While I can empathize with the desire to push the limits of power delivery, it’s important to remember that the default standard is 6 AWG with SB50s, and teams only started pushing the limits on 4 or 2 AWG and SB120s in more recent years.
Even if REV did make a 2 AWG capable PDH, it would only be a matter of time before someone insisted on using 1/0 AWG or 3/0 AWG.
The SB50 connectors are designed to accomodate 6 AWG with no “tricks”. The WPILib robot wiring guide describes using 6 AWG with both the PDH and older PDP. I think the SB50 “standard” has been 6 AWG since my first involvement in FRC in 2013. It’s the 4 AWG and up crew that has gotten into the SB120s.
Yup, edited that right as you posted. Had the increments off in my head for some reason.
I think it’s time to cut out the battery cable middle-man entirely. Introducing the MAXPower hub:
I expect a cut from whatever company manufactures this fantastic new product.
Jokes aside, this is honestly not the worst idea I’ve ever heard.
It could take a lot of the guessing-game out of battery connections.
“Are those cable lugs still on tight under all that electrical tape?”
Skip the cable all-together and just insert battery into slot.
Assuming it was an optional thing teams could use (some teams may want to keep the cable in order to put their batteries away from other components for space reasons), I could definitely see a market for it.
Would be easier if they were lithium as well 
Its all fun and games until the robot hits a wall and generates 70Gs.
Seriously, you’d have to make sure whatever is holding the battery can really hold the battery and none of the forces go through the terminals
Also it has the battery upside down, which iirc is not good.
You could probably make a version that had it laying down flat instead (contacts accessible from the bottom).
I love this, but legally, it’s not legal based on Rule R609 
Dang no way, that’s 4 months of development down the drain You’ve gotta be kidding
Well no… you have 4 months to get it approved by HQ 
