News
Tesla patent hints at more reliable batteries through ‘dynamic’ management system
It is no exaggeration to state that Tesla’s business hinges on its battery technology. Fortunately for the company, its batteries are among the best in the industry today. This is particularly notable in the case of Tesla’s electric cars, as well as its energy storage products. In terms of vehicles, Tesla’s battery tech has reached a point where it is capable of supporting the demands of closed circuit driving, as is the case with the Model 3 Performance’s Track Mode. In terms of battery storage, the quality and performance of Tesla’s batteries have been so impressive in South Australia that it appears to have started an energy storage movement.
Considering Tesla’s reputation for never staying still, though, it is almost certain that the company’s batteries will improve over time. This was mentioned by Tesla’s President of Automotive Jerome Guillen to CNBC last November, when he noted that the company’s technology consistently evolves. In his segment, the executive noted that “the design of the (battery) cell is not frozen,” indicating upcoming improvements in the near future.
A recently published patent points to one of these battery tech improvements. Titled “Multi-Channel and Bi-Directional Battery Management System,” the patent describes a way for Tesla to push the envelope on its battery management system even further. In the patent’s description, Tesla noted that the increasing demand for battery-based power is putting an emphasis on the performance demands of management systems, which ensure proper operation within a range of products like electric vehicles and energy storage units.
While battery management systems perform vital functions, the units themselves could be subject to various external factors. In the case of electric cars, the system could be subject to mechanical vibration and shock, varying environmental temperature, multiple power domains and a large number of interference sources that could deteriorate signals between the centralized management controller and multiple battery integrated circuits. Considering that batteries are the only power source for electric vehicles, instances involving a failure of the system could render an electric vehicle inoperable. With this in mind, Tesla notes that there is a need for a battery management system that is “more robust and dynamic.”
-
- A diagram of Tesla’s battery management system. (Photo: US Patent Office)
-
- A diagram of Tesla’s battery management system. (Photo: US Patent Office)
-
- A diagram of Tesla’s battery management system. (Photo: US Patent Office)
Diagrams of Tesla’s battery management system. (Photo: US Patent Office)
Tesla’s patent describes what could be dubbed as a redundant battery management system, comprising a first client coupled within a multi-channel, bi-directional and daisy-chained communication loop. The electric car maker also outlined a method for identifying a failure location within a battery management system. Tesla describes these as follows.
“The battery management system may include a host (such as a microcontroller that manages at a system level) and clients (such as battery management integrated circuits that manage battery cells within the system). In embodiments, the host may be implemented in various structures including the previously mentioned microcontroller and manages the system by transmitting commands and receiving responses from one or more of the clients. Each client may monitor and control corresponding battery cells to measure the electrical and physical status of the cells, such as voltage, amount of remaining electrical charge and temperature of each cell. For instance, the client 120a may monitor the cells 130a. It is noted that each client may monitor a different number of battery cells. The client 120a may perform measurements (e.g., voltage, charge, temperature, etc.) as well as perform certain functions (e.g., bleed-off charge from a battery cell, etc).”
Tesla further discussed its rationale behind its use of daisy-chain loops for its battery management system.
“The host and each client may communicate commands and responses via a daisy-chain transmission path loop, where the daisy-chain loop may include a pair of wires that transmit electrical signals therethrough. In embodiments, the daisy-chain loop may connect the interface of the host to the interfaces of the clients in series so that communication may serially occur on one or multiple channels within the loop. “
“The battery management system is able to provide redundant communication paths because of its ability to bi-directionally communicate along the daisy-chain loop and because the two channels used on the daisy-chain loop each allow access to completely separate and redundant battery management systems. Specifically, the host is able to communicate in a clockwise direction around the serially connected clients as well as communicate in a counter-clockwise direction along the loop. This bi-directionality allows the host to communicate with each client in case there is a single failure within the daisy-chain loop. This redundancy applies to both channels.”
Ultimately, Tesla notes that these systems will result in what could only be described as “dynamic redundancy” across its battery management systems. This, of course, could foster a new generation of battery packs that are more reliable than the company’s already stellar batteries.
“One skilled in the art will recognize the use of a multi-channel signaling system as well as a bi-directional signaling architecture within the battery management system results in dynamic redundancy across the system itself. For example, if a primary or secondary circuit should fail on a client, the host may communicate a redundant command to the client using a different and fully operational channel. The multiple channel architecture ensures that even egregious malfunction of a sub-system, such as the transmission of spurious data, will not be able to interfere with normal operation of a complementary subsystem operating on a different channel. In addition, the bi-directionality of the system allows for compensation to occur in the event of a complete path failure somewhere within the loop.”
The past months have seen an influx of published patents for Tesla. Among these include an automatic tire inflation system patent that can pave the way for off-road capabilities for the company’s vehicles, a clever patent that would allow Tesla to address panel gaps during vehicle assembly, a patent that describes colored solar roof tiles, and even a system that uses electric cars as a way to improve vehicle positioning.
Tesla’s recently published patent on its Multi-Channel and Bi-Directional Battery Management System could be accessed in full here.
News
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.
The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.
That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.
The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.
Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.
SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.
The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.
Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
