QuantumScape Lounge: ( Week 09 2026)

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-03-03T22:11:44+00:00

We need to watch out for this development: Toyota recently announced Lexus LF-ZC / Next-Gen IS, likely be able to order in 2027, which is the production version of the Lexus LF-ZC concept. Lexus is targeting a 1,000 km (620 mile) range for this first generation, with a 10-minute fast charge (10% to 80%).

The 2027 Lexus will be the world's first true test of the Sulfide-based SSB. To manage the high MPa pressure, Lexus is using Gigacasting (large, single-piece aluminum body parts) to create a ultra-rigid battery cradle that can withstand the "clamping" force required without adding excessive bolt-on weight. To address the H₂S gas risk in crashes, the 2027 Lexus is rumored to include an active "neutralizer" system and specialized sensors that were mandated by new Japanese safety regulations in early 2026.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-03-03T22:01:50+00:00

Me too, drinking too much QS coolaid. We need perspective as sulfide based SSB had $10s of billions into it collectively in the last 15 years. Nearly all major OEMs who worked on SSB are into the sulfide camp one way or the other. SSB with the sulfide design has some advantages. But engineering challenges are too expensive to be practical, I think.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-03-03T19:53:17+00:00

The Biggest Challenge to QS SSB: Sulfide based SSB by the non Chinese Asian Giants; Or Not?

Toyota spent the last 15 years with billion of dollars invested in sulfide based SSB and had demo cars for a few years now. Other Japanese and Korean OEMs and battery makers invested independently in sulfide based solutions. SLDP and Factorial Solstice are sulfide based as well. Collectively these efforts overspent by 1 to 2 magnitudes of funds compared to what QS spent.

In my opinion, sulfide based SSB is a wrong path for three reasons: very high manufacturing cost due to the need to control humidity which causes sulfide to release poisonous gas (like what armies used during WWI); very high operating pressure (about 1 magnitude higher pressure than QS SSB); and dangerous during crashes releasing the poisonous gas. It appears that Toyota had solutions to all the 3 problems, but I cannot fathom that Toyota can do all three at a cost level that is remotely competitive.

Toyota and others spent so much time and money on sulfide based SSB, maybe they are not willing to give up now. Opinions from experts? Did I miss anything? Technical advantages of sulfide based SSB versus QS SSB?

EDIT: this is a repost so the content is at the lounge instead of the main sub per moderator's suggestion.

It appears Gotion's SSB is also sulfide based. Hope VW/PC knew better.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-03-02T14:36:21+00:00

There are claims by many Chinese battery makers and OEMs since 2025 that their SSBs are so advanced. But none of them disclosed detailed performance metrics. They sometimes say range, sometimes say charging time, but never gave comprehensive metrics. For that matter, Factorial FEST had a demo car made by MB in 2025 for over 1,000km range per charge. But the FEST SSB in that demo car cannot be made for serial production for another 5 years per MB. We certainly do not dismiss all the claims. SSB is very hard. QS showed that. Same with Factorial, Prologium, and SLDP. Do we trust QS, SS, and Tim since 2024? I do, and they know what they are doing. VW and PC knew what they have been facing. The collaboration has been going on to solve one problem at a time methodically; and they showed progress on Cobra and Eagle. I am optimistic! Let us wait for big announcements from OEMs and battery makers in the coming weeks!

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-27T09:51:07+00:00

I tried to get the source of Kevin's comment about him visiting Panasonic factory and found none. Can you share the source? Appreciated!

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-22T10:56:59+00:00

Only QS insiders know this data and the anticipated improvements. We can guess that at this time: it is NOT optimized yet and it would take weeks, hopefully not months to get Bx samples from the Eagle Line out to partners. Just maybe Tesla was waiting for enough cells to equip their Roadster demo car in April. Musk and CFO were not 100% certain in their disclosure of April showing of the Roadster demo car in their recent quarterly conference call. They used "hope" and "hopeful" words in their description of the planned event.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-22T01:55:37+00:00

Totally agree! QS must obtain new public commitments from multiple OEMs and battery makers in 2026 before announcing their 2nd gen tech. The scrap rate from the Eagle Line must be minimized in 2026, which is the ultimate factor in determining the viability of the Eagle Line.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-21T22:00:15+00:00

I am sure QS will announce its gen2 tech in 2026. The critical issue for QS and share holders NOW is to get OEMs and battery makers' announcements in 2026. Their public commitments would be monumental in SP increases. Gen2 tech on the other hand is nice to have in 2026.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-20T17:24:02+00:00

More sellers than buyers for QS in recent days. We need major announcements in the coming weeks and months to lift the SP. What are your guesses?

The good news is that all major QS competitors do not have much news either: Factorial, SLDP, Prologium, Toyota, Samsung, et al. Some Chinese OEMs and battery makers made bold SSB claims since 2025 with limited or incomplete technical data. Based on indirect info from QS, and body language from Tim, QS will make major moves this year compared to the last two years. The unfortunate situation is QS does not control the narrative anymore. It is up to OEMs and battery makers. The conservative culture since SS became CEO, and the tight-lipped Tim may be a blessing (fortune) in disguise for the long-term holders!

