pic: Battery connector.....

[Tristan Lall]

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.)

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Hold on so we get some real facts listed. The SB 50 was not introduced when we went to the IFI controllers. It became mandated much later. WildStang used a similar connector for many years prior to the start of the SB50.

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.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

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.

[Chadfrom308]

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

Needless to say that is never going to happen again.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

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.

It was required in 2004.

<R20> The 12v battery must be wired directly to a quick connect / disconnect connector (provided in the kit) that in turn feeds power to the Main Power Disconnect Switch and Circuit Breaker Assembly

[Al Skierkiewicz]

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.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

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.

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

[Al Skierkiewicz]

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.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

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.

[apalrd]

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.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by apalrd

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.

I assume you've already seen Q81?

[apalrd]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

I assume you've already seen Q81?

Yes. Very disappointing.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by apalrd

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.

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

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

[sanddrag]

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.

[Bill_B]

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.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

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.

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