Renault Is Now A Strategic Partner And Investor In Wandercraft

Sneak peek of the Calvin-40
The Renault Group has finalized a minority investment in the French self-balancing exoskeleton developer Wandercraft. This agreement unlocks new funding and serves as a vote of confidence in the technology that enables people confined to a wheelchair to stand and walk again without the need for crutches or walkers.
Furthermore, the Renault Group will leverage Wandercraft's technical expertise to develop a new line of humanoid robots. This strategic partnership is initially focusing on Calvin, a line of next-generation robots for manufacturing operations (a sneak peek of the Calvin-40 is featured above). The intent is for these robots to perform tasks that require handling of loads in body positions that put too much wear and tear on workers' bodies.
Finally, the partnership envisions leveraging Renault's assembly expertise to make robots and exoskeletons more affordable and easier to produce at scale.
'We are proud to continue advancing our mission through this strategic partnership. After millions of steps, and numerous awards recognizing our use of AI for good, this move takes us to the next level. As a world-class manufacturer, Renault Group strengthens our ability to produce at scale while increasing access, which remains critical for our soon-to-be customers walking again in Eve. Renault Group also brings tremendous technological synergies and represents our very first customer in a growing list of clients.' - Matthieu Masselin, CEO and co-founder of Wandercraft.
'This partnership with Wandercraft is a forward-looking move. It will allow us to accelerate on automation and to develop robots for our specific auto industrial use, giving us the opportunity to concentrate our people on more value-adding tasks and alleviate operators from painful and non-ergonomics duties. It will drive productivity through the acceleration of production time and cost reduction. In the end, it makes a lot of sense to combine Wandercraft's unique expertise and technology in exoskeletons and robots, with Renault Group's strong industrial capacity and design-to-cost know-how to bring the production of robots at scale' said Thierry Charvet, Chief Industry and Quality Officer of Renault Group.
Indeed, Renault Group's trust in Wandercraft appears to be well placed. Wandercraft's self-balancing exoskeleton won the Artificial Intelligence Innovation Award at SXSW 2025. Wandercraft's use of AI was also highlighted in NVIDIA's CEO Keynote speech at CES 2025, Las Vegas. The company was able to compete by placing a mannequin inside their exoskeleton and still won first place in two disciplines at Humanoids 24.
Finally, this isn't even the first time an exoskeleton developer has applied their expertise to the world of humanoid robotics. That honor goes to Fourier, which launched the GR-1 humanoid robot five years after releasing their first walking-assist exoskeleton.
The Renault Group has chosen not only to invest in Wandercraft but also to partner with them in creating new and more affordable robotic solutions that improve people's lives.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Bloomberg

30 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

India Growth Firm as Export Orders Soar in June, Flash PMIs Show

India's economic activity picked up in June, driven by a surge in new export orders that boosted the manufacturing sector, according to a flash survey by HSBC Holdings Plc. The manufacturing purchasing managers' index was up at 58.4 from 57.6 in May, while the services purchasing managers' index climbed to 60.7 from 58.8 last month. That helped the composite index jump to 61 compared to 59.3 in May.

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder on how brands are navigating attention and polarization at Cannes Lions

