This is once again not how any of this actually works, nor is it how it's even implemented on the inverter. I don't have time to dive into all of the details this evening, but suffice it to say I skimmed the document linked and it looks to be basically the same bogus claims about voltage drops with much more fluff than the last paper.
I love how a scope graph of 12V drops on an ICE car with EPAS is used to try prove a point.
lol. Something tells me an ICE alternator isn't going to be able to respond to large loads as quickly as a digitally controlled DC-DC converter with ~20 kHz+ switching. Oh, right, there's never any such voltage drop on a Tesla for that reason. At worst the DC-DC will allow the 12V rail to hit about 11.5V when purposely cycling the lead acid battery... which isn't even a thing on newer cars anymore, so the rail is kept pretty constant on those.
Oh, and something like 10-15 other modules on the car send 12V readings to the gateway for logging, and 3 or 4 of those will latch any dips < 10.8V and ensure that makes it to the log regardless of polling rate. (The only time I've ever seen dips like that were with a failed DC-DC, or on a car not supported by HV... clearly not the case if you're speeding away.) I've
never seen any 12V dips in any of the logs I've examined from "SUA" claim vehicles from any module. In fact, I explicitly looked at these datapoints when debunking the previous "paper" that claimed the same nonsense.
Happy 4th.
Edit: Addressing this specific:
The EPAS maxes out at about 40A draw, and only in short bursts. The DC-DC is rated for 200A continuous, but can do WAY more than that in short bursts (I've pulled 400A from one for several seconds).
Most vehicles don't see more than ~100-150A load even in the worst possible situations (EPAS going, fans maxed out, seat heaters on, radio blasting, etc).
