CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Scoring Inequities/ Flameage

Subject: Scoring Inequities/ Flameage
From: rkaufmn@CC.UManitoba.CA (rkaufmn@CC.UManitoba.CA)
Date: Sat Jan 22 21:57:00 1994
Lyndon Nerenberg writes:
> 
> > When is this going to go away ?
> 
> Never. At VE7ZZZ we have the double handicap of being on the wrong coast 
> (almost), and being further north than nearly every other North American 
> contest station, with the resultant degredation in good propogation.   
> The key to winning is good hardware and an attitude!
> --lyndon  VE7TCP/VE6BBM
> 
Ahem, Excuse me. If ZZZ has a double handicap, than what do we VE4s stuck
right in the middle of NA have, Multiple Contest Disability ? I'd trade 
west coast propagation /wx with you any time Lyndon. We actually sent some
wx down south to the W2/3/4/5 boys and they look to be enjoying their new
found relationship with the white stuff. Seems there are several stuck
rotators in those parts. Welcome to the world of 20 below. Too bad we
can't export a few auroral disturbances or Polar cap events for you to
sample. K6LL worked 600 qs in 10 hrs on 10m in NAQP. I haven't heard 600
stations on 10 m during the last three months !
Ah yes, now asking for Fours... North American Fours only .
Ever seen a top ten VE4 in a High Power World Contest ?  Damn, that
De-icer dripped all over my keyboard.
Sorry, gotta go thaw out my hardware and defrost my attitude.
> Summer is only 4 months away.  Keep smilin.
73 Rob VE4GV



>From Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@unbc.edu>  Sun Jan 23 04:08:05 1994
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@unbc.edu> (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Subject: Scoring Inequities/ Flameage
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9401222030.B9521-0100000@unbc.edu>

On Sat, 22 Jan 1994 rkaufmn@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
 
> Ahem, Excuse me. If ZZZ has a double handicap, than what do we VE4s stuck
> right in the middle of NA have, Multiple Contest Disability ? I'd trade 
> west coast propagation /wx with you any time Lyndon.

Hey - we all know the *real* problem you VE4's have is feeding the sled
dogs that run the genny :-)

> We actually sent some
> wx down south to the W2/3/4/5 boys and they look to be enjoying their new
> found relationship with the white stuff. Seems there are several stuck
> rotators in those parts. Welcome to the world of 20 below.

I was at the triple-Z site the other weekend for the RTTY 'test. Cold 
wasn't an issue (and hasn't been so far this winter), however we have 
been getting a *lot* of heavy wet snow. That weekend the elements on the
beams were warping to 45 degree angles in some cases (the 40m beam looked 
positively scary) and wouldn't shake loose even when we "rocked" the rotator.
Even a kilowatt (sustained) wouldn't melt the stuff off :-(

> Too bad we
> can't export a few auroral disturbances or Polar cap events for you to
> sample. K6LL worked 600 qs in 10 hrs on 10m in NAQP. I haven't heard 600
> stations on 10 m during the last three months !

The guys on 4/6 GHz are not too impressed with the recent solar activity 
(RIP Anik E2). Again, during the recent RTTY bout I had a two hour run on 
10m on the Sunday morning. 10's pretty rare in these parts, usually.

> Ever seen a top ten VE4 in a High Power World Contest ?

Nope. But I've never seen a VE4, period. Perhaps you need bigger sled dogs?

> > Summer is only 4 months away.

Maybe in your part of the world ...

Keep the faith,

--lyndon  VE7TCP/VE6BBM



>From Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@unbc.edu>  Sun Jan 23 04:14:40 1994
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@unbc.edu> (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Subject: New Contest Category
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9401222040.C9521-0100000@unbc.edu>

During the wind-down after the recent RTTY contest a few of us came up 
with an interesting contest scenario that I would like to get some 
feedback on. (Note to US op's: VE beer is significantly stronger than 
yours (we need the extra ethanol to keep the stuff from freezing during 
the winter) and this came up during the ritual post-contest toast to the 
propogation gods ...)

The current state-of-the-art in RTTY contest software already requires 
minimal operator intervention during a contest. In addition, software
exists for DSP based audio cards (Sound Blaster 16/ASP) that makes it
possible to handle signal encoding, decoding, and QRM filtering in real 
time on the same PC without introducing an appreciable load on the host 
system. Finally, the contest exchange for the RTTY contest follows a few
common formats (mostly enforced by the current RTTY contest software).
It seem conceivable that the glue to tie the two software components 
together (i.e. the operator) could also be implemented in software, 
resulting in a RTTY contest operation that requires no human intervention.

