Why does my SRV have such terrible traction?

[CMDR ANCALAGON]

At this point, I would point at that you had not mentioned anything about any proof of materials, synthesis, or engineering that cannot be accomplished without an SRV, other than in your intial post that "gameplay that is artificially locked behind SRV use (i.e. Engineers and mat sythesis)" and accused me of not reading your post. I asked what specifically cannot be accomplished, and your response was that your initial comment covered it...the one that offered no specifics. I've re-read your posts up to this point several times, and the post you are referring to at this point, does not exist.

Also, here you stated that they can only be collected with the SRV.

Which mats for engineering can only be gathered with an SRV?

There are many examples....I'll just give you a few examples in case this is an actual question and you're not just trolling.

Until very recently (i.e, 2.4 patch) MEF was either exceptionally rare (earlier during Horizons) or was bugged so that it did not appear as a mission reward at all. This means that you needed to drive the SRV to scan data points on base runs to obtain it prior to 2.4....

There are many other Engineering mats that either cannot be obtained from missions or appear so rarely as mission rewards that they cannot be obtained in sufficient quantities unless you collect mats with the SRV. Arsenic, yttrium and polonium are good examples here as they are required for the higher-grade FSD range mods and FSD mat synethsis boosts.

There are many other examples for specific mods but given that overcharged multicannons (which require MEF for Grade 5 mods) and the FSD range increases are such popular mods and are discussed frequently on these forums I'm surprized you actually have to ask this question.

Ok, so you finally addressed the question. You listed, MEF, arsenic, yttrium, and polonium. You actually confirm that MEF is available without an SRV here, so really no need to go on about it, but I can also confirm that MEF are available from mission rewards and USS sites. Others have claimed to recieve MEF from satelites, but I've not confirmed this myself. Regarding the other matierals you listed, and the "many others" that you did not, they are also available from mission rewards and can be mined from planetary rings and/or astroid clusters.

I pointed out that you did you provide any examples of materials that can only be accessed via the SRV, to which you replied:

Again, you didn't read my post carefully. I mentioned very specific examples of mats that either appear very rarely as mission rewards or were bugged to not appear at all which required the SRV to acquire in any significant quantities. Did you actually read the various mats I listed?

So, in addition to accusing me of missing your list of "various mats", you also shifted the criteria of your original claims, so that now you are referring to materials that are rarely available outside of surface prospecting, when we've been discussing materials that were not available by any means other than surface prospecting with an SRV.

Do actually read your own posts?

The story with the other claim, that there is a "steep learning curve" to using the SRV is similar. You post opinions and observations on how the SRV handles relative to actual or your ideal AWD vehicles, and point to that as evidence of a steep learning curve. I do not believe that having handling characteristics that do not conform to actual or ideal vehicles does not equate to having a steep learning curve to use for gameplay. You say that these differences do impact the learning curve, and I point out that my six year old can operate the SRV and gather mats (I left unsaid the "obvious", that my six year old cannot operate an actual car without issue) to highlight the basic problem with this logic, but of course, that isn't valid.

So, the entire basis for my response to your post was based on two claims, that materials and synthesis are locked behind the SRV, and that there is a steep learning curve for using the SRV. I do not belive that either of those assertions are true, as childern can operate the SRV without issue and materials referenced (as well as those for mods referenced) do not require an SRV to obtain (in fact, all of my data comes from USS and mission rewards.)

 

[VR andysonofbob]

I get a lot of joy, joy riding the SRV.

I find that taking my foot of the accelerator (I use pedals) as I turn or as I land minimises spin-outs for me

 

[CMDR ANCALAGON]

I get a lot of joy, joy riding the SRV.

I find that taking my foot of the accelerator (I use pedals) as I turn or as I land minimises spin-outs for me

That's about the only technique I've applied. Of course, it was easy for me because I drive cars in real life, and accelerating or braking while turning creates instability and is generally a bad idea.

Frankly, I have a blast in the SRV and spend little time on the actual ground as possible, as I find jump boosting to be more effective and fun in low grav environments. Of course, it is key to have wheels "aligned with your flight direction" before landing, else you will spin out.

My youth tells me that this is not unlike expected behavior when jumping/landing bicycles.

