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.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
