Four questions for NEVS CEO Stefan Tilk

The media visibility of NEVS has been limited in recent months. It is difficult for outsiders to assess where the path under Evergrande will lead. The four questions that FKG, the Association of Swedish Auto Suppliers, asked Tilk provide an insight.

NEVS Sango project
NEVS Sango project

Stefan Tilk about the NEVS ecosystem.

NEVS sees itself as a mobility service provider. For the company, it's not just about offering vehicles. In light of pollution and traffic jams, smart but simple transportation solutions are important. The use of new technologies makes them possible. In the NEVS ecosystem, mobility solutions, vehicles and society will work together.

The most important current project at NEVS?

The company is working on a number of projects. One of the most important is that PONS / Sango Project. An autonomous robot taxi for the urban environment. Here, too, mobility solutions play a major role. NEVS is also working on the development of new Evergrande car models to be launched in China next year.

Does NEVS currently make cars?

NEVS currently has no series production, says Stefan Tilk. We only produce small volumes for various ongoing development projects.

How is the cooperation with Koenigsegg?

It works. NEVS carries out tests on systems and components. The idea is that some components for the new Gemera will be manufactured in Trollhättan.

Tilk, beyond NEVS

The development of the mobility service provider NEVS leaves time for further activities. Per Stefan Andersson Tilk is busy. The NEVS CEO has a stake in, or wholly owned, a number of Swedish companies. His latest commitment, beyond Sweden, is emission-free mobility. Tilk is now also a member of the board of directors of HumanForest. The e-bike start-up in London started in June.

Subscribers can cross the city emission-free with the electric bike, 20 minutes a day are free for private users. So far, 14.000 drivers have completed 42.000 journeys. HumanForest claims to have avoided 8 tons of C02. Now the company has raised £ 1.8 million to increase its fleet of bikes from 1.000 to 2.000. The new bikes are expected in London at the end of the month.

15 thoughts on "Four questions for NEVS CEO Stefan Tilk"

  • @ Ebasil,

    I watch something like that too. Unfortunately, the e-bike is mostly used in a perverted way and replaces footpaths in commuter traffic (e.g. London as a mobility service) and saves physical activity in the fresh air in leisure time (as private property) ...

    It's all very sad.

    However, there are very few counterexamples of a sensible use that actually takes place as an alternative to the car. I know a marathon runner with an office job, as well as participants in cycling races in everyone's format. He flirted intensely with an e-bike for his journey of 25 km (one way) to work.

    That is 350 km a week, after deducting holidays and so on approx. 15.000 a year. He hasn't bought one yet, but if he did I wouldn't blame him ...

    That would finally be someone who would not misuse an e-bike to increase their ecological footprint, but use it to reduce it. Quasi the opposite of London and lazy recreational pilots.

    In purely technical and theoretical terms, these things actually have enormous (savings) potential in direct comparison to conventional cars. Only (almost) nobody uses them for the benefit of the environment. How did you write so beautifully and accurately? Everything “on top”.

    That is exactly where the problem lies. “On top” is growth. “On top” is welcome. I don't know of a single example in Germany that politically and economically, in the name of the environment, anything less than “on top” has ever been demanded and promoted ...

    We have known for a long time that “on top” saves neither energy nor resources. “On top”, however, is far too attractive economically and fiscally to do the right thing.

  • Volvaab - exactly right!

    Yes, I feel the same way. Very interesting approaches in the comments! And one would like to despair that one does not know how one can effectively counter these arguments to the public eco-fig leaf e-hype.

    When it comes to e-bikes, by the way, I assume that even in private ownership, almost nobody buys one instead of a car. In any case, in my circle of acquaintances they are only bought instead of or in addition to normal bicycles - so that the last ones disappear in the shed, never to be seen again. People are simply too lazy or too lazy or too unsportsmanlike that they all want this support. And then the expensive things are strapped to the bike racks of the SUV so that they can go on nice trips. You can see that here all the time!