Ignoring for the moment the issue of a control operator being required, 
how would you feel about creating a new category for such a contest:

        Single Transmitter, No Operator

Yes, I'm half-ways serious about this.

--lyndon  VE7TCP/VE6BBM


>From Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org  Sun Jan 23 17:51:34 1994
From: Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org (Walton L. Stinson)
Subject: Regional Recognition
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9401231032.C19039-b100000@teal.csn.org>



On Sat, 22 Jan 1994, Jay Townsend wrote:

> Depending where you are located seems to make a difference on your
> viewpoint. I see some of the East Coast would like a top 10 and then 4 other
> regional boxes.  Seems to this contester that if Regional results are what
> is desired then regional results are what should be reported.
> 
> I am directing this to the CAC. It seems to me for your organization since
> there are 15 Divisions that you should take 3 divisions and make an area.
> 
> That would let you reports five areas and a top five of five areas should
> have some meaning. 
> 
> The competitor vs. contester class is bunk....pure and simply a poor idea
> and has no merit.  Contests are for those who enter, for whatever reason.
> 
> 73,
> -- 
> Jay Townsend, Ws7i  < jayt@comtch.iea.com >
> 

wa6otu's suggestion in ncj to create "participant/competitor"
classes of entry is not without precedent.  in bicycling, there is
a citizens class where beginners get their feet wet competing against
other beginners and the more experienced riders compete in "categories"
based upon experience and accomplishments.  this scheme seems to have
worked very well.  i understand that a similar system is used in sailboat
racing.  perhaps some of you could shed some more light on how
these sports operate? we may not want to discard mark's suggestion
so quickly... 73, walt, w0cp, arrl cac chairman



>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil@seattleu.edu  Sun Jan 23 17:41:49 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil@seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Subject: ARRL DX groupings
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9401230949.A28715-c100000@bach>

de Ward, N0AX hwardsil@seattleu.edu

The time zone idea has merit, but ignores the large disparity in
propagation between north and south parts of North America.  One more
slice across the midsection of the US would help loads.  Also recognize
the VE/US boundary.

Here's an even dozen of such regions:

1) US call districts 1,2,3
2) US call districts 8,9 (plus KY and TN)
3) US call district 4 (KY & TN grouped with 8's & 9's, AL with MS)
4) US call district 0 (group CO with 7-SOUTH)
5) US call district 5 (plus AL, group NM with 7-SOUTH)
6) US call district 7-NORTHEAST (ID,MT,WY)
7) US call district 7-NORTHWEST (WA,OR)
8) US call district 7-SOUTH (NV,UT,AZ plus CO,NM)
9) US call district 6
10) VE call districts 6,7
11) VE call districts 5,4
12) VE call districts 3,2,1

There could be any number of fine-tunings across the boundaries.  If the
north-south disparities aren't addressed, then the proposal is seriously
flawed.

>From a larger perspective, I support the efforts to acknowledge the
differing conditions across the continent.  But... (and everybody's got a
big ...) there is too much regional variation for these efforts to really
settle the issue.  As some have noted, the end result is too many
splinters to make a board :-)

The need which is not being addressed in the current contesting structure
is identifying the peer group against which one competes and against which
one measures performance.  The peer group changes with each contest and
set of rules/scoring.

The group of us considering an operator rating system have been hard at
work over the past few months and are working out details for just such
issues as are being addressed here.  I'll stick my neck out a little and
commit to having a first draft available at Visalia for public review and
comment.  We should also have some summaries and examples published here
on the reflector by then.

The public discussion of the need and the willingness to explore
alternatives to the status quo are very encouraging.

73, Ward



>From rklein@lobo.rmh.pr1.k12.co.us (Ronald D. Klein)  Sun Jan 23 19:21:35 1994
From: rklein@lobo.rmh.pr1.k12.co.us (Ronald D. Klein) (Ronald D. Klein)
Subject: Regional Recognition (fwd)[A[
Message-ID: <9401231921.AA20189@lobo.rmh.pr1.k12.co.us>