At the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, top agencies and brands vie for awards and hustle to close deals. As this year's event wraps up, Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder shares the insider buzz—from the continued rise of creator-led content to how brands navigate getting the right kind of attention in a polarized market. Housing market map: Zillow just released its updated home price forecast for 400-plus housing markets Perplexity's new AI features are a game changer. Here's how to make the most of them 5 signals that make you instantly more trustworthy at work This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today's top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. What are you hearing people talk about here at the festival? A lot is going on. There's a recurring theme. I think . . . everyone is trying to figure out, How can I cut through without being cut out? How can I cut through without alienating a core part of my audience? Because we're living in such a polarized time, where there are very few things people can align on. And so there is really that, but we are also in an attention recession, where it's so difficult to get attention, and getting attention is not enough, because you have to convert that attention into intention, right? To get people to actually go into discovery, consideration, and ultimately purchase. So, it's not just getting the attention, but the attention in the way that's right for your brand. Exactly. Getting attention in a way that's right for your brand and drives action, drives engagement. And now, there's just so much that grabs people's attention, so grabbing attention isn't enough. It's actually converting the attention into intention, into buyer intent. Are there any rules about it, or is it that each brand has to do it in its own way? I think that there are some themes that we're seeing about how brands in general are doing this, across all industries, B2B, B2C, healthcare, technology, beauty, retail. We're seeing some recurring themes. And I think one of the big themes is leaning into creators and community, because people show up for people. They might not necessarily show up for brands in the same way as we've seen in the past. So a lot of brands are leaning into [that]. I mean, creators are all over the place. Creators and athletes. Because creators and athletes come with a more dedicated and a more engaged and a more, I'm going to use the word rabid, a little bit, fan base. Yes, real fans. Real fans, rather than just celebrities that you see. I mean, we've been talking for a few years about influencers and how that has sort of changed the marketplace. It sounds a little bit like we've broken through to a new layer with that? We've certainly broken through to a new layer. And in fact, they don't want to be called influencers. They want to be called creators. Because they're saying, 'Hey, I'm not here to just influence. I'm here to co-create with you to drive a certain outcome.' So we're seeing that happen more now. And does that change the relationship that a brand like yours has with a traditional advertising firm? Are you going to creators in a different way? It definitely changes, because creators have, I think, a lot more say and a lot more power, and they're taking a bigger space at the table. So, gone are the days, I think, where it's just you find a creator, you tell them exactly what you want to do. If you're actually trying to drive real results and you want their fans to show up, they're taking an audience-first approach. So first of all, you've got to find that creator that aligns with your values. So you have to know they agree with you or they're simpatico in that way before they start. There's got to be trust. . . . And the trust goes both ways. You have got to trust that they are aligned to your brand values, they are aligned to your customer base, because remember, you want to cut through, you want to break through, but you are not trying to cut out a big portion of your customer base. So you need to make sure that you have that trust that yes, they are aligned to your brand values, they're aligned to your purpose, they're aligned to the outcomes, but then you also have to trust them to give them the space to do what they do. Because it can't come across as an ad. It has to come across as something more organic, something that they would truly want to do on their own, because that's when their audience shows up, and that's what determines the result. Are you, in your conversations with your peers, with other CMOs, are you hearing them privately acknowledge like, 'Oh, we didn't do that quite right? We alienated a group we didn't want to.' One hundred percent, especially in today's world. . . . As we're having these private CMO roundtables, we're all sharing, here's what went wrong, here's what went right, here's what I learned. And a lot of it is just, the margin for error is a lot slimmer than it ever was. There is a very thin line between cutting through and cutting out. It's like walking on high heels on a teeny-tiny thread. There is no margin for error. And so . . . a lot of CMOs are thinking about, How do I do this and how do I do this well? . . . And I think one of the things that's really important is making sure that you have a broad pull at the table as these decisions are being made, and that you are also able to pivot and adjust very quickly. I mean, you talked to me previously about this idea of opine with a spine, right? Yes. The idea that to break through, you have to say something sharp, but you're also saying that the risk is higher than ever, but you have to take that risk. There's no way out of this bind. There's no way out. Let me tell you. We've got to give CMOs and marketers, all marketers at all levels, we've got to give [them] a break. It is a tough world out there. And so, yes, you have to opine with a spine, but you got to be careful what you opine on. So you need to pick the thing that truly makes sense for your brand and business. You cannot opine on everything. If you speak about everything, you're speaking about nothing. And if you end up speaking about things that you have not earned the right to speak about, you don't have the credibility to speak about, you could end up in some real hot water that you don't want to be on. Not the good kind of bath, the scalding kind of bath. So there really is that thoughtfulness that has to go into it. This post originally appeared at to get the Fast Company newsletter: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

New York Times

2 hours ago

• New York Times

Crystal Palace and Lyon in Europa League is a problem – but multi-club crackdown is too little too late

