AiR intelligent tyre infrastructure
Launch machine

Capital architecture

AiR as investable distributed infrastructure

A national AiR estate does not have to be funded from AiR's balance sheet or sold machine by machine. It can be structured as a financed infrastructure asset, on the model institutional lenders have just underwritten in EV charging.

Every figure on this page is a modelled assumption for discussion as at 16 September 2026. Nothing here is a quote, a term sheet or an offer, and no lender or investor has reviewed this structure.

Tranche capital modelled, GBP m

0.00

500 nodes at GBP 14,500 installed

Senior debt modelled, GBP m

0.00

70.0% of capex over 7 years

Debt service coverage

0.00

Net operating income over annual debt service

Equity cash yield

0.0%

After debt service, before tax

The structure

How the capital would flow

Site rights and assets sit in a ring-fenced vehicle. Debt funds the estate. Usage revenue services the debt. Software, network and data economics stay with AiR.

  1. Long-term site rights

    Concession, licence or estate agreement giving AiR a defined operating horizon at each location, ideally ten years or longer.

  2. Infrastructure SPV

    A ring-fenced vehicle holding the site rights and the deployed assets, separate from the AiR operating company.

  3. Senior debt

    Non-recourse debt drawn against contracted locations to fund hardware and installation, rather than equity funding the estate.

  4. AiR operates

    AiR designs, installs, monitors and maintains the assets under a long-term operations and maintenance agreement with the SPV.

  5. Usage revenue

    Check fees, site service fees, subscription and partner-branded revenue flow into the SPV as the contracted revenue base.

  6. Debt service

    Revenue services interest and amortisation over the facility term, with a maintenance reserve funded ahead of distributions.

  7. AiR retains the upside

    Software licensing, the readiness data network, partner integrations and brand economics stay in the operating company, outside the SPV.

Worked model

Move the assumptions and watch coverage move

These are the inputs a lender tests. Utilisation is the weakest of them until measured pilot data exists, so treat coverage above 1.4 as a target to earn rather than a claim.

Assumptions

Modelled outcome, per year

Total installed capitalGBP 7.25m
Senior debtGBP 5.08m
Equity or grant requirementGBP 2.17m
Gross revenueGBP 2.88m
Revenue per nodeGBP 5,763
Maintenance reserveGBP 230,500
Operating costGBP 1.30m
Net operating incomeGBP 1.35m
Net operating income per nodeGBP 2,702
Annual debt serviceGBP 968,110
Debt service coverage1.40
Equity cashflow after debt serviceGBP 382,640
Equity cash yield17.6%
Equity payback5.7 years

At these assumptions coverage is thin. A lender would either reduce gearing, shorten the tranche or require a revenue floor.

The chain, in the order a lender reads it

Hardware CAPEXUnit cost at tranche volume, including the pump, sensing, display, enclosure and edge compute.
Installation CAPEXGroundworks or skid base, power connection, commissioning and first-year spares.
Site concessionThe operating horizon: term, exclusivity, permitting support and renewal terms.
UtilisationPaid checks per node per day, seasonally weighted, with a ramp period stated separately.
Revenue per siteCheck revenue plus site service, subscription and partner-branded revenue.
Software revenueLicensing, integrations and readiness data, retained by the operating company and excluded from the SPV base case.
Maintenance reserveA funded share of gross revenue held before distributions, sized to the service schedule.
Debt service coverageNet operating income over annual debt service, the single number that determines gearing.
Lender yieldAll-in rate and term against a defined, contracted revenue base.
Residual valueAsset life beyond the facility term, plus the network and data value of a proven estate.

Precedent

The evidence that this asset class is financeable

Four public transactions, each dated and sourced. None involves AiR.

16 Sep 2026EZOReported, not verified

EUR 150m investment-grade, non-recourse senior debt facility

Financial close on a EUR 150 million facility financing more than 3,000 charge points and over 100 MW of capacity, predominantly in the UK, with asset revenues ring-fenced to repay the debt over seven years. EZO believes this is the first EV-charging financing using this framework.

