Hacker News Reader

Comment by 14u2c | Hacker News Reader

They don't mean the actual cells but the tech supporting them. Layout of the cells, battery management system, battery cooling system, charging circuitry, motor controller, etc. These are the hard parts and they are custom Tesla designs.

View on HN

But that's not battery technology, is it? It's what you said, everything else but the battery technology. Also, Tesla isn't the only company with that technology.

That is battery technology in my opinion. Technology involved in managing and and controlling battery systems.

Batteries these days are very reliant on their controllers to perform well and be reliable. You couldn't just jam a dumb battery bank into a Tesla and have it work right.

Well, you could do that, and then it would catch fire. No problemo.

Hah, yes. It's as a like to joke with my boss (who has a good sense of humor) when asked to do something faster than reasonable:

"Well, if you're willing to accept an incompetent result, there's any number of things I could do very badly. If you'd like, you can fire 10 people & I'd happily accept their 10 salaries if I'm allowed to be bad at their jobs. If you insist on competence though, it's going to take more time"

But that's not battery technology, is it?

If you wish to be the guy insisting "That's not batteries, that's battery packs!" nobody can stop you.

Not really a good look though.

The chemistry and assembly of battery cells, and the system design of battery packs, are completely independent disciplines. I understand where the parent commenter is coming from - all the headlines make out that Tesla has some new battery (cell) tech. They don't - they just cleverly assemble Panasonic cells.

They are not completely independent, the pack has to understand cell technology. That's like saying to develop a good cluster you have to understand nothing about individual servers.

And Tesla actually has new cell technology and new pack technology that has nothing to do with Panasonic.

Absurd. Charge management has everything to do with thermal management and service life optimization, which in turn has everything to do with packaging and chemistry.

You cannot reduce "battery technology" simply to the cell level. Because the cell isn't really battery tech in that pedantic sense either. If you're going to say the things that make batteries functional in their applications aren't part of the tech, then you're left with defining batteries merely as the chemical reactions that take place. It's like saying the glass housing isn't part of light bulb technology because it's not the element that actually gives off light. That the legs on a chair are not pair of chair technology because it's not the part you actually sit on.

You cannot divorce the things that make something function in any practical sense for the concept of that area of technology.

You seem to be taking issue with this topic because some articles imply it's the cell that's been innovated. You have a point: The articles should be clearer. But the failure of those articles to properly make that distinction doesn't mean it's not part of battery technology.

Let's make this simpler: There is battery cell technology and there is battery management technology. Both are part of high tech implementations of battery systems.

You're absolutely correct, and it matters not one bit because for the general public (and even the not-so-general public of HN readers) they don't care that much about the difference and it really doesn't matter much if at all for the topic at hand.

You guys are terrible at hiding COI.

Whats COI?

conflict of interest, they are implying they are TSLA holders or shorters

I’m implying employees. “Holders or shorters” is one of their template narratives

Just because those narratives may be used by the self-interested doesn't mean that are false in all cases. There are shorters, there are shills pushing the opposite way, but not every negative things said is a shorter, and not everything positive said is a shill.

You defended that narratives.

If I was a paid shill or investor for anyone selling batteries, battery packs, electric vehicles or anything related I'd have a lot more money in my bank account than I do. Probably wouldn't be driving a car that predates Tesla's IPO either.

If you're not willing to have a conversation on the merits without resorting to accusing the other person of deliberate lies, you shouldn't be on HN.

Right now you're basically saying that anyone who disagrees with your extremely narrow definition can't just be wrong, but also must be a self-interested shill for Tesla. Sure, there's probably TSLA holders or employees here that talk it up, but your inability to see anyone's comment that reflects well on Tesla as something other than self-interest instead of honest opinion is devolving your comments to the quality of conspiracy theories instead discussion.

That's kind of like saying software isn't part of the technology it controls. But the two are fairly inseparable.

If the software & control systems are specific & integral to the hardware they're attached to, it's part of the same package. If we were talking about a CNC laser cutter, the specialized software is also part of the package "CNC technology". You literally cannot have the first without the second. In Tesla's case, theirs seems to be better. Not that they haven't had problems: It's that they've already worked through a bunch of them, and as I understand it have come up with some novel innovations in the process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com