Tesla’s J.B Straubel – Disruption Is Not Our Goal – Video

2 years ago by Mark Kane 17

Tesla CTO JB Straubel

Tesla CTO JB Straubel

Last month, Forrester Research caught part of Tesla CTO JB Straubel’s statement on how the automaker is developing disrupting products.

All the Tesla execs sit with Elon Musk and discuss how they will collectively disrupt the world…or not.

Disruption isn’t the goal. It’s just a side effect of the process of developing appealing products for consumers with use of new technology.

The main goal is to address the needs and demands of consumers.

Tesla Motors: Disruption Is Never Our Goal

“Co-founder and Chief Technical Officer JB Straubel shares how leveraging technology creates products that help win, serve, and retain customers.”

Tags: , ,

17 responses to "Tesla’s J.B Straubel – Disruption Is Not Our Goal – Video"

  1. suresh says:

    last month…. exactly.. not really new s.

  2. Benz says:

    The full video is not available?

  3. arne-nl says:

    Elon Musk has always stated that an industry-wide move to EV’s is the goal. If that isn’t disruption, then what is?

    1. Anon says:

      Doing the right things to ensure cleaner, sustainable and highly efficient transport will naturally step on the toes of those who thoughtlessly dump carbon into the atmosphere withought any economic consequence.

      Doing the right thing to correct a trend of wrong, is usually quite disruptive. Sometimes, history refers to such events as “revolutions”.

      Extinction, or revolution. Your choice.

    2. RexxSee says:

      Disrupting the climate destroying industries is rescuing the world.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “Disrupting the climate destroying industries is rescuing the world.”

        Maybe Elon Musk should stop flying his jets everywhere…

  4. Mister G says:

    Oil addicts do not like to be disrupted by Tesla.

  5. islandboy says:

    Elon Musk has stated repeatedly that his goal with Tesla is to “accelerate the advent of sustainable transportation. By extension that means to put an end to “unsustainable” transportation. That is an indirect statement of the intention to disrupt.

    If one gets up everyday thinking about how you’re going to disrupt some business, it is probably not going result in productive outcomes. If instead, one focuses on how one can make a potentially disruptive product better or more affordable, disruption becomes virtually inevitable.

    J.B. is discussing semantics. They don’t go to work everyday thinking about how they can literally disrupt the car market but, they do go to work every day, thinking about how they can make electric cars more appealing and more affordable. What’s the difference?

    1. Anon says:

      J.B. has also done this semantic dance with his discussions of rated horse power…

      1. scottf200 says:

        The masses don’t care about your HP pedantics. Sell it and buy another car. Good riddance.

        1. Anon says:

          If “the masses” didn’t care, no one in Norway would be suing Tesla over the issue.

          Just stating historical precedent in regards to J.B.’s linguistic tendencies. If that upsets you, try learning meditation. 🙂

          1. Tesla’s Dual Motor Battery Horsepower Limitations are akin to a Large V8 with a Six Pack Carburetor, but a tiny fuel line and under-powered fuel pump! It does not matter how much air and fuel you can pump through that six-pack – if you can’t actually deliver it! Just the Same – said V8 with 6-pack Carbs could (in theory) produce some 600+ HP, but on a car with older and smaller fuel lines and a fuel pump that can’t keep up – it will ultimately produce less than max rated or capable HP!

            However – some people would be upset about this as well – if the OEM said the engine can produce 600+ HP – and they Dyno tested it to only 500 HP!

            However – I see a time in Tesla’s future – as batteries get better – the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times of all their cars will improve, just because there will be less battery limitations!

            They don’t have this issue with the Single Motor Tesla’s as the motors can’t use up all the power the Pack can deliver, hence – the single motor Model S cars are in fact ‘Motor Limited’ while the Performance Dual Motor Cars are in fact ‘Battery Limited’ (For Now)!

            Even related to this – is the Ludicrous upgrade on the P85D – is not as fast as a P90D – in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile heats! Proof that as the batteries get better and can deliver a capacity – the Available Max Horsepower in the Dual Motor Performance Editions – will come to a time when they are again ‘Motor Limited’ instead of ‘Battery Limited’ – just like the single motor versions today!

            As to other OEM’s: would they have a program to allow you to bring the car in – upgrade the Fuel Lines, (to larger ones), add a High Performance Fuel Pump, and a Nitrous oxide System, at the Dealer? I doubt it!

            The Mazda Dealer that sold me a consignment RX7 (1983 GSL) in 1984, that had an aftermarket Arkay Turbo System on it – and they had no idea how to service it!

            Tesla Has offered a very moderate cost for the Battery upgrade from 85 – to 90 kWh, but a much more exorbitant cost for the Roadster Battery Upgrade from ~53 kWh to 70 kWh, explained by the fact that the Roadster Batteries are Hand-built, while the Tesla Model S Packs are largely built in robotic assembly cells. However – they at least offer the upgrade with newer and better cells.

            Yet to be seen if similar is actually true in the case with the new LEAF 30 kWh Battery for cars like the 2011 – 2015 LEAF’s, or the supposed upgraded i3 battery.

          2. JakeY says:

            I was reading up on that and no one has sued Tesla yet in Norway (has not reached an actual court yet). It is being handled by the Norway Consumer Council and judging by how slow they handled the Apple case it may take years before it is resolved though that process. By then most of the “masses” would have forgotten about this.

            In general, the “masses” see the P85D as very a very quick car anyways regardless of hand-wringing over horsepower and far out of their budget to matter. The price and range of the Model 3 would be of far more interest than horsepower.

  6. Ed says:

    If disruption isn’t the goal, then it’s a very desired side effect. The auto dealer cartel needs disrupting.

  7. Lad says:

    Designing a two ton street car to accelerate 0-60 in 3 seconds is a waste of engineering manpower and Tesla’s resources. Just like hidden door handles, it nothing but ‘bling.’ How often do you need that kind of acceleration driving on the roads?…never!

    Time Tesla stopped wasting money on ‘bling’ and gimmicks and started making their cars more practical and less expensive.

    Want to do something great, build a 2700 lb 500 mile EV. 0-60

    1. Lad says:

      To finish: 0-60 in 7-8 seconds works just fine.