Can someone post this on FIRST q/a


I appreciate your explanation and it makes sense. It probably will work fine in most of our applications. But why take a chance that someone may not properly engage them.

Also, we have conducted some testing (we at Motorola often do independent testing on products that we use) and have found that the voltage drop across this particular connector is significantly worse than the one we have been using in the past. We have a graph comparing connector voltage drops that was done a while back. We will try to dig it up and post it here.

We are not trying to gain any advantage by using a different connector; in fact the ones we have been using weigh no less. We are just trying to implement proper engineering practices. What is the big deal with not letting teams use an equivalent or better connector this year? Did someone complain about the use of different connectors? If not, why change a rule from a previous year that was not broken in anyway? I thought we wanted to simplify the rules.



With regards to the connector issue at hand, i’m going to refer to Team Update #10

FIRST staff and volunteers will vigorously support and enforce the 2004 rules as written.

Team’s excellent and creative work that may not align / be in agreement with the rules will be acknowledged as excellent work but will be disallowed.

When the volunteers and inspectors read the rules the way Aidan reads them, and you have a fleet of batteries with your upgraded connectors on them, it’ll just be a waste of money, as you will have to change all of them…

It would be safer this year to follow the rules and use the connectors in the kit… like Aidan said, over 25,000 FIRST matches with very few incidents… All this rule does is level the playing field. FIRST has a lot of very intelligent people working for them, I trust their decision, and to me, the “correct” interpretation of that rule is that we MUST use the SB-50 connector.

Best of luck,


How does this possibly level the playing field?!?! It’s a battery connector!

Attached is that graph I promised. The testing was done in 2001. I have nothing else to say since common sense is obviously not the issue with this rule.

Connector Comparisons.xls (19 KB)

Connector Comparisons.xls (19 KB)