News
Is Tesla Motors disruptive or disturbing?

Tesla Motors stands out in many ways, leaving many wondering how disruptive is it and how disturbing it is for corporations. One thing is for certain, Tesla reflects a need in society, that of a deep fundamental change. The problem is, are giant corporations ready for this change and can they adapt?
To disrupt, or not, that is not longer the questions.
Tesla Motors disrupts and irritates the way corporations operate. Elon Musk and Martin Eberhard didn’t invent the wheel, they both used what entrepreneurs are best at, that of asking what is needed. They wanted a cool and fun car that didn’t use dirty polluting petroleum. They went to see what AC Propulsion was working on with their incredible t-zero, the grandfather of the Roadster and the Tesla Roadster born soon after.
Tesla Motors didn’t reinvent the wheel, but disrupted the automotive world by using old and tested technologies, an electric motor and off the shelf batteries. On the flip side, automakers build vehicles with planned obsolescence and constant maintenance, which perpetuate a thriving cash flow through after market and distribution. Tesla introduced an electric car that required close to no maintenance, sold directly to buyers who choose to buy it or not. That was the disruptive part, now let’s look at the disturbing part for automakers.
Steady as she goes down the drain.
We often fault carmakers for everything wrong in the automotive industry, but their worn out business model that won’t adapt to our fast changing needs is really what is wrong. The biggest mistake they made was to over-rely on the market it created in the first place. It simply didn’t see the electric car technology progressing faster than their gasoline one and doubted this new market was ready. They simply didn’t understand people want a real fundamental change, which means taking a step back from bottom line profits.
The Tesla Motors business model frightens established companies because it operates outside their reality and shifts the emphasis back to the consumer. We can debate how much hype there is around a Roadster and a Model S, but fundamentally, one either buys cars because of its superior performance over a gasoline car, or because of the freedom of energy use, with its convenience and reliability and finally, or because it just darn changes things a lot.
Now flash back to the post 2008 era, when the financial world was partying as if there were no tomorrow and carmakers sued any states imposing better fuel economy. Carmakers perpetuated the belief we wanted cars with more cup holders than we truly needed, and favored creature comforts over performance and evolution. The advent of the electric wrestled that grip on the lulled market away from them, the way only a silicon valley startup could with its different business model.
Who’s disturbing now?
So, who’s disturbing now? When we look back in time, almost all big corporations were at one point disruptive. AT&T gave us Unix, Microsoft gave us the potential of the personal computer, but we certainly can’t call them disruptive anymore. They are disturbing in the fact they no longer innovate, but stubbornly pursue a path of pure profitability. Unfortunately, Apple is also following the same trend. The company once famous for stellar customer service and extremely well made computers is now more focused on profits than innovations. It’s Apple store is no longer fun to visit, and manufacturing problems are happening often.
It doesn’t take much extrapolation to see that one day too, Tesla Motors will be in the same situation. Are there exceptions? Certainly IBM made the right change. After decades of focusing on manufacturing, it made the boldest move to go back to consulting. Look at where IBM is now, and compare it to other personal computer makers. So what can companies learn from newer players and what can newer players learn from older companies having come full circle?
News
NHTSA probes 2.9 million Tesla vehicles over reports of FSD traffic violations
The agency said FSD may have “induced vehicle behavior that violated traffic safety laws.”

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has opened an investigation into nearly 2.9 million Tesla vehicles over potential traffic-safety violations linked to the use of the company’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The agency said FSD may have “induced vehicle behavior that violated traffic safety laws,” citing reports of Teslas running red lights or traveling in the wrong direction during lane changes.
As per the NHTSA, it has six reports in which a Tesla with FSD engaged “approached an intersection with a red traffic signal, continued to travel into the intersection against the red light and was subsequently involved in a crash with other motor vehicles in the intersection.” Four of these crashes reportedly resulted in one or more major injuries.
The agency also listed 18 complaints and one media report which alleged that a Tesla operating with FSD engaged “failed to remain stopped for the duration of a red traffic signal, failed to stop fully, or failed to accurately detect and display the correct traffic signal state in the vehicle interface.”
Some complainants also alleged that FSD “did not provide warnings of the system’s intended behavior as the vehicle was approaching a red traffic signal,” as noted in a Reuters report.
Tesla has not commented on the investigation, which remains in the preliminary phase. However, any potential recall could prove complicated since the reported incidents likely involved the use of older FSD (Supervised) versions that have already been updated.
Tesla’s recent FSD (Supervised) V14.1 update, which is currently rolling out to drivers, is expected to feature significantly improved lane management, intersection handling, and overall driving accuracy, reducing the chances of similar violations. It should also be noted that Tesla maintains that FSD is a supervised system for now, and thus, is not autonomous yet.
While autonomous systems face scrutiny, NHTSA’s own data highlights a much larger danger on the road from human error. The agency recorded 3,275 deaths in 2023 caused by distracted driving due to activities like texting, talking, or adjusting navigation while operating a vehicle manually. It is also widely believed that a good number of traffic violations are unreported due to their frequency and ubiquity.
News
Tesla quietly files for Model Y+ in China, and its range numbers could be wild
The upcoming variant was listed in the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s (MIIT) public catalog.

