Sorry you don't understand math.
When the factors are the same, they're the same, so cancel out. Tested under the same conditions, those things are the same, or better under the roll over situation because it doesn't put as much energy into the stationary object. I'm being generous and calling it a wash.

50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. Get it? What you're talking about is infinitesimal compared to the forces involved. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs. 50gs to 1.2gs.

By what factor of risk? That statement is meaningless. It doesn't mean you get hurt more, it means they don't test every factor in rollovers in this test, so can't say you won't also break a nail. It absolutely doesn't mean you get hurt worse every time, or even on average. Doing the math, it's about an 8' movement over about 2+- seconds to roll, so under 1/2 g. That's what you say makes it worse than a 50g forward hit....1/2 g. Really?! I'm pretty sure you're just playing with me pretending you don't understand.

Now leave me be....please. I've been frustrated for a while with this discussion.

Hahaha.. Cancels out. OK, yep. It's basic math here not a complex collision simulation...

Did you even read this bit,

"The partial rollover presents an additional injury risk beyond what the standard crash test criteria are intended to measure"

I'm only discounting some things it because it's irrelevant to the point which is you stating rolls or "flops" are better than an arbitrary situation that generally doesn't exist and certainly isn't the other option to a roll in this test.

Both crumpled zones, cancels out. In fact the deflected car uses the crumple zone to better effect. The point is to make the sudden stop slower, which rolling undeniably did.
Both push the other car, cancels out.
Same car at same speed comparison, cancels out.
See what I mean about arguing. You're complaining I omitted things that have zero bearing in an honest comparison.

Have you been in 5 rollovers and over 20 dead stops? I have.

Fuck! Yes, you might get injured...in either. One you get 50 gs, one you get 1.2gs. No brainer to those not brain dead. Come on.

Yes, but they measured impact and g forces non the less. See the results? Notice they're all green "g"s? Notice it wasn't a fail on injuries, or g forces, but on their baseless notion that any roll, no matter how slow and safe, is unacceptable.

Now I'm done here. Your obstinance and silly best case vs worst case with zero evidence, then decrying my lack of rollover test data, is maddening and not at all worth this effort to prove something you believe is wrong, especially since you discount a 50-1 g force impact. Bye bye

You're massively oversimplifying things again. Where is your crumple zone math? Where is your math showing how much force is imparted into pushing the car in front forward based on whether it has it's brakes on, is still moving, etc, etc, etc.

Your personal experience is not extraordinary. I have been in accidents, I didn't bother to bring it up because it doesn't mean anything.

I'm not arguing that higher G forces don't correlate with more severe injuries, that's not the point . The point is that CSI injury is very complex, complexities that can cause severe injury with minor force in situations like.. a rollover.

from the report you mentioned,

"The partial rollover presents an additional injury risk beyond what the standard crash test criteria are intended to measure"

I loaded a YT channel to find an old video, seems they've just put a new one up at a much lower speed.

https://youtu.be/5kbzocHjyVY

~60km/h mild impact into a parked car causes the car to roll onto it's roof facing the wrong way. Note the lack of damage to the parked car.

https://youtu.be/4fdajpCKS1M

~100km/h impact rollover

https://youtu.be/oNlh9CLOfRg

~100km/h impact rollover that almost sends it into oncoming traffic.

We have already established your experience differs from this in that there was no impact causing the roll.

citation for maximum/force time being a primary factor in vehicular CSI .

You're also making the assumption that the roll doesn't send you roof first into oncoming traffic, telephone pole, tree, parked car, building or whatever.

We saw a rollover on here recently that was the result of a pit maneuver where the driver died. Guess that wasn't an easy flop for him.

Why bring it up? Because the flop was far less violent than the other crashes. The energy it took to flip the jeep used up kinetic energy the other trucks put into stopping hard and fast. Having experience with rolling, I know they aren't as scary or violent as people expect.
My speed at the start of a couple of my rolls was up to 80mph, not controlled and slow. They were faster than this test. Like this test, the act of rolling slowed the vehicle considerably. My seat was not much deeper than many seats I see in cars, but slightly. My interior, however, was bare metal everywhere, not padded pleather. Because there are zero crumple zones, the impact was absorbed by the frame, so transferred throughout the seat to me.
As for whiplash, I think the heavy helmet I was wearing would multiply that, not protect from it. I had no hans device, no helmet straps.

Edit: rollovers like this are less likely to cause whiplash or spinal injury than coming to a dead stop like the trucks did.

Is it exactly the same? No. Is it significantly similar? Yes. Do I have a decent idea of what a violent rollover is like. Yes. Better than around 99.999% of people.

It can, but not as often as going 60-0 in 0.05 seconds does. I'll take that soft rollover every day and twice on Sundays over most of those truck results.

I raced off road, I've rolled or flopped over at speed at least 4 times, it wasn't bad at all.

The Jeep was the first to fail this test with a rollover. Apparently the solid front axle bends and acts as a ramp.

A Bootlegger is similar, but a little different. Wherein a Bootlegger starts with the vehicle moving forward and ending the opposite direction, a J-turn starts with the vehicle moving in reverse and ending opposite.

Granted there are lots of terms thrown around for these maneuvers.

My rational was that it must take some serious skill to think it was a good idea (sarcasm). Happy to remove the tag if out of place.

Side note, watching again I noticed after the rollover that not only was the bass dropped with the sub flying out, but looks like a gun flies out alongside it? Range Rover + subwoofer + gun = instant cred?

So many questions...

Just for the record.... the snowboarder shouldn't have ridden that line. Sure, he had an ABS backpack... great, but he didn't read the terrain.

As easy as it is to criticise in hindsight there were plenty of signs that he should have read (recent natural avalanche activity, convex rollover, the Avalanche Canada report) that should have said "stay away".

I'm not trying to make myself sound smarter than this guy. I still consider myself very much a beginner in the backcountry, so I take as much care as possible, including knowing and trusting the guys I ride with.

Bottom line: you should be looking for reasons NOT to go.

Can I take this commercial to imply that the warranty will cover any damage resulting from collisions with other construction equipment, collisions with buildings, rollovers, scraping the drivetrain over concrete highway dividers and general exploding?

Clearly they're implying the truck can survive this, so that's a pretty good warranty right there.

$250 a year 1000 anytime minutes with at least 3K in rollover mins, unlim. text, long distance-NO DATA plan (internet, data-file-transfer)-Worse than the phone service is the internet here-Outrageous fees for bullshit connection/speed compared to a lot of the rest of the world.-$69 bucks a month for speeds ranging from 15-35 Mbps-includes cable TV which I seldom use for anything but background noise for the dogs..

The U.S. is getting ass-raped on connectivity to the internet.

Blame corrupt politicians + copper mining/cable providing concerns + peeps not demanding their fucking heads.

Not a bug, but a design thing: not always, but often enough to be annoying, when I go to upvote a video, I trigger the "Videos" rollover thing. Sometimes I get rid of it, and sometimes I've already clicked and go somewhere else accidentally.

I find instant rollover behaviour very annoying generally, so I'm hoping you can add in a tiny delay.

Really unhappy with the changes to Google, lately. More clicks to get where I want, obnoxious javascript rollover crap, inconsistent search results from computer to computer...