I spent about three months running ANSYS transient thermal simulations on my CAD model of the Alta battery pack. First a few caveats; There's little data on general thermal transport properties of the 18650 cell, particularly at or near maximum discharge rates (non-steady state). The required data of THESE specific cells (VTC6 and NCR18650BD) is non-existent from my research. The exact heat generation rate and physical properties such as specific heat and thermal conductivity are critical in any accurate analytic modeling are unknown. In addition, the physical properties of the Alta's four composite cell modules is also unknown. Also, the precise thermal contact resistance of the many interfaces between different components is unknown and highly variable depending on component material, surface profile, compression (bolt pressure), and the type of TIM (Thermal Interface Material) used, if any. Finally, what convection numbers to use for both forced and natural conditions for a "motocross" type environment is not well documented. Last but not least, the cell temperature(s) where Alta begins thermal limiting is unknown as is the method of measurement (surface, internal, physical, calculated, etc).
With that said, after much research I made what I believe to be reasonable "guesstimates" as to all the above and feel my degree of uncertainty is within an acceptable range for the purposes of my simulations.
After physical disassembly and study and literally hundreds of simulations I've come to the following observations and conclusions;
1) The Alta's pack arranges the cells as densely as possible. This is both good and bad. Good from a capacity per volume perspective but not so good thermally.
2) The Alta's "passive" thermal control system does little during an initial (from ambient) high amperage discharge cycle, less than 15 minutes to thermal limiting (an A level rider discharge profile, for example). Most of the generated heat is retained inside the battery and very little (approx. 10%) is rejected through the radiator. This is due to the relatively high heat capacity and very poor and highly anisotropic thermal conductivity of the 18650 cell plus the tightly spaced packaging and relatively little effective heat transfer area for each cell (essentially, the one end with closest proximity to the heat sink). This one interface is compromised further as direct contact to the heat sink is forbidden as this would effectively "short" all the 126 negative side cells together. The "non-conductive" composite cell module, a 2mm alum module plate and no less than three TIMs separate the cell end from the radiator. To add further, the total cell end surface area isn't used, as approx. 40% is non contact and used for routing hot gasses (due to possible cell over pressurization) away from adjacent cells that otherwise might lead to thermal runaway.
3) The Alta's "passive" thermal control system can help delay the onset of thermal limiting during less aggressive discharge drive cycles AND can help reduce cell temperature between charge/discharge cycles, but not by much. Once the cells are "heat soaked" it's very difficult to pull the energy back out, even with fans, etc.
4) Any "wet" thermal solution would need to flow axially, as the physical proximity between cells restricts efficient and effective radial flow. The nature of the packaging design pretty much makes an axial flow solution virtually impossible.
5) An externally cooled "cold plate" mounted between the individual module and the radiator housing does well up a point, but the delta temp between keeping the cells internal temperatures at or below my cutoff point and the ambient temperature is narrow. To work efficiently at higher ambient temperatures would mean adding very large external radiators and the weight hit and complexity just wouldn't be worth it.
Given 1-6, I've concluded that the best strategy (for me) would be the following;
1) Incorporate a cell with a higher discharge rating than the Sony and take the hit in capacity.
2) Throw away the Alta closed composite cell housing in favor of an "exposed cylindrical surface" support structure and design in a source of "forced air" cooling.
3) Design an alternative hot gas "venting" route.
4) Incorporate two "cold plates" for use between motos only to reduce core cell temperatures to approx. 10C below ambient (to about 50F). Along with a modest cell upgrade and some forced air cooling, this temperature should provide enough headroom to prevent thermal limiting even under extreme conditions. The rate of heat removal is as important as heat generation so further analysis is required in this area.