> 
> On Sat, 22 Jan 1994, Jay Townsend wrote:
> 
  - stuff deleted       

> > 
> > The competitor vs. contester class is bunk....pure and simply a poor idea
> > and has no merit.  Contests are for those who enter, for whatever reason.
> > 
> > 73,
> > -- 
> > Jay Townsend, Ws7i  < jayt@comtch.iea.com >
> > 
> 
> wa6otu's suggestion in ncj to create "participant/competitor"
> classes of entry is not without precedent.  in bicycling, there is
> a citizens class where beginners get their feet wet competing against
> other beginners and the more experienced riders compete in "categories"
> based upon experience and accomplishments.  this scheme seems to have
> worked very well.  i understand that a similar system is used in sailboat
> racing.  perhaps some of you could shed some more light on how
> these sports operate? we may not want to discard mark's suggestion
> so quickly... 73, walt, w0cp, arrl cac chairman
> 
> 

I think there is real merit in considering groupings that reflect distinctions 
between "levels" of competitor. I am NOT suggesting equalization. It seems to 
me that there are probably 3 different levels of approach to the sport. One 
level is the beginner who gets on for a few hours, plays a little, and leaves 
it at that. That level could be stimulated to more serious participation by 
recognition of the contribution to the sport. They do produce a lot of 
contacts for the big guns. Probably a lot of big guns were at this level at 
some time.

The most serious level of course is the big gun who devotes a full 48 hours to 
a 48 hour contest, has the superstation, is aggressively out to win at nearly 
any (within the rules) cost.

The medium level is the operator who loves to contest. He/she proably doesn't 
work the full duration for reasons related to other committments, lack of 
desire to kill himself at a young age by going without sleep for 48 hours, and 
numerous other reasons.

I would suggest one way to divide these various levels is by grouping 
according to time on the air in the contest. I, for example, rarely run even 
24 hours in a 30 or 48 hour event. I don't expect to win... but I would like 
to be able to get some form of comparison with others who tend to operate with 
my same kind of approach to the seriousness of the event. Perhaps groupings 
for those who operate 1/4, 1/2, or more than 1/2 the allowable time would be 
useful to stimulate interest and provide recognition for a few more folks. 
Post the on-the-air time in the results published wherever they are. I would 
consider that a good approach, when combined with the regional rankings for 
the top stations. It would allow me to gauge how I am doing against those I 
might be competing with in a comparable way.

Walt - I am impressed with the obvious desire on your part to obtain input so 
the CAC can respond in a participative manner to the issues being raised. By 
not rejecting things out of hand, you deserve thanks for a good job as CAC 
Chairman - especially since you fit into the big gun class.

Ron - W0OSK
> 



>From rking@sescva.esc.edu (RICHARD KING - K5NA)  Sun Jan 23 18:39:14 1994
From: rking@sescva.esc.edu (RICHARD KING - K5NA) (RICHARD KING - K5NA)
Subject: ARRL DX Test Reporting

I have seen it both ways.  I operated from Texas for 22 years and now 
from New York for the past 14 years.  In Texas (as K5PFL) during the 
1970's, I was a consistent division winner in the ARRL DX CW, but could 
never make the top ten.  I came close once, being listed as tenth in the 
high-claimed but later when the results were published I had been bumped 
by a late log from W7RM (K7JA operating).  Shame on you Chip.

On the other hand, I made the top ten for SS three times.  One of these 
times was with a TA-33 at 35 feet and inverted vees below that.  If you 
want to be the top guy in a contest, you have to pick the one that favors 
your region. Maybe none of them favor your region, and you just have to 
live with that.  

I have had moderate success from New York, but still feel I will never be 
truly competitive with any serious station near Boston.  So what!  I enjoy 
contesting and would resist any effort to cause `equalization'.  I keep a 
lot of records and do comparisons between efforts from year-to-year to 
determine whether my effort was `good' or not.  Those who know me, know 
that I am a record and stats keeping `nut'.  However, I do have a suggestion 
regarding QST reporting that might make it more fun for the competitors in 
`non-favored' regions.

I think what I enjoy most about finishing in the top-5 or so, is being 
able to look at my band-by-band box comparisons with other stations.  This 
is my guide for where I need to improve my contest effort for next year.  
I think we should continue having the top-ten as it is now, but let's add 
regional band-by-band boxes for, say, the top three stations in each call 
district.  I chose call-districts because I can see too many differences 
in conditions between north/south areas if you use time-zones or CQ zones.  
Even some call-areas have dramatically different conditions, but you have 
to draw the line somewhere.

I realize that QST space for contest reporting is at a premium.  Reporting 
ten call districts with three calls each would add about 60 lines to a 
column.  Multiply this times the number of categories that you do it for 
(single-op, single-assisted, M/1, M/2, M/M, and others?). Maybe Billy Lunt 
would comment on the difficultly of expanding contest coverage in this 
manner.
 
