is the common velocity both objects would travel after collision - you should be looking for impact = Ft

Lagusta:


but seroiusly, german machines are stronger than those jap stuff...

Oh, and the bulletproof Gwagon go still stand kakaraka like zuma rock, while the landcruiser...... Well, i hope the engine will be spared shaa

get a bulletproof landcruiser to ram into a stationary bulletproof g-wagon and come back here and show me the result.

That is to say the 'Honda' don lose be that.. Honda is not a strong car but great looks....BTW, are we in a physics class?..

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

sublimes: didn't you read in the OP's post that the Honda was stationary and the benz in motion? Please be sensible.

face your front

Na lie!

It's hard to believe both cars were involved in the SAME accident.

Look at the pictures carefully. What part of the Benz hit the Honda?

coogar:

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.

No, nothing stops the collision from "causing extensive damage" to the moving object. The vibration resulting from that cash should naturally also affect the moving car. Think about this for a minute, a car crashes into a solid, immovable wall. The vibrations resulting from that crash will all be reflected back into the car and will dent it.
The reason is cos the wall is totally reflective, mainly because of the material it's made of.

If the wall were made of a different material, could move and is not totally reflective. What gets dented (car or wall) is now totally dependent on material.

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

trailer have a bigger mass to withstand the impact a smaller car would bring. the trailer would still take some damage albeit small.

sauer:
No, nothing stops the collision from "causing extensive damage" to the moving object. The vibration resulting from that cash should naturally also affect the moving car. Think about this for a minute, a car crashes into a solid, immovable wall. The vibrations resulting from that crash will all be reflected back into the car and will dent it.
The reason is cos the wall is totally reflective, mainly because of the material it's made of.

you are assuming a lot here - if a moving object collides with a stone wall, a lot of variables are at play. what's the mass of the bricks that made the wall? what's the mass of the moving object and it's speed? if the momentum of the moving object is bigger than the brick wall, the moving object would destroy it. if a german panza tank rams into a prison wall for instance, the wall would dissolve like garri in water and the tank would suffer no damage at all. the tank is super-heavy with a considerable speed.

If the wall were made of a different material, could move and is not totally reflective. What gets dented (car or wall) is now totally dependent on material.

the material would get translated to the mass. the thicker the material, the more mass!

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

Use the formmular:
M1V1 ÷ M2V2
Where M1= Mass of Honda
V2= Velocity of Honda
M2 = Mass of Benz
V2= velocity of Benz
Assumming:
M1 = ?, V1 = 0km/h, M2 = 250Kg, V2 = 100km/h

Richfella: Na lie!

It's hard to believe both cars were involved in the SAME accident.

Look at the pictures carefully. What part of the Benz hit the Honda?

its SIDE!!!!

Physics has little or no explanation here. The strength of the materials used in their bodies matters most. Fiber agains iron.

you no get am at all....
let's assume the benz and the honda have equal mass.
m1 = 1200kg and m2 = 1200kg
v1 = 50m/s and v2 = 0m/s
the stationary car has no momentum. it's just there waiting to be räped. then the benz rams into it. what your formular is trying to prove is the common velocity both objects would travel after collision - you should be looking for impact = Ft

That formula means all the kinetic energy from the benz should transfer to the honda and move it. Assuming no energy lost, Benz should become stationary and Honda should move at v1=50m/s, well that's if it could move. Apparently, it didn't move too far (as evidenced from the picture), and the remainder energy simply dented the car. Point is, the material it's made of absorbed most of the energy and prevented motion.

get a bulletproof landcruiser to ram into a stationary bulletproof g-wagon and come back here and show me the result.

This proves no point.

People that are trying to flaw the rule of stationary object taking more damage are pointless. Am not science inclined but like the sensible people said, its simple physics.
If an object rams into another static one, the moving object giving its speed has more momentum and velocity, it has to do the damage. Have u seen someone dat was headbutted before?? Its the same head with the same skeletal material but the stationary head gets a bang!! We're all intellectuals people, at least most of us are!

The only test for toughness is by keeping the mass en velocity of both cars equal en ramming them into eachother...the damage caused will now be a function of the strenght or weakness of the material from which the vehicles were crafted..

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.

Collision And, to butress your point, I would say its mostly down to inertia vis a vis ground surface friction, topography e.t.c. When you consider that the Honda was likely in 'park'/handbrake and the Mercedes was barreling at smooth speed, probably from relatively smooth road before running off into the Honda already on rough terrain...you get the picture.

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 (what if the body that was in motion do not have eneough momentum to set the stationary on in motion. which school you go sef?)[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]. 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.

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

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

D force are not equal, the stationed object will hav d greater damages dan the d one on motion.
A moving object has a velocity which is Mass+Speed while d motionless object posses only Mass. So, d one on motion has greater wait and will make more impact jst like when u punched someone surely d person will bleed, the whole thing will change if the d still object's mass is greater "like trailers" then sorry to the moving object.

BashToks: People that are trying to flaw the rule of stationary object taking more damage are pointless. Am not science inclined but like the sensible people said, its simple physics.
If an object rams into another static one, the moving object giving its speed has more momentum and velocity, it has to do the damage. Have u seen someone dat was headbutted before?? Its the same head with the same skeletal material but the stationary head gets a bang!! We're all intellectuals people, at least most of us are!

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.

Ok, now i want Drs ikenna and siena to do justice to this......

sauer:
That formula means all the kinetic energy from the benz should transfer to the honda and move it. Assuming no energy lost, Benz should become stationary and Honda should move at v1=50m/s, well that's if it could move. Apparently, it didn't move too far (as evidenced from the picture), and the remainder energy simply dented the car. Point is, the material it's made of absorbed most of the energy and prevented motion.

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!

This proves no point.

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

BoboYekini: Collision And, to butress your point, I would say its mostly down to inertia vis a vis ground surface friction, topography e.t.c. When you consider that the Honda was likely in 'park'/handbrake and the Mercedes was barreling at smooth speed, probably from relatively smooth road before running off into the Honda already on rough terrain...you get the picture.

you are in spirit joor!!!