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
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
The Boring Company’s Prufrock MB2 is commissioned and ready to mine beneath Nashville’s streets.
The Boring Company’s second tunnel boring machine, Prufrock MB2, is officially ready to dig in Nashville. The company confirmed the news on X, posting: “Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here. Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start? And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August!”
MB2 arrives with meaningful improvements over its predecessor. Lessons learned from the launch and operation of MB1 have already been applied to MB2 to improve efficiency and prepare the machine for launch.
Traditional tunnel boring machines operate in a stop-and-go cycle, digging roughly five feet, halt, erect precast concrete segments to line the tunnel wall, then resume. That repeated interruption is one of the main reasons conventional tunneling is slow and expensive. Prufrock is designed to install the tunnel liner simultaneously with mining, eliminating the need to stop every five feet. The machine also skips the need for excavated launch pits. Prufrock arrives on a truck, tilts down, and launches into the ground within 24 hours. And when the tunnel is complete, it emerges from the ground and drives to its next launch site on a trailer, eliminating the need for expensive cranes or pit excavation. The machine is also fully electric and runs with zero people in the tunnel during normal operations, controlled remotely from a surface operations center.
Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here.
Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start?
And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August! pic.twitter.com/TTrMql2aRg
— The Boring Company (@boringcompany) June 17, 2026
It won’t be long before we hear of another major update on The Boring Company’s Music City Loop project – a planned underground transit network beneath Nashville that would move passengers in electric vehicles through a series of tunnels at highway speeds, and bypassing surface traffic entirely. Nashville was selected in part because of its strong rock conditions that suits the Prufrock machines well, and relatively less regulatory hurdles.
Progress has been steady on multiple fronts. All 37 permits and approvals required ahead of tunneling have been obtained, out of 45 total. Key wins include a fully executed TDOT tunnel permit authorizing 25 miles of tunnel, unanimous airport authority approval for a Nashville International Airport station, and the city’s first residential station agreement serving downtown tower residents.
With MB1 already tunneling, MB2 now commissioned, and MB3 shipping in August, Nashville is becoming something of a live proving ground for scaled tunnel boring. The broader ambition is not limited to one city. The Boring Company’s stated goal is to make underground transportation a practical alternative to surface roads across major metro areas. Nashville is one of many cities, including a successful Las Vegas tunnel system, where that idea is being put to the test at real speed.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
