Looks bad, but it would be nice to know if this is mostly normal or very unusual for similar vehicles. Do 4-door cars and small SUVs roll? Do trucks, in a similar crash? This is only one information point.

It should be pointed out that this is clearly "Says so on the hood and doors" a test of the 2019 Jeep, not 2020. Also you say there are no side airbags, but side airbags are clearly seen in the entire video.

Either you accidentally posted the wrong video, or you didn't watch it before posting it.

Do jeeps not come with roll bars anymore? Mine has a full cage with 4 point seatbelts, it's nearing 50 years old.

I'm also curious to see other cars tested this way. I bet most flop over in this test, that or have the front wheel or crash wall inside the cab at the end. Yes, 4x4s roll easier, but most are made stronger AND have extra safety like roll bars. If you wear a seatbelt, you wouldn't be ejected.

The title of the video on Youtube is the title I used.

The comment about airbags was a portion of the description of the video. There are no side airbags for the rear seat passengers.

Also per the description - 2019-2020 Jeep Wrangler 4-door rolls over during IIHS crash test

I did watch the video.

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

The Jeep was the first vehicle to roll over in this test.

Here are some other vehicles in the same test.

Different test, driver side vs passenger makes a difference, but almost all those trucks seem to have ended up with the wall crushing the footwell or worse. I would rather flop on my side that lose a foot or leg any day.
Ejection is only an issue if you aren't wearing seatbelts.
Imo, the jeep still seems like the winner.

I mean, it's made for driving off-road, it's going to have some sub-optimal on-road characteristics. That's why Jeeps have roll bars.

I have a Jeep Renegade myself, it's pretty much a bit more top-heavy Fiat 500X, I really enjoy it but it's made for on-road driving and it doesn't roll in this crash test. But I won't be taking it to the top of a mountain without a good road.

"Flopping" onto your side often leads to spinal injury. I'd rather a mangled foot...

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.

When you did that was it in a 5 point harness with a helmet, neck brace and rollcage?

When racing, 2/3. No neck brace in those days. Once while training, no helmet either, but yes, 5 point harness in a full tube racing buggy.
Honestly, the only one that made a real difference was the cage. A 4 or 3 point seatbelt would have been sufficient thanks to a deep racing seat, and most rolls were due to super soft silt grabbing the outside tires in a turn....that scrubed a lot of speed right away and made the final hit extra soft, a few were on hardpacked dirt, but they were short course so maybe 30-40 mph entry speed instead of 60+, around 20 by the time my side hit ground.

It's likely that there's no significant difference between a MY2019 and a MY2020.

So a relatively controlled and slow "flop" in a harness with a racing seat designed for lateral support rather than a high speed collision causing whiplash followed by a "flop" in a typical vehicle. Why bother bringing it up?

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.

Link to IIHS report for those that are interested:

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/jeep/wrangler-4-door-suv/2019#small-overlap-front-driver-side

Citation needed*

Your spine is designed to move forward and backwards, not violently but still the mechanics allow for it. When it starts doing the same sideways, particularly in the neck as shown in this video is when you slip discs, fracture verts, pinch the cord, etc.

*personal experience crashing/rolling...too much of it

I'm no doctor, but I've been in dozens of what normal people would call wrecks/accidents thanks to off road, and multiple rolls. The lateral (to the side) forces in a roll were never close to direct impact forces...not in the same ballpark. It's all about maximum force/time. Rolls are nearly always comparatively slow, drawn out rotational acceleration, crashes are quick, near instantaneous. That makes an enormous difference. Rolling at 50mph, you might get hurt. Hitting a wall at 50mph, you're lucky if you survive.
Rolling looks scary until you've done it. Dead stop crashing is scary.

Edit: I once watched a truck roll 10 times at 100mph + through a fence...driver walked away and raced later that day. That speed into a boulder, he would be dead, no question.

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.

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.

I'm thinking you just want to argue.

Citation? Physics. acceleration = Δv/Δt. Larger injuries come from higher g forces.

I explained how there's lower maximum energy involved when some crash energy is absorbed rolling the car.
Now you argue you might roll into another direct impact...true in either case but in one you've already had one, in another you had a glancing blow and flop.
Nowhere did I say it's safe, only safer than hitting a wall and stopping cold.
All other things being equal, a partial roll like shown here is safer than the trucks hard stop...according to the IIHS recorded data (see @blackoreb 's post above)

Funny, I watched, and each one proves my point. At those speeds, had the energy been completely absorbed by a dead stop, the damage and injuries would be far worse. Notice the lack of damage to the parked car that almost became a vehicular centipede.

You might want to watch all those videos again.

Hitting a parked car at 60km/h and not rolling would be a clearly better outcome. The parked car is not a solid wall, it cannot bring you to a "dead stop".

Hitting a barrier and rolling is clearly worse than hitting the same barrier and sliding along it, "bouncing" off it, spinning etc even if you're clipped by another car. Again even with the sharp swerve into the barrier it would never have been a "dead stop"

Hitting the car in front which has suddenly braked would be far better than a high speed roll even if the car behind proceeds to rear end you. The closest to your "dead stop" scenario and still far better than a high speed roll.

I'm arguing with you because you often backup what you're saying with demonstrable facts, in this case you're not. You're ignoring variables, using differing experience to draw conclusions and dismissing the severity of something based on your controlled personal experience of it.

"Citation? Physics. acceleration = Δv/Δt. Larger injuries come from higher g forces."

Has nothing to do with studies in vehicular CSI. I asked for a citation relating to maximum force/time being a primary factor in vehicular CSI not a physics equation and a stunningly simplified opinion. Again this is the shit I'm arguing with you about.

Nope. Watched them closely.
Hitting a car flat at 60 km or mph is going to stop you in <1/10 of a second. I counted >4 seconds to stop with a flop in the video. Same kinetic energy absorbed. Δv = 30mph (around 50'/sec) Δt= .1 vs 4. Do the math. 500ft/sec/sec vs 12.5'/sec/sec...that's 50g vs 1.2g. Case closed.

Fine. God forbid you listen to someone with extraordinary personal experience in this matter and a grasp of physics.
You go for the dead stop next time you're in a wreck, I'll turn my wheel.

There are variables in car wrecks. You want to compare best case scenario sudden stops with absolute worst case rolls. Feel free to think that way. It's not reasonable. I'm done.

Then look at the dummy data if immutable physics laws aren't enough for you, but no citation is needed to conclude that exponentially higher G forces cause higher level injuries, even if the angle isn't the worst possible for a specific spinal injury.

I've given you my personal vast experience, physics, and common sense. You give me apple to oranges, and exaggerate the juiciness of the apples while only mentioning dehydrated oranges. I'm done. Believe what you want, but I hope you don't have to test your theory.

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"

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

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.

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.