WetEV wrote:In exactly one of the 64+ QCs to date, temperatures exceeded 100F. All the way to 101.1F or 38.4C. I don't want to pay for hardware that will almost never get used. I know that I never exceeded 100F with my 2012, but I don't have a count of QCs for my 2012.
Perhaps it is different were you live. I don't see any utility for me from active cooling.
Do you pay for AC for your car? Did I pay for heat for mine? Just because it might not be used [Edit: "as in used by you"
], doesn't mean it's useless.
I'm old enough that I've bought two cars with no AC. It used to be an option...But the take rate rose with time, until it was cheaper to just make all cars with it.
So what would the take rate be if active cooling was an option?
I'd guess fairly low locally, and might not be very large in moderate climates, most of the USA. Fairly high in Arizona and the rest of the Southern USA. 20% active cooling? 80% active cooling? Hard to say, as might depend on lots things not known. Less on small battery cars, more on larger battery cars. The gain is larger, the larger the battery, and the cost is similar. Also small battery cars are more likely to be commuter cars, where QC isn't common, than performance cars, where multiple QCs per day at high power is a bragging point, if not more common.
Active cooling isn't just extra cost, and isn't just reducing reliability, but also may be reducing battery life in cool places. That is worse than useless.