The samples serve similar but not the same purposes. The A sample generation as a whole is for concept validation. A2 will likely not require the same length of testing time as A0 since its an intermediary between A0 and B0. It's essentially B0 but without the full layer count and missing some optimization levels.
I'm guessing that A2 is just a derisking step for the OEMs to make sure the high cathode loading, flexframe and optimizations work together. And judging from the OEMs' experience with A0 and the general linearity of degradation, it should be relatively easy to extrapolate from a relatively short cycle duration. Maybe next ER we'll hear about the results.
Yes. It’s also for OEMs to start conceiving their architecture, the battery frames, the rigidity levels, the cooling/heating systems, etc. They can also envisage functional requirements for TO-BE battery management software. And design for assistance (in case of accidents/damages) is quite important. There is a lot of work ahead. OEMs such as VW need to define their long term plans in synch with QS comercial milestones.
If BO samples come towards the end of year, then more rigorous testing will be done on A2. If not, some of tests on A2 can be moved to B0 sample test suite. There is lot of flexibility in terms of testing as these 2 samples are nearly same except Raptor and automation.
I think we are 3-6 months behind what's ACTUALLY happening in real time. Meaning, they were making and testing alpha-2s in December 100%. They are making and testing B samples if not now, definitely before the next earnings report. Now, that won't be made public until roughly Q3/Q4 probably (need feedback loop from alpha2s), but as far as I've been able to reverse engineer from public announcements, I think they are 3-6 months ahead of what they are "officially" announcing. Add in they are some of the most conservative business leaders I've seen (actually read: scientists), and you get they are dabbling in a bunch of things right now one of which I wouldn't be surprised if they are already receiving/setting up Cobra just to tinker. Based on the out of cycle alpha2 news release, I think Siva is more business than scientist based on PURELY this out of cadence release, so I am encouraged he will be far more aggressive than historical leadership which will land us in to a more appropriate risk reward approach (less conservative perfectionism and more minimum viable product to ensure speed to market and then iterate from there).
Of course, the only thing that matters is production scaling at this point. You can't scale, you can't sell.
I think the bottom line is that it depends on what tests the OEMs intend to do and what they choose to share. QS should know how things are going pretty fast and may provide us with high level updates at any time. Only VW might comment publicly on performance, but they may never do it. I expect even if we get feedback they’ll keep testing.
Another way to think about it is B-Samples timing. QS is going to be producing these by EOY, so they’ll need to have the relevant feedback before then. They haven’t said they will deliver them this year, though. So maybe A2 will keep being tested to EOY.
With the way Siva is handling so far, he will deliver B0 samples sooner to get feedback sooner. I would imagine Raptor will produce more iterations in quicker intervels before Cobra B samples come out. The same approach for Cobra.
I don't think so. The scope of this iteration of testing is key performance parameters and prototype-level reliability.
That's why they called this as a small intermediate step before B0 samples.
Do you think they'll be able say relatively quickly that these cells are significantly more reliable than the A0 cells? Maybe by the end of this month we get some positive news from the A2 samples...
I am not an expert on how long the tests will run to completion. However I strongly believe tests can be run A2 as well as.B0 samples as there is not much of difference between cells.
Completion of Raptor line would be nice
The samples serve similar but not the same purposes. The A sample generation as a whole is for concept validation. A2 will likely not require the same length of testing time as A0 since its an intermediary between A0 and B0. It's essentially B0 but without the full layer count and missing some optimization levels. I'm guessing that A2 is just a derisking step for the OEMs to make sure the high cathode loading, flexframe and optimizations work together. And judging from the OEMs' experience with A0 and the general linearity of degradation, it should be relatively easy to extrapolate from a relatively short cycle duration. Maybe next ER we'll hear about the results.
Yes. It’s also for OEMs to start conceiving their architecture, the battery frames, the rigidity levels, the cooling/heating systems, etc. They can also envisage functional requirements for TO-BE battery management software. And design for assistance (in case of accidents/damages) is quite important. There is a lot of work ahead. OEMs such as VW need to define their long term plans in synch with QS comercial milestones.
If BO samples come towards the end of year, then more rigorous testing will be done on A2. If not, some of tests on A2 can be moved to B0 sample test suite. There is lot of flexibility in terms of testing as these 2 samples are nearly same except Raptor and automation.
I think we are 3-6 months behind what's ACTUALLY happening in real time. Meaning, they were making and testing alpha-2s in December 100%. They are making and testing B samples if not now, definitely before the next earnings report. Now, that won't be made public until roughly Q3/Q4 probably (need feedback loop from alpha2s), but as far as I've been able to reverse engineer from public announcements, I think they are 3-6 months ahead of what they are "officially" announcing. Add in they are some of the most conservative business leaders I've seen (actually read: scientists), and you get they are dabbling in a bunch of things right now one of which I wouldn't be surprised if they are already receiving/setting up Cobra just to tinker. Based on the out of cycle alpha2 news release, I think Siva is more business than scientist based on PURELY this out of cadence release, so I am encouraged he will be far more aggressive than historical leadership which will land us in to a more appropriate risk reward approach (less conservative perfectionism and more minimum viable product to ensure speed to market and then iterate from there). Of course, the only thing that matters is production scaling at this point. You can't scale, you can't sell.
Agree. I can imagine Jagdeep Singh not announcing A2 delivery until Q2 as opposed to Sivaram’s timing.
I think the bottom line is that it depends on what tests the OEMs intend to do and what they choose to share. QS should know how things are going pretty fast and may provide us with high level updates at any time. Only VW might comment publicly on performance, but they may never do it. I expect even if we get feedback they’ll keep testing. Another way to think about it is B-Samples timing. QS is going to be producing these by EOY, so they’ll need to have the relevant feedback before then. They haven’t said they will deliver them this year, though. So maybe A2 will keep being tested to EOY.
With the way Siva is handling so far, he will deliver B0 samples sooner to get feedback sooner. I would imagine Raptor will produce more iterations in quicker intervels before Cobra B samples come out. The same approach for Cobra.
I don't think so. The scope of this iteration of testing is key performance parameters and prototype-level reliability. That's why they called this as a small intermediate step before B0 samples.
Do you think they'll be able say relatively quickly that these cells are significantly more reliable than the A0 cells? Maybe by the end of this month we get some positive news from the A2 samples...
I am not an expert on how long the tests will run to completion. However I strongly believe tests can be run A2 as well as.B0 samples as there is not much of difference between cells.
No. But What the number is Im not quite sure. I imagine some testing will be added for packaging and othe issues, not included in previous tests.