Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

I'm just waiting for someone to show up with active cooling on their battery connector. (This isn't as ridiculous as it seems, if your intention is to follow the rules, and yet still extract maximum performance from your robot.)

I actually thought it was FIRST's intention to allow the SB120 (and other) connectors this year, when I noted on kickoff day that the rules referred to Anderson connectors without referencing the KOP checklist or the SB50 model. But it appears that in order to avoid undersized Anderson connectors being used, FIRST amended the rule to specify the SB50 only, rather than any SB-series connector rated by APP for at least 50 A. (Some teams were already using the SB120, which was at least plausibly legal in some years, but probably illegal in others.)

I'm pretty sure the Anderson SB50 was included in the 2000 KOP when the first Stamp-based IFI controllers arrived. 188 certainly used them from 2000 to the present. In fact, I think it was provided in 1999 with the green batteries that were used prior to the grey Exides. (It's possible that one of the clones of the SB50, like the one produced by Tyco/TE Connectivity was supplied instead, but that should be immaterial in this context.) I'm not sure when the rules explicitly mandated an SB50 (either by lack of an alternative, or by name), but certainly the 2000s-era additional hardware list and Small Parts catalogue would have limited the legal alternatives.

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

The SB50 was "recommended" in 2003 and 2004 but was not required until 2005 when the battery was no longer weighed with the robot. We used an Anderson 50 amp connector that Motorola used for attaching batteries to cell phone amps in the field. They use the same contacts in a different housing as I remember.

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

The monsters have never had this happend, but we did fry a couple of wires that were going to motors that got caught up and stalled.

Also, last year it probably didn't help that we had an OCCRA 80A breaker on our robot :ahh: :o

Needless to say that is never going to happen again.

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

It was required in 2004.

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

Yes,
But it is not identified as an SB50 nor is it shown on the electrical drawing. In the KOP it is not even listed as to manufacture.

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

Q/A made it quite clear that only the SB50 was allowed that year, against Wildstang's objections in this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=24890

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

OK, Joe, I knew this was a WildStang rule. It is all flooding back to me now. Thanks for finding the thread. As Aidan explained in that thread, Anderson was fully included in the testing at the time. We did some independent testing and thought our connectors were better but after further investigation at the time, we did adopt the SB50. We have now 10 years of use with our current style of battery and these connectors over thousands of matches. They seem to be doing very well. Even Raul eventually relented.

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

Look what my students found last night while unpacking some stuff.
I will have to post the picture somewhere else, I can't post pics here.

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

Would it be possible for FIRST to allow both the SB-50 or SB-120? I can't imagine any issues (other than 'the rules don't allow it') to use the next size up connector.

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

I assume you've already seen Q81?

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

Yes. Very disappointing.

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

We specifically asked on the Q&A and were denied.

https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/...ribution-board

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

I'd like to see a bigger connector, to allow for the use of 4ga wire without having to cut it down to fit in a 6ga terminal.

In 2003, we used some big single-pole Anderson connectors on our battery, and it was legal at that time. But, it was denied in later years.

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

Bigger connector is heavier, so to the extent that battery and attachment is excluded from the weight of the robot, a team using larger connectors can add more weight this way. Heavier wire and heavier connector = advantage? This is without current carrying advantage of some degree.

Re: pic: Battery connector.....
 

Negligible, in my opinion, especially compared to the weight of the battery. The current carrying advantage is the intent of a bigger connector.