News
Tesla’s approach to battery technology keeps it ahead in the EV industry
Tesla’s dominance in the growing electric vehicle (EV) industry is largely attributed to its unique approach to its battery technology. The engineering behind the all-electric car maker’s cylindrical cells speaks for itself in terms of the performance and range achieved, but in a recent interview with a battery technology researcher, a few things detailed about Tesla’s batteries stood out in particular.
Ravindra Kempaiah is a Ph.D. scholar at the University of Illinois Chicago focusing on advanced battery materials for his thesis. In his interview with Tesla owner and host of All Things EV, Sean Mitchell, Kempaiah explained lithium-ion technology in EVs and the primary issues faced in their development. Overall, the biggest challenge is balancing the three main components in battery production: energy density, cost, and cycle life. Increasing one area will significantly impact the other, and the ideal equation is always being sought after. For example, if you increase energy density for higher range and lower cost, the cycle life takes a major hit. If you increase density and life cycle, the battery alone can cost as much as $100k, as described by Kempaiah.
“We always want more range. We always want higher cycle life. We want our batteries to last 15-20 years and the car to go 500 miles, but this is a problem every battery scientist has faced for the last 30 years,” Kempaiah commented in the interview.
Tesla deals with the same balancing act as other battery-electric car makers; however, there are key factors which seem to have kept the company ahead in the industry.
First, Tesla’s choice of cylindrical cells sets it apart from every other electric vehicle on the market. This provides several advantages that drive performance, flexibility, and cost control. Notably, Rivian is also using cylindrical cells, although their vehicles are not yet under production.
Out of the three types of cells available (cylindrical, prismatic, and pouch cells), cylindrical is the most cost-effective to produce. Namely, the cost per kWh is lower in cylindrical cells versus other types. The metallic jacket around the 18650 and 2170 cylindrical cells used in the Tesla Model S/X and Model 3, respectively, acts as scaffolding and provides structural rigidity to the battery. Additionally, in high powered situations, current draw and distribution of power is over the entirety of the battery pack instead of concentrated in a certain section, according to Kempaiah.
Second, Tesla uses a liquid-cooled thermal management system to manage battery temperatures whereas other automakers take a more economical air cooling approach. By adjusting the temperature of the battery pack, Tesla is able to ensure that cells are operating in their most efficient and optimal states, thereby maximizing battery longevity as well as performance. While reducing cost is an important factor in accelerating the growth of the electric vehicle market, Tesla’s investment in thermal management technology provides an upside for owners who may be looking for longevity and long-term affordability of their cars.
Third, Tesla has actively sought to limit the amount of cobalt it uses in its batteries and already uses less of the element than other companies in the Model 3 batteries. The scarcity of cobalt and its mining sources have subjected it to socioeconomic situations that are more than problematic in the United States, i.e., child labor and similar abuses are widespread in its sourcing. With this in mind, Tesla has been working on the question, “Is cobalt really needed?”
Cobalt is used as a cathode in battery technology, and out of all cathode materials available, it has the highest cost both fiscally and politically. Current consensus on battery technology says that without cobalt, the structural integrity and cycle life in batteries is compromised, as described in the interview. However, some recent scientific literature was cited by Kempaiah that indicated higher nickel content limited the impact of cobalt on batteries, possibly removing the need to use it at all. Nickel is more widely available across the globe, which keeps its cost down and mitigates the socioeconomic impacts often associated with resource mining operations. Overall, the discussion between Mitchell and Kempaiah indicated that Tesla can probably go cobalt-free soon, making it less vulnerable to the cobalt industry.
Finally, Tesla takes great care to educate its customers about proper battery maintenance, especially with regard to the negative impact of bad charging habits. Specifically, keeping an electric car battery charged at 100% for long periods degrades the battery very quickly, while keeping charging states within an optimal range will give it a long life. Tesla makes it a point to communicate to customers the importance of battery health on their overall ownership experience and value of their purchase.
When asked for his opinion by Mitchell, Kempaiah attributed the lack of education by other brands as a disconnect between engineering teams and marketing teams. While battery “best practices” are provided to EV customers by all manufacturers, the importance of communicating the true impact of bad charging habits may not be emphasized enough to be included as prominently as it should.
In summary, Tesla is constantly developing the technology in its vehicles, and its particular attention to its batteries looks to have given the company a significant advantage over its competitors. Perhaps other automakers will take a few tips from Tesla in the future, even if it’s as limited as improving communications with customers.
Watch Sean Mitchell’s full interview with Ravindra Kempaiah below:
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