*edit* I've just realized that I am not 100% sure that the rear wheels on the SRV do steer, and if they do not, then just disregard the following paragraphs*

Seriously though, while spin outs are annoying at worst and not difficult to mitigate, once the skid starts, rear wheel turning vehicles should be handled differently that front steering vehicles in that you should not turn in the direction of the skid.

Also, true rear wheel skids are effectively impossible to recover from, and rear wheel steering vehicles should generaly be opperated at lower speeds that front steering vehicles in that the driver should not steer into the direction of the skid.

However, the SRV is not a rear steering vehicle, but is a four wheell steering vehicle (4WS). In these cars, the rear wheels turn oppisite the front wheels at low speeds, providing for a very tight turn radius. As speed increases, the movement of the rear wheels is less pronounced, and at higher speeds, the rear wheels actually turn in the same direction as the front wheels. (Imagine a 4WS car changing lanes on the highway and what you would see is the car almost moves laterally to the side, like a crab).

If the rear wheels on the SRV are turning oppisite the front wheels at the same rate, then that may be part of the porblem that people are frustrated with.

If this is the case, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is intentional sabatoge to create more challenaging gameplay, because that just feels like the line between constructive critisim and whatever mouth frothing condition lines beyond.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Look, FD are just being historically accurate. Since the dawn of space exploration, mankind has had trouble driving on every planet except Earth:

https://i.imgur.com/JPbhGU8.jpg

As this NASA picture clearly shows, even the low powered Mars Rover would spin out uncontrollably if it hit a rock!

I doubt it actually make a spin, it seems it just made a few turn probably to analyse a rock. Believe me, NASA *does not* want his rover to be drifting around Mars, it'd mess up with the wheels pretty badly.

 

[Wylie28]

You probably have a wheel of the ground.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

You've just illustrated the opposing point wonderfully: You have nicely explained why it goes better up hills in reverse. Draw a little picture of your SRV side-on. Draw some vertical force lines through the wheels. Now do it again on a slope, twice: One forward, one reverse. Look at what the slope does to the centre of gravity. In reverse, that front end with more grip than the back has even MORE grip, whereas going upslope transfers a lot of the mass to the rear wheels which - as you just banged on about - have less traction, resulting in traction breaking sooner.

I'm not in the position to say that your argument is invalid but you certanly aren't convincing me and let me tell you that I know my fair bit of physics.

Maybe find a source that explains it a bit better?

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Do the same tests when driving in reverse. Surprise, surprise - no spinouts!

It's pretty clear to me that the spin-out characteristic was a deliberate addition and nothing to do with handling, steering or weight charactetistics. Two reasons: 1. It doesn't do it in reverse. 2. The spinout is always 180 deg.

Yes, by careful driving and having zero pips on the engines, the SRV is driveable. No, driving it is not particularly pleasurable. I agree with Devari that they should have given the SRV more realistic handling and provided more challenging terrain, but that's not so easy as the solution they chose. Everything could be fixed with a rear view camera, but then it would be too easy. like everything in the game, they add obstacles to make simple things difficult and time-consuming. That's what this game is and has always been about and why we have commanders still playing after thousands of hours.

More challening terrain? Oh boy I wanna see you climbing a mountain in a low G world.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

This^^
Also, if you're using a throttle stick, turn the Drive assist off, and if you're using the keyboard, keep it on.

I actually use KB+mouse and I find it much better to use drive assit off. To each their own.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I actually use KB+mouse and I find it much better to use drive assit off. To each their own.

FWIW I agree.

 

[CMDR ANCALAGON]

The root cause of the spin outs is most likely 100% due to the fact that the rear wheel steering does not adjust as speed increases. At low speeds the rear wheels should turn oppisite the front wheels at a fairly pronounced angle and rate. As speed increases the movement of the rear wheels should be less and less pronounced, until higher speeds, where the rear wheel should turn in the same direction as the front wheels. In the SRV, the rear wheels always turn oppisite the front wheels at the same rate. 4WS vehicles typically make these adjustments to prevent spinning out at high speeds.

With front wheels pointing left and rear wheels pointing right, at low speeds you can turn on a dime. At high speeds, you still turn on a dime (180 spin out) and are much more likely to roll over.

Claiming that it isn't a true AWD vehicle, or personal experience driving AWD vehicles is completely irrelevant, unless your car is a 4WS vehicle. If it were, you would know exactly what the problem is.