73, Richard - K5NA

>From barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner)  Sun Jan 23 20:10:18 1994
From: barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Subject: ARRL DX rule changes
Message-ID: <VJgmgc2w165w@w2up.wells.com>

"Walton L. Stinson" <wstinson@csn.org> writes:

> i wonder if the 24 hour category couldnt be better addressed by
> creating a multi operator category that permits only ONE operator
> to be active at a time for some minimum on-time periord like 3 hours?
> this would allow those of you who don't want to operate the entire 
> contest to bring in some help without entering a mega-hardware
> category. as it stands now, a modest single op station design cannot
> effectively compete in any multi-op category. a limited multi-op
> category could change that, but would it address the needs of those who
> cant put in a full 48? 
> 73, walt, w0cp, arrl cac chairman
> 

Walt, I don't think that's the answer. Speaking for myself, which
I think may also represent other baby boomer/yuppie/family with
young kid types - I enjoy contesting, as well as competing, but
just have other obligations which prevent me from putting in the
full 48. Also, as a physician, I am reminded of those days (years)
as an intern and resident when I HAD to stay awake for 48 hour
sessions. It just ain't fun!
I think 24 hours represents a reasonable time period to play
radio in a 48 hour weekend. It also would introduce another variable
into the game plan, i.e., which hours to operate.
73 Barry W2UP


Barry N. Kutner, W2UP       Usenet/Internet: barry@w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA                 Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
                            Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)
.......................................................................


>From aa2du@attmail.com (J P Kleinhaus )  Sun Jan 23 21:48:47 1994
From: aa2du@attmail.com (J P Kleinhaus ) (J P Kleinhaus )
Subject: Regional Recognition

Hi Walt..no way, that goes back to the whole contest equalization discussion
that we buried months ago.  That is an idea with no merit in my eyes.  There
will always be inequality in contesting..we can't legislate a level playing
field.  What would be the incentive for a person to advance him/herself if
they can just loaf through the contest and win a plaque anyway.  This is the
same reason I am not in favor of a 24 hour entry category.

73, J.P. AA2DU
aa2du@attmail.com

>From rking@sescva.esc.edu (RICHARD KING - K5NA)  Mon Jan 24 01:27:21 1994
From: rking@sescva.esc.edu (RICHARD KING - K5NA) (RICHARD KING - K5NA)
Subject: ARRL DX Contest Reporting

Whoops, I forgot to include the VE gang in my suggestion.  It was a 
complete oversight on my part.  Sorry guys.
  
I suppose that would make 18 sets of reporting boxes.  But if participation 
isn't high enough in each VE call area to justify having a top three band
breakdown box, then perhaps some thoughtful combining of VE call-areas can 
be done.  I leave it open to ideas from others.

73, Richard - K5NA

>From MSgt Bob Smith/SCSMH <smithb@GF-WAN.af.mil>  Mon Jan 24 01:59:23 1994
From: MSgt Bob Smith/SCSMH <smithb@GF-WAN.af.mil> (MSgt Bob Smith/SCSMH)
Subject: Regional Scoring
Message-ID: <9401240159.AA15669@GF-WAN.af.mil>

Here is my input on the issue:
Report by maidenhead locator at the capital letter alpha characters.
That is a large, geographically defined entity.No funky political
borders to be concerned with, (that radio waves and propagation
ignore anyways).

A few folks have said that this is equalization.  I disagree.  
It is an enhancement of results reporting.  No one is getting
multipliers/handicaps/reduction based upon hours worked, power 
level, antenna heigth or any other abritary consideration.

BTW, I asked last month about commericial internet access.  
Finished writing my newsletter article today when I came across
a source that looks like it duplicates all my research.  Read
the January Computer Shopper, page 669, far right column.
I will post final article shortly.

73 Bob nd1h  (its warm here again, 30F, rotator heater unplugged)

>From rmarosko@BCM.TMC.EDU (Ronald J. Marosko)  Mon Jan 24 04:36:40 1994
From: rmarosko@BCM.TMC.EDU (Ronald J. Marosko) (Ronald J. Marosko)
Subject: 94 VHF SS Score
Message-ID: <199401240436.WAA04677@bcm.tmc.edu>

                      ARRL 1994 VHF SWEEPSTAKES
 
     Call used: K5LLL                     Grid Square: EL29
     Category:  Multi-Limited
 
       BAND     QSOS     QSO POINTS   GRIDS
 
        50        33          33        13
       144        97          97        19
       432        35          70        12
       1.2         4          16         3
 
        total    169         216        47    =    10,152      
 
 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>