    A friend has just bought new e-bikes for himself and his wife for 10.000 euros (for the purpose of the excursion mentioned above). This is already their second generation of e-bikes, the predecessors, which were almost as expensive, are now unused in the garage because the batteries are broken and replacing them is not economically viable.

    Total madness and the exact opposite - pure pollution for the climate! I - admittedly also out of a sporty self-image - really want to ride a bike, which is why my oppa half-moped never comes into my house. I continue to use my Peugeot bike from the 200s that I bought used (and overhauled by a specialist) for 80 euros with great fun (as far as possible in the city). A “half racing bike” and a really cool vehicle! 🙂

  • Mobility services

    Articles and comments keep me going - ultimately, the whole topic.

    I like to think complex, conceptual and there are really many good views, arguments and suggestions ...

    Around from Aero-9-3. It is true that shared taxis from a mobility service provider can reduce the volume of traffic in metropolitan areas, save resources and lower emissions - unlike a Hengchi, which already looks yesterday.

    Or black Saab. If you want an e-bike, buy one.

    Or Ebasil, which points out that the e-bike and e-scooter services without bogus self-employed people and their dirty journeys for service purposes cannot be implemented at all.

    The bottom line is that an e-bike only makes sense if it is used in old boxes in the city without a CO2-intensive chase by bogus self-employed people, if it is privately charged, serviced and used as an alternative to a car.

    But that is not Mr Tilk's agenda, who cannot meaningfully explain and justify what e-bikes are actually doing in the context of an all-encompassing mobility service and a coherent, urban concept on the last few meters between the underground and the office?

  • Volvaab - Numbers and PR

    Very clear and fact-based, great, thank you! In my job, one of the most important skills is to be able to read the relevant facts from a lot of things around. As soon as I glanced at the article and didn't do the math, I thought that the bikes must have been used very little. It's a very simple calculation. It's bad when the oh-so-important “CEO with his fingers all over the place” believes that he can create an oh-so-eco-exemplary impression. Worse still, despite the obvious opposite, he'll probably do it for most people.

  • @ Tim Weber (Sango),

    Good question, which standards can and should be applied to the design of a robot taxi?

    For me it is clear that this is not a beautiful automobile. But it's not an automobile at all - not in the conventional sense ...

    In other words, I do not find any criteria in the special purpose of the Sango that its design does not do justice to.

    Different function = different form

    A robot taxi is guaranteed to get worse. The designers were just doing their job. I even have a certain respect for their performance.

  • So my main problem with the NEVS Sango is just… that the thing is ugly as hell. So no front, but the part just doesn't look good, and you can make a moving cuboid look okay. But the part, nope ^^

  • PR - voluntary civil

    Since I come from the industry (as I said) and can interpret numbers and represent them either positively or negatively, here is a factually correct alternative to the PR of HumanForest and E-Bikes in London:

    “14.000 users made 42.000 trips on our 1.000 e-bikes. That's only 42 trips per bike and only 3 (!) Per user - not every day, but in total.

    Although the HumanForest offer allows 20 minutes of free use per day, our bikes are not nearly fully utilized and we cannot see that we have sufficiently reached and convinced our target group.

    Instead of taking advantage of the offer, the average distance traveled was only 950 meters. Compared to a car that currently emits around 42.000g / km in the city center, 200 such journeys result in savings of around 8 tons of CO2, but this is offset by the fact that such distances are usually covered on foot. In addition, the expense of 1.000 e-bikes, each of which only rode around 40 km - again not about daily, but in total.

    In the course of the test phase, we can neither determine nor forecast any economic viability or positive environmental effects for the present. We are therefore discontinuing the project immediately and no longer receiving any further funding.

    Why am I writing all this crap, this alternative but factually correct PR message? Because the discrepancy can hardly be bigger, even though I only use the numbers Tilts. Fascinating what people can and are allowed to talk about. And how much funding there is sometimes.

  • It's good to read that most of the people are not infected by this e-hype and ripped off. I thought something was wrong with me 😉

  • Volvaab, capri73, Griffin ...

    ... hit the nail on the head! With the current electricity mix, emissions are only generated elsewhere. There are also those involved in production and disposal. As Volvaab correctly writes: everything is just on top, nothing because of savings!