Tesla has filed for regulatory approval of a new Model Y+ in China, hinting at a long-range update to its best-selling crossover SUV.
The upcoming variant was listed in the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s (MIIT) public catalog.
Mirroring Model 3+ Range
Based on the MIIT’s catalog, the Model Y+ will feature a 225 kW/302 horsepower single-motor setup. It will also feature ternary LG Energy Solution batteries, similar to the long-range Model 3+, which was launched earlier this year. The vehicle is expected to offer around 800 kilometers of CLTC range, potentially making it the longest range Model Y in Tesla China’s lineup.
The new Model Y+, identified under model number TSL6480BEVBR0, retains the same five-seat configuration and dimensions as the current Model Y. Though Tesla has not yet confirmed official range figures, industry observers expect it to be quite similar to the Model 3+’s 830-kilometer CLTC performance, as noted in a CNEV Post report.
Intensifying Competition
Tesla’s filing comes amid intensifying domestic competition in China. The U.S. EV maker sold 57,152 vehicles in August, down nearly 10% year-on-year, though up almost 41% from July’s 40,617 units, as noted by data from the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). Still, the Model Y+ could help Tesla regain traction against strong local players by offering class-leading range and improved efficiency, two factors that have become a trademark of the electric vehicle maker in China.
Tesla’s experience with the Model 3+, which received a RMB 10,000 price cut within a month of launch, suggests that raw range numbers alone may not guarantee stronger sales. With this in mind, the rollout of features such as FSD could prove beneficial in boosting the company’s sales in the country.
Elon Musk
‘I don’t understand TSLAQ:’ notable investor backs Tesla, Elon Musk

One notable investor that many people will recognize said today on X that he does not understand Tesla shorts, otherwise known as $TSLAQ, and he’s giving some interesting reasons.
Martin Shkreli was long known as “Pharmabro.” For years, he was known as the guy who bought the rights to a drug called Daraprim, hiked the prices, and spent a few years in Federal prison for securities fraud and conspiracy.
Shkreli is now an investor who co-founded several hedge funds, including Elea Capital, MSMB Capital Management, and MSMB Healthcare. He is also known for his frank, blunt, and straightforward responses on X.
His LinkedIn currently shows he is the Co-Founder of DL Software Inc.
One of his most recent posts on X criticized those who choose to short Tesla stock, stating he does not understand their perspective. He gave a list of reasons, which I’ll link here, as they’re not necessarily PG. I’ll list a few:
- Fundamentals always have and will always matter
- TSLAQ was beaten by Tesla because it’s “a great company with great management,” and they made a mistake “by betting against Elon.”
- When Shkreli shorts stocks, he is “shorting FRAUDS and pipe dreams”
After Shkreli continued to question the idea behind shorting Tesla, he continued as he pondered the mentality behind those who choose to bet against the stock:
“I don’t understand ‘TSLAQ.’ Guy is the richest man in the world. He won. It’s over. He’s more successful with his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest companies than you will ever be, x100.
You can admit you are wrong, it’s just a feeling which will dissipate with time, trust me.”
i dont understand “$TSLAQ”. guy is the richest man in the world. he won. it’s over. he’s more successful with his 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest companies than you will ever be, x100.
you can admit you are wrong, it’s just a feeling which will dissipate with time, trust me. https://t.co/dkqrISCldp
— Martin Shkreli (@MartinShkreli) October 8, 2025
According to reports from both Fortune and Business Insider, Tesla short sellers have lost a cumulative $64.5 billion since Tesla’s IPO in 2010.
Shorts did accumulate a temporary profit of $16.2 billion earlier this year.
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla FSD V14 set for early wide release next week: Elon Musk
-
News2 weeks ago
Elon Musk gives update on Tesla Optimus progress
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla has a new first with its Supercharger network
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla job postings seem to show next surprise market entry
-
Investor's Corner2 weeks ago
Tesla gets new Street-high price target with high hopes for autonomy domination
-
Lifestyle2 weeks ago
500-mile test proves why Tesla Model Y still humiliates rivals in Europe
-
News1 week ago
Tesla Giga Berlin’s water consumption has achieved the unthinkable
-
Lifestyle2 weeks ago
Tesla Model S Plaid battles China’s 1500 hp monster Nurburgring monster, with surprising results