What about software, you mentioned that in your "opinion" there is no TJI style pre-chamber, or any for that matter. That it was more to do with the in cylinder sensors than any fancy combustion tricks? Does the refinement of the sensors(hardware) have anything to do with the software side? Engine maps, or predictive algorithms to control knock and run the engine closer to the edge, are these limited by the resolution of the sensors?
Yes they are, everything is controlled by software. but do you mean that SAFT also suppllies the cotrol software to FERRARI? because that was what my post was about.
I am basically saying I don't really know, but my guess is the software is being developed by both Ferrari and SAFT and buried under a whole lot of NDA's.saviour stivala wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:59 amYes they are, everything is controlled by software. but do you mean that SAFT also suppllies the cotrol software to FERRARI? because that was what my post was about.
As I said in my post of which was the one chosen now not to be allowed, it was all about blabbing about in responce to my post. but just in case there is a wish to go all over again what already had been discussed there is no problem from on this part.
I mentioned the same thing in the car thread last week. Seems weird.
This would be my educated guess as well. SAFT can probably help them squeeze a little more performance and longevity out of the cells because of their IP.
At this level I honestly think it goes a bit deeper than that. I don't think it is like "here you go, these are our cells. Here's our advice on how to use them". Ferrari will have specific requests on shape, charge and discharge, on how to integrate them with their control unit software. That requires a strong partnership, not just a supply/demand contract.saviour stivala wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:34 pm