OT: WARNING Landmine on Van Ness, SF (NB 101)

Yes, might want to change car and just move my batteries over. I just want to pay with batteries anyway.

There was an accident with previous owner, but no detail on it.

Testing my expansion battery using AC110V->DC168V-(/5)->DC24V-(x2)->DC48V-(x8)->DC192V-(x2)-> DC384V.

Eventually, just move the battery out of the vehicle and plug it in the wall.

I avoid horrors like Van Ness and Diviz and Valencia and Market Street. It's faster and much more pleasant to take some smaller side streets whenever possible.

I go up Scott instead of Diviz to get to Kaiser, for example. Stop signs cycles faster than traffic lights, and busses really slow things down.

Electric cars are heavy. Maybe less maneuverable than gas cars, and there's more mass to damage suspensions when you hit a bump or even turn hard.

Van Ness was empty at 4am. Would have seen it earlier in daytime.

It was too manurable. I hard turn to the right to avoid the anti-vehicle mine (watching too much RU/UA video), and pushing the left wheel sideway. The lower control arm is bended (toe-in). The repair shop wants $700 to fix it. I asked him to just bend it back a bit. He won't.

It's self-correcting a bit and I can drive at 25MPH. My friend in Vegas can probably do it for less. That's what they do for wheel alignment anyway. I will have to drive to Vegas at 25MPH.

What was the "mine"? A cardboard box?

Drive to Vegas and back, at 25 MPH, to save a few hundred dollars?

Electric cars are a disease.

Yes, around 2' to 3' box, right in the middle of the road .

Could have happened to any car. I'll ask my friend to re-enforce the control arm with additional metal bars.

Moral of the story:

Don't watch RU/UA video while driving. Pay actual attention to your

Just kidding. If i can find a shop to pull the arm back a bit, i can probably do 45MPH on the way there and 60MPH coming back.

I also need them to work on the batteries, where it's almost impossible to find anyone locally.

Was not watching, but war videos are deeply embedded in my mind.

What a waste. Assuming an optimistic 97% efficiency for each of your conversion steps (an *very* optimistic assumption) then your five conversion steps have wasted 15% of the incoming energy just in conversion losses.

No. at least 99% overall. No energy loss with jumpers and toggle switches, one time energy loss in bi-stable relays. There are no passive components, but burn-out fuses sometime.

Furthermore, they are balanced at 12V or 16V level.

If by "That's what they do for wheel alignment anyway" you are referring to your "asked him to bend [the control arm] back a bit" comment, then you are wildly misguided. Wheel alignment is not done by "bending the control arms". All the necessary adjustments have adjusters to allow an alignment to be performed. For toe that usually takes the form of a threaded hollow pipe which can be turned to lengthen/shorten the control arm and adjust the toe setting. If the actual arm is bent, then not only is the integrity of the arm at question, but the new length of the arm is probably beyond the adjustment range of the threaded adjuster.

Incorrect. Any car with such poor build quality that the driver can damage steering linkages simply by performing only a hard snap turn on a road at speed (and not hitting anything in the process) is so poorly designed it should be scrapped instead of repaired.

OK, I can probably replace it with this $50 part, if I can borrow someone's garage.

Just cheap parts, but nothing to do with EV. Need stronger arms. Look like there are already two mounting holes for a re-enforcement bar, or just weld some in.

Battery mass may factor in. It wouldn't be practical to limit steering angle, but the battery mass may apply extreme forces to the suspension in some conditions.

But yes, it sounds like a bad design.

How are you obtaining 99% overall with five conversion stages?

AC to DC entails rectification -- there will be some loss in the rectifier.

Then, how do you divide 168VDC by seven without any losses? Then how do you double 24V to 48V without losses, then multiplying 48 by 8 without loss to get 192V? And then how do you double the 192V to get 384V without loss?

What does this statement even mean?

I said nothing about EV. The phrase "Any car" encompasses all cars, EV or otherwise.

Yes.

No, those look (from that picture) to be present as either moisture drain holes, or as holes to use to mount something else (like a shock absorber) if the same part is reused in a different model car (which is not uncommon, parts reuse among models is often common).

upshifting (in series) and downshifting (in parallel).

OK, one stage loss, but inevitable in any converter.

Shifting DC168V (in serial) to DC24V (in parallel).

Again, standard serial/parallel shifting.

There are internal 3 stages BMS for the 12V module.

Upshifting? Downshifting? Those works would make sense when discussing an automotive transmission, but they make no sense electricaly.

Do you mean you connect (connect is the right term here, not shift) the batteries in serial and or in parallel for the voltage changes?

Again, wrong word. Do you mean you change from serial connected batteries to parallel connected batteries?

There's nothing standard about your using the word "shift" in this context.

What 12V module? In your long chain of conversions your lowest voltage was 24V. Where do you get "12V" from?

Yes, I guess I am inventing terms. Upshifting and downshifting voltages.

I mean standard voltage doubler/halfer circuits.