It's there in black and white. On the pitch and off it, football's rulebook can often be infuriatingly vague, but article 5.01 of UEFA's regulations for its club tournaments is pretty straightforward. 'No one,' it reads, 'may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.' Advertisement It goes on: 'No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition' — by which it specifies 'holding a majority of the shareholders' voting rights' or 'being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club'. That is why Crystal Palace's dreams of competing in their first European campaign hang in the balance. The Premier League club's largest shareholder, Eagle Football Holdings, also owns the biggest stake in French club Lyon, who, like Palace, have qualified for next season's Europa League — and that creates a problem. And so it should. Why on earth should UEFA, European football's governing body, allow any two clubs under the same ownership or management structure to enter the same competition? Of course there should be rules to guard against such conflicts of interest and threats to integrity. Palace have spent the past couple of weeks quietly making their case to UEFA, pointing out that while John Textor of Eagle Football Holdings is indeed their largest shareholder, he has just 25 per cent of their voting rights. Indeed, in an interview with The Athletic in May last year, Textor found himself conceding that his vision of integrating Palace into his Eagle Football empire with Lyon, RWD Molenbeek (Belgium), Botafogo (Brazil) and FC Florida (United States) had proved unachievable because the south London club are effectively run by chairman Steve Parish. Palace's other investors have put pressure on Textor to sell Eagle's 43 per cent stake. Woody Johnson, owner of the NFL's New York Jets, has made an offer but is yet to meet his valuation. A consortium of sport and entertainment executives, which includes the NBA star Jimmy Butler, has also held discussions with Textor. It remains to be seen whether such a move would satisfy UEFA's club financial control body; the deadline for teams to make and register changes to their ownership structure, ahead of participation in the coming season's European competitions, passed on March 1. If Palace are expelled from the Europa League, they cannot drop into the third-tier Conference League because, summing up this whole tangled web, the Danish club Brondby have already qualified for that competition and are owned by Global Football Holdings, an investment vehicle led by Palace part-owner David Blitzer. And Brondby, like Lyon, would take precedence over Palace because UEFA's rules stipulate that in issues relating to multi-club ownership, priority is given to the team finishing in the highest position in their respective domestic leagues. Advertisement Sympathy will flow naturally for Palace if the UEFA decision goes against them. Everyone could see what winning the FA Cup last month meant to their supporters, the first major trophy success in their history, but it was also warmly welcomed by the wider football community because beating Manchester City in the final was an underdog triumph of the type that has become depressingly rare in the sport — not least in England, where trophies had appeared to become the preserve of a handful of rich, powerful clubs. Sympathy also flows naturally for Drogheda United, of the League of Ireland, who have already been excluded from next season's Conference League because of the possibility — only a one-in-15 chance in the second qualifying round — that it could have brought them into direct competition with Danish club Silkeborg, who are also under the ownership of the Alabama-based Trivela Group. Reading through Drogheda's statement last Monday after their appeal was rejected by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, you could not help but feel their anguish: a 'community-driven club… who fight every day to punch above their weight', who felt that a first European campaign in 12 years, by virtue of winning the FAI Cup for only the second time, would have been 'transformational… not just financially, but emotionally for our players, our staff, and our community'. But like it or not, there is still a conflict of interest — whether potential or actual — when two clubs in the same competition are operating under the same ownership. There are, as of last June, regulations to prevent it. And so there should be. What kind of governing body would UEFA be if there were not? The problem is that UEFA's belated clampdown on multi-club ownership goes nothing like far enough. It doesn't deter multi-club ownership at all. It just seeks to offer a semblance of compliance — a little window-dressing, really — where UEFA's competitions are concerned, as if the only issue with multi-club networks is the relatively small (but fast-growing) threat of teams under the same ownership playing each other, rather than the much more serious issues of them losing their sovereignty, losing their identity, losing their purpose. Advertisement UEFA's most recent benchmarking report, titled 'the European Club Finance and Investment Landscape', detailed that 105 top-flight sides across Europe are now part of a multi-club structure. That includes 15 in the Premier League, 11 in Italy's Serie A, 10 in Ligue 1 in France, nine in Spain's La Liga and six in the German Bundesliga. Some clubs have done very well out of multi-club ownership — perhaps most obviously RB Leipzig, Red Bull Salzburg and Girona — but as the phenomenon has grown, the success stories have come to be vastly outweighed by the number of historic names across Europe whose identity and ambitions have been sold to overseas investors (usually, but not always, from the United States) who regard them as little more than stocks in an investment portfolio. Some of those investors can at least claim to offer some level of expertise. Many do not. One of the fastest-growing multi-club networks in recent years was that of 777 