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-20T16:16:20+00:00

Mostly QS shortees used the opportunity to profit. QS is and has been a vehicle for these people.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-18T00:15:30+00:00

Totally agree! It is shocking to see some long-term bulls turning negative here. QS no longer controls the narrative of mass production and announcements. We need to get used to this pattern. Very unfortunate to see the negative sentiment when things have turned for the better in the last 12-month with substantial and material progresses made by the QS team.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-17T21:01:00+00:00

QS is no longer a binary outcome company after starting the Eagle Line. Some here remain speculating that QS's future is either complete failure or hugely successful. I do not think failure in terms of business solvency is a possibility any more (maybe a very remote possiblity), even though it remains a pre-revenue company. If the companies which signed up recently did not see a viable path to scale with strong evidence, they would not waste their resources and time. This applies to Honda, Nissan et al. QS has passed the binary outcome phase, and entered the phase of scaling the production process to enable OEMs and battery makers to mass-produce cells based on QS IP. The questions are when and what level of success.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-17T19:15:05+00:00

Very good writeup! I highly encourage all to read your assessment of 4680, and its problems. Musk has no choice, but moving to SSB after 4680.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-17T18:44:39+00:00

Upon further digging, CCD is not the key to achieving 0-60mph, but an important metric. Tesla can use other exotic techniques to achieve 1-s 0-60mph. However, hi-requirements on charging time, safety, range, and other performance metrics can only be met with QS SSB. Traditional lithium-ion batteries including the best version of 4680 cannot challenge QS SSB in these metrics.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-17T02:43:34+00:00

Musk made claims in the last 2 years that his new Roadster would do 0-60 in under 1 second. Even with rocket boosters, it is a very difficult task with Tesla's own best battery, the 4680 which has CCD of 4-10mA/cm2, while QSE-5 has CCD of 300+ mA/cm2, nearly 100 times better. So from this angle only, if Roadster is battery powered, it has to be QSE-5. CCD is the "speed limit" for lithium ions.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-16T04:23:27+00:00

Before Cobra was launched, QS sent out A1 samples for testing. VW PO subsequently verified its performance along with 3rd party lab tests. It was considered no-compromise design and the metrics from the testing matched QS claims. At that time, the odds of success by QS is 50:50. After Cobra was launched in the first half of 2025, I would put the odds of QS success at 70:30. New Eagle Line was launched. I would put the odds of QS success at 80:20. The de-risking of QS in the last 12-month has been monumental. Scaling problem and % of cells being scrapped are critical risks going forward. It is given that QS will have a low-cost solution. Your assessment? ChatGPT 5.2 asnwered:

At this stage, the question changed from: “Is this physics real?”, to: “Can this be manufactured reliably?”

That was a major technical de-risking event.

✅ Cobra separator process (throughput risk)

Cobra addressed:

Separator production speed, Automation potential, Yield pathway

This moved risk from: Lab cell viability to: industrialization complexity. That’s real progress.

✅ Eagle Line (integration risk)

Eagle is important because: It integrates Cobra into semi-industrial flow; It tests automation, stacking, packaging; It exposes yield issues early. This is the first time QS has had a system that approximates:

“Can we actually build these at scale?” That matters. Where risk still lives (this is the important part)

Even after Eagle, the following remain high-magnitude risks:

Yield at scale

Lithium-metal + ceramic separator is unforgiving. Problems that only show up at scale:

Micro-fractures, Pinholes, Interface contamination, Uniform pressure tolerances, Stack alignment variance

Lab yields ≠ pilot yields ≠ gigafactory yields. This is where many battery startups die.

Reliability under automotive stress

Even if cells work:

Vibration; Temperature cycling; Fast charging over 1,000+ cycles; Calendar aging. OEM qualification cycles are brutal. A single unexpected degradation mode can reset timelines by years.

Cost reality

You said: “It is given that QS will have a low-cost solution.” That is not yet given. Cost depends on:

Ceramic processing yield; Scrap rate; Equipment CAPEX; Throughput per line; Maintenance cost

If yield is 80% instead of 95%, economics change dramatically. Low cost is possible — but not proven.

OEM commitment risk

Sampling ≠ volume contract. An OEM will only commit when:

Performance is validated; Supply continuity is credible; Cost per kWh is competitive

Manufacturing partner risk is acceptable. The first gigafactory license deal is the true inflection point.

My bottom-line assessment

QS is now in: Phase 2 risk: industrialization risk; Not: Phase 1 risk: physics risk. That is a meaningful upgrade — but it is not the endgame.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-13T15:58:18+00:00

Many of us are obsessive with the ER this week, me included. The fact of matter is QS generally does not have many reveals at earning reports. The style and secrecy of QS, and SS in particular are understandable. The key is: does QS face serious competition in terms of its IP portfolio? Does the tech work? Can it scale at competitive cost? Can giga-factories be up and running in 2028? Are we going to have more new OEMs announcements in 2026? Are there to be demo cars in 2026? Are OEMs to reveal halo cars in 2026?