 

[Vingtetun]

If I gun the revs and dump the clutch, I get wheelspin too. Anything up to and including third gear.

Looks like the SRV has big torque figures right from low revs so I am not in the least surprised.

Easy on the throttle there, cowboy.

 

[Devari]

Ok, so you finally addressed the question. You listed, MEF, arsenic, yttrium, and polonium.

Yes, when you asked for examples of mats that require the SRV to obtain in significant quantities I listed several. For some reason you didn't actually read that post until now.

You actually confirm that MEF is available without an SRV here, so really no need to go on about it, but I can also confirm that MEF are available from mission rewards and USS sites. Others have claimed to recieve MEF from satelites, but I've not confirmed this myself.

Apparently you didn't bother to read the rest of my post. I already explained that MEF only appeared in small quantities from missions at the start of Horizons and since then it was bugged so that it didn't appear as a mission reward at all for the majority of Horizons right up until the 2.4 patch. Now it's much more commonly available from missions, along with Exquisite Focus Crystals, but this only changed very recently. As I've explained in my prior post the only way to obtain MEF in any significant quantity until very recently was base runs with the SRV. That is why my 52-page MEF thread exists.

Regarding the other matierals you listed, and the "many others" that you did not, they are also available from mission rewards and can be mined from planetary rings and/or astroid clusters.

The other mats I listed are also not obtainable in significant quantities from missions or planetary mining which again means you are again required to drive the SRV to obtain those mats. There may occasionally be cases of arsenic dropping from asteroids but it is very time-consuming to try to obtain it from asteroid mining for various reasons that will be immediately obvious if you've actually participated in mining. Polonium and yttrium may have appeared very rarely as mission rewards but I haven't seen any confirmed cases of polonium or yttrium dropping from asteroids.

I'm sorry but for the majority of Horizons you couldn't get those mats that I listed in sufficient quantities unless you used the SRV. It was a common topic of discussion on these forums and the issue of those Engineering mats being effectively locked behind SRV use was a frequent topic of complaint.

So, in addition to accusing me of missing your list of "various mats", you also shifted the criteria of your original claims, so that now you are referring to materials that are rarely available outside of surface prospecting, when we've been discussing materials that were not available by any means other than surface prospecting with an SRV.

I originally stated that content was "locked" behind the SRV and explained several times that this is due to the SRV either being the only way of obtaining the mats or the only way to obtain the mats in sufficient quantities. For some reason you seem to have missed this consistently in my posts.

Do actually read your own posts?

Yes, but you apparently don't considering your replies often miss key aspects of what I'm actually saying.

childern can operate the SRV without issue

So your contribution to the discussion of SRV driving mechanics STILL consists of repeatedly mentioning that a six year old drives the SRV, therefore it must be fine? Sorry, but that is either trolling or non-productive discussion.

and materials referenced (as well as those for mods referenced) do not require an SRV to obtain (in fact, all of my data comes from USS and mission rewards.)

If you had read my entire posts you would have noticed several times where I mentioned that the mats are either not obtainable by other means (i.e., MEF prior to 2.4) or aren't obtainable in sufficient quantities. You seem to have conveniently forgotten about the second part despite my mention of that several times.

 

[Devari]

Maybe, but complete hypothesis on the design, nonetheless. To me, I see a big hollow cockpit at the front, and chunky stuff at the back. Although rationally they'd have gone for 50/50 distribution, just as we aim for in contemporary car design... making it better at reversing up hills.

Given the design features we see a vehicle that must be front-loaded with its weight distribution as it effectively has a "double axle" on the front wheels, i.e., double sets of wheels on the front vs. the rear. This only makes any sense if the vehicle is more heavily front-loaded and you can even estimate that there should be approximately a 62.5/37.5 front/rear weight distribution based on the placement of the wheels (i.e., 4 front wheels plus 1/2 of the middle wheels support the front of the SRV vs. 2 rear wheels plus 1/2 of the middle wheels support the rear). Otherwise the design makes zero sense from an engineering perspective. I agree that the SRV doesn't "look" front-heavy but we have to assume that the design of the extra front wheels was done for a reason and would have been based on logical engineering principles about weight distribution. In most cases this weight distribution will affect traction over the drive wheels more than weight transfer effects will when going up a hill. That's why many FWD cars with a 60/40 weight distribution and therefore more weight over the front axle can often climb hills better than a RWD car with a 50/50 weight distribution even though the RWD car is obtaining some weight transfer to the rear axle as it drives up the hill. Certain RWD vehicles with more weight over the rear axle (i.e., buses with rear-mounted engines and pickup trucks with sufficient weight in the back over the rear axles) can outperform FWD vehicles going uphill because they benefit from both a heavy rear-loaded weight distribution and weight transfer effects when driving up hill. That would not apply to the SRV however as the design tells us it must have a front-loaded weight distribution because it would be counter-productive to have more wheels on the front of the vehicle if there was actually more weight in the rear.