    The same goes for the bogus e-scooters, always lying around in the way, the user basically had to leave them standing as an obstacle in the middle of the footpath, where the things then individually and - of course completely emission-free - paid more than badly per piece night after night Seized self-employed people and brought back in their ancient diesel vans. For a short remaining service life until it is completely scrapped.

    Not a kilometer is saved with the combustion engine, on the contrary. It's all about the fun factor. And it's really annoying that these things, just like the e-bikes in London, are practically canonized under the green fraudulent label!

  • I agree with you too, Volvaab Driver.
    Every electric vehicle, regardless of whether it is a car, bike or rowboat, is never emission-free, but at best is locally emission-free. Fortunately, the power plant is out of sight in the city.
    This unreflected e-hype is pretty much on the camshaft for me and my Saab overall.

    12
  • @ Herbert Hürsch,
    Absolutely correct!!! Can 100% agree with your text.
    Walking or using a normal bike is the most environmentally friendly

  • @ Aero-9-3,

    How much CO2 was saved “EXACTLY” would not have been positive to me, if something had actually been saved ...

    Using London as an example, however, the point and the right question is how much CO2 and resources have additionally (!) Been produced or used.

    The e-bike is relatively new. It motorizes precisely the distances and the last few meters that humans would otherwise have covered on their own in a very environmentally friendly way and for the benefit of their own health. The question of savings does not even arise.

    A CEO who drives everything possible and impossible is not a bicycle manufacturer.

    The assertion of alleged savings through e-bikes cannot and must not be allowed to pass without further inquiries.

    Tomorrow somebody will come with electric rowing boats and talk about CO2 savings again. You don't have to believe everything, you can't go along with everything.

    14
  • It's interesting that a CEO in the automobile industry relies on bicycles as a “sideline” ... I don't really care how much CO ”is saved in the process. Certainly more savings than producing an electric vehicle (regardless of the purpose).
    Moving on 2 legs only (without aids) is more economical.
    I found it interesting that NEVS does not (!) Want to offer vehicles, but rather “mobility solutions”. Something has probably changed / changed in the last few years. Such “smart” service providers will probably need humanity in the metropolises…. Without being on the road “together”, as it is now, it will not go on or “stand still” for long.
    Evergrande's announcement to flood the market with electric vehicles already seems to me “like yesterday” ... only the drive was modified.
    The neck is a bit thin.
    I live in the contryside. I have space. I am never stuck in traffic jams (when planning a vacation, traffic jams are an issue ...). I can freely decide whether I want to visit a metropolis. The gas station attendant noticed my mobility transition long ago ...
    The change starts at home.

    4
    1
  • The good news: NEVS has a hand in it at Evergrande and helps develop. 100 points 🙂

    The news that was not discussed: What about contract production and the Sion. Dead or alive?

    @Volvaab Driver: Some startups are pointless green fig leaves. Anyone who wants an e-bike should buy one. Even with the British. Why is? Collecting and selling data - I could imagine.

  • Communication

    I come from the industry. And it annoys me how arbitrarily the statements are constructed. Measured by what exactly, have the e-bikes allegedly saved 8 tons of CO2 in London?

    Measured against conventional bicycles? Certainly not. Judging by the walk from London Underground to the office? Certainly not …

    The reference point is more likely to be the car and that is a lying milkmaid bill. Even 25 years ago (I lived and worked there) cars in the inner city were practically useless.

    Bankers and even managers have preferred public transport. Almost no one drove a car. And certainly not from the underground to the office ...

    If you are honest, e-bikes and e-scooters save nothing at all. Apart from lazy and hurried people walking or exercising on a bike, skateboard or scooter ...

    So what do you save the environment? CO2? Resources? Definitely not. But under the label and fig leaf of electromobility everyone can and is currently allowed to do everything. And they do. And they communicate it - in the name of the environment, of all things. Shame, shame shame, shame… Shame on you! ! !

    25

Post a comment

This website uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn more about how your comment data is processed.