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:
Tesla rolled out Full Self-Driving version 14.2 yesterday to members of the Early Access Program (EAP). Expectations were high, and Tesla surely delivered.
With the rollout of Tesla FSD v14.2, there were major benchmarks for improvement from the v14.1 suite, which spanned across seven improvements. Our final experience with v14.1 was with v14.1.7, and to be honest, things were good, but it felt like there were a handful of regressions from previous iterations.
While there were improvements in brake stabbing and hesitation, we did experience a few small interventions related to navigation and just overall performance. It was nothing major; there were no critical takeovers that required any major publicity, as they were more or less subjective things that I was not particularly comfortable with. Other drivers might have been more relaxed.
With v14.2 hitting our cars yesterday, there were a handful of things we truly noticed in terms of improvement, most notably the lack of brake stabbing and hesitation, a major complaint with v14.1.x.
However, in a 62-minute drive that was fully recorded, there were a lot of positives, and only one true complaint, which was something we haven’t had issues with in the past.
The Good
Lack of Brake Stabbing and Hesitation
Perhaps the most notable and publicized issue with v14.1.x was the presence of brake stabbing and hesitation. Arriving at intersections was particularly nerve-racking on the previous version simply because of this. At four-way stops, the car would not be assertive enough to take its turn, especially when other vehicles at the same intersection would inch forward or start to move.
This was a major problem.
However, there were no instances of this yesterday on our lengthy drive. It was much more assertive when arriving at these types of scenarios, but was also more patient when FSD knew it was not the car’s turn to proceed.
Can report on v14.2 today there were ZERO instances of break stabbing or hesitation at intersections today
It was a significant improvement from v14.1.x
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 21, 2025
This improvement was the most noticeable throughout the drive, along with fixes in overall smoothness.
Speed Profiles Seem to Be More Reasonable
There were a handful of FSD v14 users who felt as if the loss of a Max Speed setting was a negative. However, these complaints will, in our opinion, begin to subside, especially as things have seemed to be refined quite nicely with v14.2.
Freeway driving is where this is especially noticeable. If it’s traveling too slow, just switch to a faster profile. If it’s too fast, switch to a slower profile. However, the speeds seem to be much more defined with each Speed Profile, which is something that I really find to be a huge advantage. Previously, you could tell the difference in speeds, but not in driving styles. At times, Standard felt a lot like Hurry. Now, you can clearly tell the difference between the two.
It seems as if Tesla made a goal that drivers should be able to tell which Speed Profile is active if it was not shown on the screen. With v14.1.x, this was not necessarily something that could be done. With v14.2, if someone tested me on which Speed Profile was being used, I’m fairly certain I could pick each one.
Better Overall Operation
I felt, at times, especially with v14.1.7, there were some jerky movements. Nothing that was super alarming, but there were times when things just felt a little more finicky than others.
v14.2 feels much smoother overall, with really great decision-making, lane changes that feel second nature, and a great speed of travel. It was a very comfortable ride.
The Bad
Parking
It feels as if there was a slight regression in parking quality, as both times v14.2 pulled into parking spots, I would have felt compelled to adjust manually if I were staying at my destinations. For the sake of testing, at my first destination, I arrived, allowed the car to park, and then left. At the tail-end of testing, I walked inside the store that FSD v14.2 drove me to, so I had to adjust the parking manually.
This was pretty disappointing. Apart from parking at Superchargers, which is always flawless, parking performance is something that needs some attention. The release notes for v14.2. state that parking spot selection and parking quality will improve with future versions.
Any issues with parking on your end? 14.1.7 didn’t have this trouble with parking pic.twitter.com/JPLRO2obUj
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 21, 2025
However, this was truly my only complaint about v14.2.
You can check out our full 62-minute ride-along below:
Elon Musk
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX has issued an initial statement about Starship Booster 18’s anomaly early Friday. The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX’s initial comment
As per SpaceX in a post on its official account on social media platform X, Booster 18 was undergoing gas system pressure tests when the anomaly happened. Despite the nature of the incident, the company emphasized that no propellant was loaded, no engines were installed, and personnel were kept at a safe distance from the booster, resulting in zero injuries.
“Booster 18 suffered an anomaly during gas system pressure testing that we were conducting in advance of structural proof testing. No propellant was on the vehicle, and engines were not yet installed. The teams need time to investigate before we are confident of the cause. No one was injured as we maintain a safe distance for personnel during this type of testing. The site remains clear and we are working plans to safely reenter the site,” SpaceX wrote in its post on X.
Incident and aftermath
Livestream footage from LabPadre showed Booster 18’s lower half crumpling around the liquid oxygen tank area at approximately 4:04 a.m. CT. Subsequent images posted by on-site observers revealed extensive deformation across the booster’s lower structure. Needless to say, spaceflight observers have noted that Booster 18 would likely be a complete loss due to its anomaly.
Booster 18 had rolled out only a day earlier and was one of the first vehicles in the Starship V3 program. The V3 series incorporates structural reinforcements and reliability upgrades intended to prepare Starship for rapid-reuse testing and eventual tower-catch operations. Elon Musk has been optimistic about Starship V3, previously noting on X that the spacecraft might be able to complete initial missions to Mars.
Investor's Corner
Tesla analyst maintains $500 PT, says FSD drives better than humans now
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) received fresh support from Piper Sandler this week after analysts toured the Fremont Factory and tested the company’s latest Full Self-Driving software. The firm reaffirmed its $500 price target, stating that FSD V14 delivered a notably smooth robotaxi demonstration and may already perform at levels comparable to, if not better than, average human drivers.
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Analysts highlight autonomy progress
During more than 75 minutes of focused discussions, analysts reportedly focused on FSD v14’s updates. Piper Sandler’s team pointed to meaningful strides in perception, object handling, and overall ride smoothness during the robotaxi demo.
The visit also included discussions on updates to Tesla’s in-house chip initiatives, its Optimus program, and the growth of the company’s battery storage business. Analysts noted that Tesla continues refining cost structures and capital expenditure expectations, which are key elements in future margin recovery, as noted in a Yahoo Finance report.
Analyst Alexander Potter noted that “we think FSD is a truly impressive product that is (probably) already better at driving than the average American.” This conclusion was strengthened by what he described as a “flawless robotaxi ride to the hotel.”
Street targets diverge on TSLA
While Piper Sandler stands by its $500 target, it is not the highest estimate on the Street. Wedbush, for one, has a $600 per share price target for TSLA stock.
Other institutions have also weighed in on TSLA stock as of late. HSBC reiterated a Reduce rating with a $131 target, citing a gap between earnings fundamentals and the company’s market value. By contrast, TD Cowen maintained a Buy rating and a $509 target, pointing to strong autonomous driving demonstrations in Austin and the pace of software-driven improvements.
Stifel analysts also lifted their price target for Tesla to $508 per share over the company’s ongoing robotaxi and FSD programs.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2 – Full Review, the Good and the Bad
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