Remember that thrusters need to transfer that downforce through the vehicles wheels. Draw the force diagram again. Don't make me get Paint out, because the results of that will not be pretty.

You can draw MS paint if you like but before doing so you need to consider what I described above about the SRV's weight distribution and you also need to consider that the downforce from those thrusters can still be vectored to load the front or back differently as required. It can even give you differential downforce on one side of the vehicle to improve lateral grip and cornering which should make the SRV steer even better in addition to the rear active steering properties which should be able to improve handling even further if it were properly optimized. Being able to generate several g's of active downforce on demand and steer the rear wheels independently when needed would make issues of weight distribution much less relevant, at least if the SRV were designed properly to actually optimize its use of these features to improve handling. The basic engineering principles here are quite well understood and anyone with relevant driving experience with AWD and RWD vehicles is going to find the SRV's handling characteristics extremely poor for an AWD vehicle.

We're also left with the paradoxical issue that the SRV has better traction and handling going in reverse, not only on slopes but also on flat terrain, and that is quite simply the opposite of what we would expect for a well-designed SRV. Whatever combination of properties cause this overall effect on handling it would make no sense to design an SRV in that manner, if anything you would simply reverse the design so that it can be driven in the other direction. In fact on rare occasions when I've had to boost to a roof at a base on a high-G planet I would literally drive the SRV in reverse to maximize the handling properties. I did this to complete the data point scans at the Sawyer Beacon settlement on Kokary 3 and described this in my MEF thread. In that case I actually switched to the turret view and pointed it backwards and used that as a "backup camera" to navigate the SRV while driving backwards. If I could time it properly I would be able to boost, use the thrusters to adjust the pitch angle so that I would hit the slope of the wall at exactly the right angle to continue driving up the wall. If I was driving backwards I could get just enough additional traction by going in reverse once I hit the wall to get the rest of the way up to the roof. If I was doing the same technique driving forwards I wouldn't be able to get up to the roof because of the lower forward traction. No matter how you look at the issue it is quite simply a terrible game design for the SRV driving properties when I need to drive the SRV backwards to maximize its handling.

 

[CMDR ANCALAGON]

Yes, when you asked for examples of mats that require the SRV to obtain in significant quantities I listed several. For some reason you didn't actually read that post until now.

For whatever reason, the first part of my previous post was cut off, so here it is:

It's just another frustrating learning curve that players need to deal with if they want to access the gameplay that is artificially locked behind SRV use (i.e. Engineers and mat synthesis).

...provide proof of any materials, synthisis, or engineering that cannot be accomplished without an SRV.

Aslo, you said that materials gathering, synthisis, and engineering are locked behind the steep learning curve of the SRV. What of these specifically cannot be accomplished without the SRV?

I already mentioned that aspects of Engineering and mat synthesis require mats that can only be collected with the SRV. I mentioned this in my post already. Did you actually read it? You do have a history of not actually reading my posts carefully before you reply to them.

The last was your first response to the materials question. Maybe you posted and didn't submit the reply, but there was no previous post where you mentioned any specific mats or examples, and in this response you quite clearly state that "Engineering and mat synthesis require mats that can only be collected with the SRV" So even though there was no previous mention of any specific mats, you accuse me of not reading your post. When I ask again about specific examples, you provide the MEF, Ytrrium, and Arsenic, all of which are available via USS, Satelites, and mining rings. Naturally, you then shift to saying that you claimed that they were not available in sufficient quantities or as readily available to be useful, which is dishonest and subjective. Again though, you accuse me of not reading your response.

That's the funny part, is that I have read your posts and you move the goal posts, claim that you provided details that you did not, and insult with "you can't comprehend."


