Random thoughts...... 1. This will have no impact on the number of entrants compared to "before." There has not been a group of potential entrants NOT participating because, "Gosh, they just don't ha
It is also a wonderful category for people who cannot afford or do not have the space for a second transmitter, filters, antennas, and other associated hardware. It is also a wonderful category for p
N0HI said: [snip] It is also a wonderful category for people who cannot afford or do not have the space for a second transmitter, filters, antennas, and other associated hardware. It is also a wonder
Hi, Instead of having groups in all CQ Contest more close we have now more and more difference If that will go that way we will find soon CQ contests completely difference and propably in WPX SOAB wi
So if the end result is that none of this will matter in terms of participation .... Why change? Is this change being made to keep the critics (nice way to define them) quiet? K8DD -- "I knew that Go
No, I don't see this changing participation -- and that is good. You are correct, a m/m or m/2 station can still knock down and interlock for a m/s. I'm sure they will. I also believe at least a few
Hello Kr2q, That's unlikely to happen until the 36 hours limit for SO is still in place unless all the M/S entrants are really "a bunch of guys drinking beer who also want to operate the contest". It
After considering pros and cons of this, I have to side with those who oppose. We have done the WPX CW as a serious M/S, so the beer drinking contest scenario Doug suggests does not apply. Yes, the o
I also don't support a multi single limitation. I remember doing IARU a couple years back and thinking to myself that I, as a single op, would be running circles around a multi op given that any sing
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:44:56 -0800
Randy recently discussed this in depth in the CQ WPX blog: http://www.cqwpx.com/blog/?p=46 "The WPX Committee is carefully considering a change to the Multi-Single category rules for 2010. We believe
Ken: Thank you for the information. After reading the basis you kindly provided, I remain unconvinced. As I read this, the difference then is having an imbalance of 3 single op categories: SOAB, SOAB
I have not a M/S station with 2 transmitters, etc. My club usually run with one rig and until recently without amplifier. Is this a reason to reduce the M/S category to Low power stations with one an
" Almost any top level Multi-Single Oh, for sure. A competitive M/S requires a few Run ops and can tolerate a few S&P ops (= a team with mixed capabilities, which offers a learning opportunity for t
No ... it doesn't. SOAB/assisted still only allows one operator. That points to what I think the majority of people against the new rules are overlooking. There currently is no viable category for th
Dave: I could accept your comments without agreeing with them until you made the speculative accusation that those of us who oppose the change do so out of arrogance. While I was not even thinking ab
No ... I didn't say that those who oppose the rules changes are arrogant. I've heard some pretty interesting and passionate arguments supporting the existing M/S category, and it is apparent that sev
I think you are correct. The WPX contest used to have a M/S class - it was changed in recent times to be like the M/S in the CQ WW DX contests. I have entered in the M/S category in WPX when it was o