Why it matters to AiR. The closest available analogue to the AiR structure: concession rights, distributed hardware, ring-fenced usage revenue, non-recourse debt.

EZO financing announcement

16 Sep 2026Aberdeen Investments and Standard LifeReported, not verified

First infrastructure-debt investment in EV charging

Aberdeen Investments provided EUR 80m of the EZO facility, anchored by Standard Life.

Why it matters to AiR. Identifies a specific lender set that has now underwritten distributed mobility hardware under long-term concessions.

EZO financing announcement

2026EET Fuels and forecourt platformsReported, not verified

GBP 250m of senior debt raised around a forecourt platform

Senior debt raised against a forecourt platform, financing physical mobility infrastructure on third-party retail sites.

Why it matters to AiR. Shows lenders financing equipment estates on retail forecourts, the same site class as AiR's forecourt channel.

AiR landscape review

2026ZestReported, not verified

Infrastructure financing on retail estates

Zest is financing charging infrastructure deployed on retail estates under long-term site agreements.

Why it matters to AiR. A UK example of site-rights-backed deployment funded outside the operator's balance sheet.

AiR landscape review

What must be true first

Proven unit economicsTwelve weeks of measured utilisation and revenue per node from live pilot sites, not modelled figures.
Contracted site rightsSigned, long-term agreements at a defined number of locations, with renewal and exclusivity terms.
Hardware reliability recordUptime, service intervals and failure modes evidenced across a pilot fleet.
Operating capabilityA funded field-service model with response times a lender can rely on.
Revenue qualityA mix of usage, site and subscription revenue, ideally with partner or public-sector counterparties.
Independent technical reviewA third-party assessment of asset life, residual value and maintenance sizing.

Honest limits

  • Every figure on this page is a modelled assumption for discussion. None is a quote, a term sheet, an offer or a measured result.
  • No lender, investor or named organisation has reviewed, discussed or endorsed this structure.
  • Utilisation is the least evidenced input in the model and the one a lender will discount hardest until pilot data exists.
  • The precedent transactions are reported from public announcements. Their terms are not disclosed in full and are not directly comparable.

Approach track

Aberdeen Investments: the financing conversation, not the hardware

A separate track from any operator conversation. It opens on the precedent they have just set, and it asks what their infrastructure-debt team would need to see, rather than asking for money.

Copyable message

To. Aberdeen Investments infrastructure and private-credit team, via the published contact route

Subject. Distributed readiness infrastructure - the financing architecture behind AiR

Dear colleagues,

Your EUR 80m participation in the EZO facility, anchored by Standard Life, demonstrated something that matters well beyond charging: distributed mobility hardware operating under long-term concessions can support investment-grade, non-recourse debt with ring-fenced usage revenue.

We are developing the equivalent financing architecture for distributed tyre-readiness infrastructure. AiR nodes check and correct tyre pressures during an existing dwell - a charging session, a forecourt stop, a depot turnaround - and write a verified readiness record. Under-inflation is a measurable cost in energy, tyre life, downtime and road safety, and the intervention is short, repeatable and chargeable.

The structure we are building is: long-term site rights into a ring-fenced SPV, senior debt funding hardware and installation, AiR operating the assets under a long-term O&M agreement, usage and site revenue servicing the debt, and software, network and data economics retained by the operating company.

I am not asking for capital at this stage. Before that conversation is worth your time we intend to evidence measured utilisation and revenue per node from live sites, contracted site rights, and an independent view of asset life and maintenance sizing.

What would be genuinely valuable now is a short conversation on what your infrastructure-debt team would need to see from an asset class of this type - revenue quality, counterparty mix, coverage ratios and residual value - so that we build towards it deliberately rather than retrofitting.

Would 30 minutes be possible?

Kind regards,
Alexander Macdonald
Founder, AiR - Amporah Ltd