News
Automobili Pininfarina teases electric hypercar, credits Tesla’s Elon Musk for “electric vehicle movement”
Automobili Pininfarina, the Munich-based carmaker with deep roots in both the luxury market and Formula E recently teased its upcoming electric hypercar, code-named PF0 (Pininfarina Zero), set to debut in August at the exclusive Pebble Beach Concours in Monterey, California.
Its sister company Pininfarina is the legendary design house responsible for revered supercars like the Ferrari Testarossa, GT 250, and Enzo. In fact, the only street legal Ferrari’s not designed by them are the 1973 Dino 308 GT4 and 2013’s LaFerrari. They’ve also designed cars for Fiat, Alfa Romeo, BMW, Maserati, among others, and manufactured cars for GM, Mitsubishi, and Volvo. Another fun fact -Pininfarina had their own full-sized wind tunnel in 1972, eight years before GM had one.
Automobili Pininfarina has also assembled some impressive talent from across the automotive world. Their executive group includes former Jaguar / Land Rover, Bugatti, Volvo, and Audi employees, to name a few. Their lead designer, Luca Borgogno, previously led Lamborghini’s Turin design studio for Pininfarina, while Formula E driver Nick Heildfeld will be joining the team next year to help deliver a ‘race-bred’ hypercar.
The venture into manufacturing their own car is a sort of rebirth for Pininfarina. The company had fallen on hard times with debt restructuring in the late 2000’s and reductions in their workforce. Then in 2015 Mahindra & Mahindra stepped in to purchase a majority holding. If you aren’t familiar with M&M, they are manufacturer based out of India and one of the founding ten members of Formula E. They are India’s leading electric vehicle manufacturer.
Mahindra Racing
I spoke with Automobili Pininfarina’s CEO Michael Perschke, Chief Brand Officer Dan Connell, and Design Director Luca Borgogno from their July 12th North American brand launch event in New York. My first question was why they chose to go fully electric, with so many established luxury automakers tepidly looking to hybrids for their first venture into electrification.
Michael was quick to give credit to Tesla and Elon Musk. “We wouldn’t be sitting here today if Elon hadn’t started the electric vehicle movement”. He said that to put both technologies on board means you are not committed to either and you don’t start designing a brand new high tech hypercar based on technology that’s over 100 years old. “You don’t want to get stuck with combustion engines,” he said. “The point of no return has been crossed, combustion engines are aging. They can be further improved but they are not a leapfrog technology”. These comments are important to take note of, as someone who has spent his career with companies like Audi and Mercedes, Mr. Perschke’s views on where the industry needs to go are telling.
Manufacturers and the oil industry often claim higher efficiencies are possible with combustion, but to achieve that requires greater complexity and expense, with depreciating returns – all while electric vehicles are making a big gain in performance and cost.
“If you want a brand that’s relevant in 2050, you don’t start with a drivetrain that’s been used since 1890” – Michael Perschke, Automobili Pininfarina.
Automobili Pininfarina North American Brand Launch – New York July 12th, 2018
The car industry has seen several EV startups, with bold claims, but I think this one is legit. They have the right mix of experience, innovation, talent, and financial support. They are certainly targeting some impressive performance figures:
Release Date: 2020
0 – 100 km/h (62 mph): < 2 seconds
0 – 300 km/h (186 mph): < 12 seconds
Top speed: > 400 km/h (250 mph)
Range: > 500 km (310 miles)
You’ll notice that both the timing and the performance figures are conspicuously similar to Tesla’s coming Roadster, but any speculation of competition with Tesla was quickly shot down. “We are complimenting the offering that Elon has launched…. with a focus more on the European supercar design styling heritage”. On the raw specifications, this vehicle seems an obviously competitor but that’s oversimplifying the market. With a reported price tag exceeding $2 million dollars, they are obviously targeting a different segment of the market – it’s a European hypercar after all. And while that may seem to limit its direct impact, I’m excited to see what it can do and how it will influence the performance luxury vehicle segment. As Elon has noted, we still need to fully remove the “performance halo” surrounding high-end combustion cars. That’s Tesla’s goal with the new Roadster and I hope Automobili Pininfarina can help do that for Italian supercars as well. How many posters and computer desktop backgrounds still depict gas burning supercars? It’s time they were replaced.
Luca Borgogno, their design director, shared some of his insights into the design with me.
“We have two key words,” he said “purity and beauty”. He said it was important that all design elements serve a purpose, that form and function must be joined together for a purity of design. Their intent is for the PFO to convey both the legacy of European sports cars and link it to the modern technology that’s behind it.
For the exterior, he said, low drag was obviously important for a vehicle capable of going over 250mph. Keeping the middle of the car as a clean, unobstructed line improves the aerodynamics he said. To do this the rear of the vehicle will have a split rear wing, with each side capable of individually articulating for improved downforce and even provide for air braking. It certainly has a sleek looking profile.
They aren’t releasing any images of the interior yet but he says it again follows the same purity ethos, with clean simplicity and a high degree of seamless digitization. It seems this is a new approach Tesla has pioneered. To add beauty to the interior through simplification. I’m certainly supportive, the interior of my Model 3 is beautiful and immediately relaxing. Automobili Pininfarina seems to be embracing the idea as well.
Luca also noted that purity wasn’t just about interior design but also in the materials they use. That means using as much sustainable and natural materials as possible.
It became apparent that they were designing this car, not just because they loved cars, but because they see where society is going and that we need a more sustainable approach. “Sustainability should not be a buzzword,” Michael said. “For us, it will be the full 360 degree approach. It starts at the tailpipe… but we must also look at the manufacturing, the battery second life, and using renewable energy”. They are currently working on their roadmap to full sustainability and will have explicit targets for it, with more information coming this fall. They complimented Tesla as leaders in this area as well, including their solar installation at the Gigafactory.
The technology to make this car possible seems to be right around the corner. Tesla already has their prototype driving around and reportedly “breaking the laws of physics”. If Automobili Pininfarina can integrate some of their parent companies Formula E tech, then there’s no reason to think this car won’t meet their goals. They are producing the car in small volumes, so mass production “hell” isn’t a concern, but they did note more vehicle models will come, specifically that SUVs are in their future. Is this the start of a new all-electric luxury brand in Europe? One can hope.
It seems they have the right mix to be successful and I hope we see them soon.
Afterword:
At the end of the interview, I asked them if they drive electric cars or which ones they particularly enjoy. Michael quickly noted test driving the Tesla P100D with ludicrous mode was his favorite so far and that’s probably the one he’s going to buy. He also said he’d look at the Volvo XC90 plug-in hybrid as a family car. A Ferrari, he said, would also likely be needed – although I assume that’s at least until their PF0 is available.
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