Partners, which bought significant stakes in teams in Spain (Sevilla), Italy (Genoa), Belgium (Standard Liege), France (Red Star of Paris), Germany (Hertha Berlin), Australia (Melbourne Victory) and Brazil (Rio de Janeiro's Vasco da Gama). Shortly after it agreed a deal to buy Premier League side Everton — for which it failed to raise the necessary funds — the 777 Partners empire crumbled, plunging its entire stable of clubs into uncertainty or worse. As outlined in this column in 2023, there are so many reasons to be concerned by the rise of multi-club ownership and UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin's apparent ambivalence to the issue. As important as the sporting integrity question is — the idea that, for example, Palace could come up against Textor's Lyon in the Europa League — it is far less of an issue for the future of football than the existential threat multi-club ownership poses to teams, and indeed to entire leagues, if they serve as mere satellites to those at the top of the chain. But UEFA's long-awaited crackdown only addresses that single issue. It merely requires clubs to jump through a few hoops so that, on paper at least, the appearance of any conflict of interest is averted. Advertisement City Football Group, for example, was required to transfer its shares in Spanish side Girona to independent trustees as a temporary measure through a 'blind trust' structure, under UEFA supervision, to be cleared to play in last season's Champions League, because Manchester City were already in that competition. INEOS was required to do likewise with their shares in France's Nice to play in the Europa League, where they could have faced Manchester United, where INEOS chairman Sir Jim Ratcliffe owns a 28.9 per cent stake and has control over sporting matters. In the final weeks of last season, Nottingham Forest announced that Evangelos Marinakis had diluted his control of the club — placing his shares in a blind trust, submitting documents to Companies House in April to say he was no longer a 'person with significant control' of NF Football Investments Limited — to ensure that they would comply with UEFA regulations next season if they ended up in the same competition as his Greek team, Olympiacos. In the event, Olympiacos won the title, so will play in next season's Champions League, whereas Forest ended up in the Conference League. And so, on June 12, there was a filing at Companies House to report that Marinakis was a person with significant control at the City Ground once more. As for whether anything ever really changed beyond the paperwork, we can only take Forest's word for it. But it is worth noting that after Marinakis went onto the pitch to remonstrate with head coach Nuno Espirito Santo after the 2-2 draw with Leicester City on May 11, the club issued a statement in praise of 'our owner' and extolling the strength of 'his leadership, not just through words, but through action and presence'. Please excuse the tangent. The point is simply to underline that, even with his shares placed in a blind trust, Marinakis appeared to be more hands-on at Forest than your typical long-distance Premier League owner would be — more involved than Textor at Palace, certainly. But because this essentially comes down to paperwork, a box had been ticked. Why or how Palace and Drogheda failed to jump through those particular hoops by March 1, only they know. Palace could easily claim that multi-club ownership is so far off their agenda that it did not cross their mind back in March — European qualification likewise, perhaps — but when they have not one but two significant investors with controlling interests in other teams, it looks like a serious oversight. As for Drogheda, they won the FAI Cup last November, so surely they had ample time to ensure compliance. Advertisement That emotionally-wrought club statement last week mentioned 'months of engagement, constructive dialogue, countless hours of legal preparation, and multiple proposals based on frameworks that have been accepted in the past' but said that ultimately the club had 'come up short'. Whatever their frustration, the club — and they appeared to be talking for their owners here — said, 'We accept responsibility and we're sorry.' It is genuinely a sad situation. When you think of the various abuses, loopholes and suspicious activities that multi-club ownership allows, no one would suggest that Drogheda (or indeed Palace) are anywhere near the crux of the problem. Drogheda's is a regulatory failure of the type that the big beasts of European football would never make. Or if they did, they would have enough weight behind them — in terms of power, finance and legal backing — to give them every chance of finding a way around it. But none of these blind trusts or cosmetic reshuffles come close to addressing the issue in a meaningful way. The further and deeper the tentacles of multi-club ownership spread, the closer we come to a scenario where, in future, football could be dominated by a handful of rival networks who own the biggest teams in every league on every continent — and whether those networks are owned by energy-drink manufacturers, venture capitalists or sovereign wealth funds, whether or not those sides are temporarily placed into blind trusts for appearances sake, it is a nightmarish vision for a sport whose popularity since the 19th century has been based on the very simple and very appealing principle that clubs exist simply to represent their community. The football authorities have never shown the slightest appetite to tackle the multi-club issue, and it somehow feels entirely typical that the crackdown centres on paperwork. Should two clubs under even partial control of the same individual or entity be allowed to compete in the same competition? No, they should not. But when it comes to addressing the issue of multi-club ownership, excluding clubs like Drogheda and Palace would achieve nothing except to underline the importance of getting the paperwork right.