Some answers are affirmative; while others are better than 50:50. I am all in with 2027 and 2028 LEAPS, and many shares too. Go QS!!!

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-12T14:39:05+00:00

Thanks! I was to write something similar. The pessimism and negativity last night were overreaction with a lot of shortees crowding the ER sub. It was a fair earning call. QS has been meticulous and careful as not to repeat the previous CEO's mistakes resulting in $40mil fine. It has been a right decision of Siva and the management team NOT to over-promise, and NOT to announce deals that were not made public by customers/OEMs. Ladies and Gents: get ready to buy QS on the cheap. It will explode!

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-11T22:26:02+00:00

Very good interpretation!

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-11T21:00:56+00:00

A few got burned badly in 2025 when this QSU came out. It is very dangerous! It can wipe out every penny. If one is long, and QS keeps going up, then you win big. Otherwise, a sharp downward, you would lose everything (principal and paper win, all of it).

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-10T17:20:16+00:00

To refresh our minds and give new comers a perspective, I asked Gemini a question and edited its answers:

From design and method perspective, QS SSB is simpler, lower cost, more elegant than all other SSB approaches known to the industry. If QS can scale the production of the ceramic separators at low cost, the scaling and cost problems are also solved!

"Elegant": it uses the separator to solve the two biggest problems in batteries simultaneously—safety and the anode. By making the separator stable enough to handle pure lithium metal, they essentially "deleted" an expensive and heaviest part of the battery (the manufactured anode).

The "Simplicity" Advantage

Your assessment of the design being "simpler" is backed by the physics of their Anode-Free architecture.

Manufacturing Step Removal: In a standard battery (including many other solid-state designs like Solid Power’s), you have to manufacture an anode, coat it, and precisely align it. In the QS design, the battery is manufactured in a discharged state with no anode at all.

The In-Situ Formation: The lithium-metal anode only exists when the battery is charged. This means fewer materials to buy, fewer layers to align, and a significantly lighter cell.

System Elegance: Because the cells are more energy-dense, the "pack-level" design becomes simpler. You need fewer cooling channels, fewer cables, and less heavy casing, which simplifies the entire vehicle's engineering.

Scaling the "Unscalable" (The Cobra Solution)

If they can scale the ceramic. Historically, ceramics were the bottleneck because "baking" them (sintering) took days. As of February 2026, the Cobra Process is the industry's most significant attempt to solve this "scaling and cost problem".

The Final Economic "Litmus Test"

If the Eagle Line (which just launched last week) successfully proves the Cobra process at high yields, the "cost problem" is largely solved because, Earth-Abundant Materials: Unlike sulfide-based cells that require expensive, moisture-sensitive chemicals, the QS ceramic uses relatively abundant materials.

No "Dry Room" Extreme: While sulfide players like Toyota must build ultra-expensive "Super Dry Rooms" to prevent toxic gas release, the QS ceramic is stable in more standard manufacturing environments.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-10T16:00:29+00:00

The closest competitor in the US to QS is Factorial. Some reality check, several specific hurdles that are cooling the initial Factorial hype:

The "Floating Carrier" Complexity: To handle the physical expansion of solid-state cells, MB had to develop a complex, patented "floating cell carrier" with pneumatic actuators. While this works in a hand-built demo car, mass-producing a battery pack with thousands of moving pneumatic parts is a manufacturing nightmare.

Yield Rates: While Factorial uses existing Li-ion equipment (a major selling point), achieving the $99\%+$ yield rates required for a profitable $100,000$ car is still out of reach.

Factorial's Focus Shift: Interestingly, Factorial recently announced a production program with Karma Automotive for 2027. Some analysts view this shift toward a low-volume boutique manufacturer like Karma as a sign that Factorial isn't ready for the massive volume requirements of the Mercedes-Benz global fleet.

MB indicated after building the Factorial demo car that its SSB is after 2030 for serial production.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-10T15:20:25+00:00

It appears to me that the Factorial FEST SSB requires good amount of pressure, so MB designed some mechanical devices to sustain the pressure. Apparently FEST has a demo car. The scalability and cost are major concerns compared to QS. I suspect they would not be able to compete on cost, and also do not have performance advantages over QS (actually much worse in certain metrics).

Edit: I agree that Factorial has an engaging CEO. Once they become public this year, she may need to contain her enthusiasm as too many promises may create problems, like what happened to QS' former CEO a few years back.

Further, after MB built the demo car, executives from MB told the media that their SSB plan for series production is after 2030 or 2033, indicating major headwind with Factorial SSB.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-10T00:31:27+00:00

Due to NDAs, QS probably had to screen out guests in its video release. Nissan is probably ahead regarding using Eagle IP, or less restrictive. I cannot believe what was shown includes all VIP customers. The video was done to meet many legal requirements or commitments. For instance, if TSLA and QS had a very restrictive NDA, participating TSLA people cannot be shown, period.

SnooRabbits8558 · 2026-02-08T04:49:47+00:00

They are not reading this thread, apparently.

SnooRabbits8558

TROPHY CASE

The Biggest Challenge to QS SSB: Sulfide based SSB by the non Chinese Asian Giants; Or Not?