News
Tesla has proven itself, but Ferrari & Lamborghini says EVs can’t be supercars
In a rather rare act of solidarity, rivals Ferrari and Lamborghini have agreed on one thing: neither one would be making an all-electric supercar in the near future. Both companies note that electric car technology is not there yet to warrant an initiative to create a born-and-bred supercar.
Citing a rather dated example for the limitations of electric cars, the supercar makers noted that true high-performance vehicles need to be capable of launching multiple times in full power, over and over again, in both straights and corners. This is a limitation that was true for vehicles like the Tesla Model S, which is a monster in straight line races but compromised in closed circuits. These issues have largely been solved in more recent vehicles like the Model 3 Performance, an all-electric car that is capable of besting other high-performance sedans on a track.
The supercar makers also noted that the lack of sound from a roaring V12 or a supercharged V8 is a great part of the supercar experience, and this is something that is mostly absent in electric vehicles. Commenting on faux engine noises pumped into the cabin similar to the ones employed in the BMW i8, Ferrari’s chief technology officer, Michael Hugo, noted at the Geneva Motor Show that “we have to have a certain credibility.”
Maurizio Reggiani, chief technical officer at Lamborghini also noted that the big battery packs required of electric cars could compromise some of the brand’s design elements. Lamborghinis are already very low on the ground, and the CTO noted that stuffing a battery pack on the floor would sacrifice the benefit of a low center of gravity that the company’s wedge-shaped supercars enjoy.
Quite interestingly, Porsche CEO Oliver Blume noted in the 2019 Annual Press Conference that emotion in cars is not just about the noise that an engine makes. It is also about design, quality, driving characteristics, and the holistic experience of driving the vehicle. Porsche is hardly a neophyte in terms of creating supercars either, with vehicles like the 919 Hybrid and the 918 Spyder under its belt, so Blume’s statement could be taken with a notable amount of legitimacy.
RELATED: Exclusive: Porsche’s electric heart beats in the Taycan’s Zuffenhausen factory
It is a bit disappointing to see Ferrari and Lamborghini dismiss electric propulsion at this stage in the game. Just last week, Germany’s big three, Volkswagen, BMW, and Daimler, all decided that electric cars are the way forward, signifying an upcoming industry shift. What is somewhat surprising from Ferrari and Lamborghini’s recent comments was the fact that the companies seemed to have completely ignored the existence of all-electric supercars that are present today.
There’s the Rimac C_Two from Croatia, which matches and even exceeds any Lamborgini and Ferrari in terms of its explosive power. There’s the Nio EP9 that conquered the Nurburgring’s records. There’s even the Pininfarina Battista, an all-electric 1,900 bhp monster that can hit 186 mph in less than 12 seconds. All of these vehicles are fully electric.
Of course, there is also the next-generation Tesla Roadster, which goes from 0-60 mph in 1.9 seconds at its base form. Elon Musk dubbed the vehicle as a “hardcore smackdown” to gasoline cars, and in terms of specs, it’s downright frightening, from its 250+ mph top speed, and its higher trims, one of which is called the “SpaceX package,” which uses literal rocket technology from Musk’s private rocket company. The Rimac C_Two is expected to start deliveries in 2020, the same year as the next-gen Roadster. The NIO EP9 has been around since 2016, and the Pininfarina Battista is expected to arrive in 2020.
So much for electric car technology not being there yet.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
