I thought some people might be interested to see the differences in some cable lugs I have received in the course of my solar battery build.
The lugs are:
A fair difference in palm thickness here: 3.4mm vs 1.8mm
The Carroll palm was 2.8mm. Remember that this is a 35mm2 lug, the others are 50mm2
Another view, showing the cable entry and differences in wall thickness:
Other notes: I did not expect there to be this much variation in such a simple product. The Carroll has a more dull surface finish, especially internally. I think this is due to a thicker tin plating than the Ebay lug. I would like to have received the tinned CHFK. The CHFK is totally sealed, while the others have the small opening and are probably not completely airtight through the end where the tube was pressed flat. The CHFK is 42mm long internally, versus 15mm for the ebay model. If it isn't obvious from the photos, the big copper one contains about 6 times as much metal as the ebay lug.
The Carroll crimps perfectly with my generic hydraulic crimper and is long enough for two squeezes. The ebay lug crimps poorly, when using a die rated for 35mm2. With the 50mm2 die it barely grips the cable. There is only enough room for one crimp. I am yet to try the CHFK, but I wonder if the extreme thickness will cause problems. Its extreme length may cause issues in tight spaces.
If I was starting over, I would go for the Carroll lugs. The quality is excellent and the form factor is convenient. I only went for the others to try and get cheaper postage, which turned out to be a false economy.
The lugs are:
- 35mm2 with ø6mm hole, from Australian manufacturer Carroll, supplied by Springers Solar.
- 50mm2 with ø8mm hole, unbranded lugs from an Ebay seller "bigbangled-plus" that was recommended on an Australian Facebook group for DIY LiFePo4 batteries.
- 50mm2 with ø10mm hole, from Aliexpress seller "CHFK Store". I ordered tinned lugs but they sent bare copper. I am currently trying to sort this out with the seller.
A fair difference in palm thickness here: 3.4mm vs 1.8mm
The Carroll palm was 2.8mm. Remember that this is a 35mm2 lug, the others are 50mm2
Another view, showing the cable entry and differences in wall thickness:
- Ebay garbage: slightly oval entry, average ID about 9.9mm. No flare, but slightly countersunk or de-burred entry. Wall thickness 0.9mm
- CHFK: ID 10.0mm. Hole slightly eccentric with OD - wall thickness range 1.85-2.30mm. No flare, slight burr on inside.
- Carroll 35mm2: ID 8.2mm. Generously flared entry. Wall thickness hard to measure with my caliper but close to 1.4mm.
Other notes: I did not expect there to be this much variation in such a simple product. The Carroll has a more dull surface finish, especially internally. I think this is due to a thicker tin plating than the Ebay lug. I would like to have received the tinned CHFK. The CHFK is totally sealed, while the others have the small opening and are probably not completely airtight through the end where the tube was pressed flat. The CHFK is 42mm long internally, versus 15mm for the ebay model. If it isn't obvious from the photos, the big copper one contains about 6 times as much metal as the ebay lug.
The Carroll crimps perfectly with my generic hydraulic crimper and is long enough for two squeezes. The ebay lug crimps poorly, when using a die rated for 35mm2. With the 50mm2 die it barely grips the cable. There is only enough room for one crimp. I am yet to try the CHFK, but I wonder if the extreme thickness will cause problems. Its extreme length may cause issues in tight spaces.
If I was starting over, I would go for the Carroll lugs. The quality is excellent and the form factor is convenient. I only went for the others to try and get cheaper postage, which turned out to be a false economy.