Look, you say that the SRV was designed to handle poorly as a deliberate decision to make it more challenging to drive, and I believe that it is more likely an oversight in not adjusting the rear wheel steering as speed increases.

You say that there is a high learning curve to using the SRV (never explained how traction issues make it so hard to use without getting through a steep learning curve), and I believe that there is little to know learning curve if I can teach my six year old in ten minutes how to use it to gather mats, and afterwards he is able to gather mats (and reful/repair as needed) for hours. To me, a steep learning curve implies that the process of operating the SRV to gather mats is complex and difficult to learn, and without learning how to use it first, one should not expect to be able to use it. If that's where we disagree, then fine. In your world, the SRV has a steep learning curve that is serving as an artifical barrier to game play, and in my world my kid can do it (which implies that it is pretty simple, which isn't really compatible with "steep learning curve").

You say that there are mats that can only be collected with the SRV. I don't think that is true at all, and no examples of materials that can only be collected via the SRV have been provided, and I believe that as of 2.0, all materials required for sythesis are available without Horizions (i.e. SRV).

So you believe "x" and I state that I believe "y" and your response is to state that I'm not reading your posts, and am unable to comprehend what you are talking about.


You are over there, and I am over here, and neither of our opinions have any bearing on the reality of the game, only our own individual enjoyment of the game, so no point in going on any further.

 

[Red Anders]

I've done extensive SRV driving in difficult locations (mostly from base runs on high-G worlds to get MEF) and I discovered that the SRV actually has better traction going backwards than it does going forwards. This was quite surprising given that there is actually a dual set of wheels on the front which you would expect to give better forward traction but I've encountered numerous steep slopes that I could slowly drive up going backwards but couldn't make any progress by driving forwards. I've noticed that these tendencies are consistent on both low-G and high-G planets so it doesn't only occur under conditions of low gravity affecting the traction, especially since the SRV has thrusters that continually provide the necessary downforce to allow it to drive on the very low-G planets (i.e., 0.03 g).

It really makes no sense other than FD intentionally designing the SRV with poor traction and steering capabilities. I even remember a poster mentioning that he believed the SRV was given performance characteristics of a rear-wheel drive vehicle which would explain the difference in forward vs. reverse traction. A RWD drive power bias would also explain the excessive tendency for the vehicle to suffer oversteer so readily with any loss of traction. In fact I wouldn't be surprized if the SRV performance was based entirely on RWD characteristics because the oversteer is so noticeable even during low-speed turns. Even if there is some power being supplied to the front wheels it clearly doesn't provide performance anywhere near close to what you would expect with a symmetric AWD setup or even a FWD system.

I suspect that FD decided they wanted driving the SRV to be a "challenge" and gave it handling and performance characteristics which are intentionally sub-optimal for off-road use, i.e., a predominantly RWD bias. I happen to drive an AWD car that has a RWD power bias under optimal conditions but sends power to all four wheel as needed when wheel slip is detected so I have a very good idea of how the SRV should drive if it were designed to perform properly under low-traction conditions. Unfortunately like many other aspects of Elite gameplay the SRV performance isn't designed with any sense of logic or realism for an off-road vehicle. It's just another frustrating learning curve that players need to deal with if they want to access the gameplay that is artificially locked behind SRV use (i.e. Engineers and mat synthesis).

Exactly that. As you say, the clearest indication of what is going on is that you can get up steeper slopes backwards than you can forwards; the power delivery is biased towards the rear wheels, or more accurately towards the rear and centre wheels. The result is that it handles more like a 1970s rally car on loose or slippery surfaces (which is pretty much everything we drive it on) than would be usual/sensible for a vehicle designed for such terrain.

Edit: Reading through this thread, I'm surprised at just how many people are asking for diagrams and such. I can only assume none of you have ever had to drive a rear wheel drive car up a steep hill in snow.

 

[Devari]

you accuse me of not reading your post.

I've already demonstrated that you didn't read my posts properly. I had to specifically ask you to list the mats that I stated in an earlier post and only then did you go back and read that post to list what I typed. Even then you didn't seem to understand what I typed about the availability of MEF prior to 2.4. I've also clarified several times that mats being locked behind the SRV can refer either to mats being completely unavailable by other means or to mats not being available in sufficient quantities without the SRV. For some reason you're ignoring all of the discussion I've had about those mats and focusing only on mats that are obtainable only with SRV use. As I've mentioned earlier you have a tendency of only reading part of my posts before you reply. You did the same thing in another thread where you felt the need to harshly criticize one of my post without actually reading what I was replying to.

Look, you say that the SRV was designed to handle poorly as a deliberate decision to make it more challenging to drive, and I believe that it is more likely an oversight in not adjusting the rear wheel steering as speed increases.

It's not just a rear-wheel steering issue. That likely is part of what contributes to the excessive oversteer but it doesn't explain the other sub-optimal handling properties of the SRV. There are slopes that you can only make progress from a standstill when driving backwards but not forwards and that has nothing to do with rear-wheel steering when you're going in a straight line up the slope.

I believe that there is little to know learning curve if I can teach my six year old in ten minutes how to use it to gather mats

If you need to keep going back to your "argument" of a six year old driving the SRV this simply isn't going to be a productive discussion.

You say that there are mats that can only be collected with the SRV.

I've clarified this several times now and have even given specific examples of mats that have (at different times) been either completely unavailable without the SRV or that required the SRV to obtain in sufficient quantities. At this point I'm not going to try to clarify this any further and I am simply going to stop responding to you if you insist on selectively reading only certain parts of my posts.

 

[Siranui]

I'm not in the position to say that your argument is invalid but you certanly aren't convincing me and let me tell you that I know my fair bit of physics.

Maybe find a source that explains it a bit better?

Thanks, but if you don't want to draw a sketch on the back of a packet or spend thirty seconds googling it, or simply typing 'car reversing up hill ice' into youtube, you're clearly being intractably obstinate and overly attached to your opinion, so I'll pass on the probably pointless effort of spending time trying to convince you.

 

[d8veh]

More challening terrain? Oh boy I wanna see you climbing a mountain in a low G world.

You're missing the point completely. In most cases, you're driving on relatively flat land with daft driving dynamics. I'm sure that for those that want a challenge, we can have a competition to see who can get to the top of a mountain fastest, but there would be more daftness when all the guys with the best times did it by going up backwards. If the SRV can be made to handle sensibly by driving backwards, but not forwards, something doesn't add up that it needs to stay like that. I'm not an expert in coding, but I'm willing to bet there's plenty of college guys that wouldn't take too long to figure out how to reverse the situation.

Personally, I don't care how it is. It's a game. I just play it as it is. I'm only trying to focus on whether it's an accident that it ended up like it did, whether physics makes it like it is or whether FD wanted it the way it is. The fact that it works perfectly backwards seems to indicate that it's the last one of the three.

 

[CMDR ANCALAGON]

You're missing the point completely. In most cases, you're driving on relatively flat land with daft driving dynamics. I'm sure that for those that want a challenge, we can have a competition to see who can get to the top of a mountain fastest, but there would be more daftness when all the guys with the best times did it by going up backwards. If the SRV can be made to handle sensibly by driving backwards, but not forwards, something doesn't add up that it needs to stay like that. I'm not an expert in coding, but I'm willing to bet there's plenty of college guys that wouldn't take too long to figure out how to reverse the situation.

Personally, I don't care how it is. It's a game. I just play it as it is. I'm only trying to focus on whether it's an accident that it ended up like it did, whether physics makes it like it is or whether FD wanted it the way it is. The fact that it works perfectly backwards seems to indicate that it's the last one of the three.

Whether it is an accident or deliberate sabatoge for some reason is something we cannot solve. If it does perform better in reverse, I don't see how that is more likely to indicate intent rather than mistake or some other scenario (are the speeds in reverse the same as forward?).

Frankly, if FDEV never states one way or another, all we can do is speculate.

I'm wondering if anyone has submitted a bug for the rear wheels steering at the same rate and direction at all times. I suspect they have, but if I cannot find one, I will submit another. Obviously, no garuntees that will make a difference, but it is one of the few productive options available, and since the current mechanics are in contrast to typical 4WS vehicle operations (because not doing so results in excessive spin outs at higher speeds), I think it sort of falls into "bug" category (though not in the strict technical definition.)

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Thanks, but if you don't want to draw a sketch on the back of a packet or spend thirty seconds googling it, or simply typing 'car reversing up hill ice' into youtube, you're clearly being intractably obstinate and overly attached to your opinion, so I'll pass on the probably pointless effort of spending time trying to convince you.

The one making the claim is the one in charge of proving it.