>To: <Dave.Wilson@conner.com>
>From: jfunk@adams.net (jim funk)
>Subject: Re: 160 Contests
>
>>It is obvious from some of the recent comments made on this and other forums
>>that there is a lot of discontent with the present 160M contests. Whatever
>>situation develops, it is up to the organisers to address those issues and
>>make adjustments to the rules accordingly. Since the begining of time,
>>mankind has exploited every loophole in every rulebook, amateur radio
>>operators are no different. It is time for "us" ie those interested and those
>>uninterested in 160M contests, to put forward a cohesive set of requirements
>>that the contest organisers should include in their rules.
>>Those of you who care enough to send in your ideas can either E-Mail them
>>directly to me if you would rather remain annonymous, or send them to this
>>forum for all to debate, either way I will collate as many of your ideas and
>>opinions as I can reasonably accomodate and send them to both CQ magazine and
>>the ARRL.The more people respond the better, if we only get 20 opinions we
>>can not expect the situation to change.
>>
>>I will starty the ball rolling, here are my list of requirements for 160
>>contests, please let me know what you think.....
>>
>>1 Each contest to last from "local dawn to dusk" not from 'x' hours Zulu
> Don't think so. (I know, you mean "dusk to dawn".) I could see a
max time operated, especially for single ops, of something less than the 42
hours, like maybe 30-36. K2WI was right, daytime gets a bit boring. The
only rationale I can see for operating the whole 42 is to give a new
operator some chair time with a multi-op without seriously compromising
final score.
>At K4VX, the couple of hours after sunrise are some of my favorites. No
pressure to find DX. Switch to the west sloper and CQ for locals. In a
couple of hours, I'll usually work from 20-40 W0's, maybe of whom are using
straight keys. I always wonder how many of them have bandswitches
permanently stuck on 1.8? Probably some of them are (horrors!) uniques.
>>2 Points based upon radial measurement from stations QTH.
> Wellll.... Too hard to measure? K5NA's suggestion concerning
contiguous and non-contiguous CQ zones would be OK. I can't imagine the
East Coast giving up those points for working Zone 14, Also, this gives New
Orleans 10 points for working TG and only 5 for working Point Barrow, AK....
Personally, the scoring currently used doesn't bother me. I know the CQ
contest is going to give a big advantage to the East Coast over the Black
Hole. I personally enjoy having the ARRL scoring format and the extra
domestic mults, which allow us here to be more competitive. Not all
contests need to be the same, and "not winning" because of a scoring system
doesn't get me bent out of shape.
>>3 Band split into 3, .....non participants....US EAST + US West.....DX....
> Really, really hard to implement, and where do you draw the line?
>I personally am very much in favor of a DX window. The 1830-1850 window
was too big and largely ignored. 1830-1835 is fine for CW, but 10 khz would
be more appropriate for an SSB contest. All you need is a strong stateside
station parked on 1835.01 and one or two busy DX stations in the window and
it's really difficult to hear anyone else. Any other stipulations as to who
can be where are cumbersome and unenforceable.
>>4 DX to US qsos can only be between windows ie split freq only.
> Sorry. I think split is great in many situations, but I operated
too many years with no second VFO or rig to now assume that everybody has one.
>>5 Each organiser must appoint someone who's job is to tune the band logging
>>infringements. Disqualification rewards bad operating behaviour.
> Sure. You make the top ten one year, you get to be policeman next
year. It would sure cut down on the number of high-scoring logs submitted.
> >6 QSO must include serial number, lets reintroduce some skill into
the qso
> Let's go with the Grid Square idea instead, though I have no
problem with a serial number. Something to copy other than a meaningless
"signal report" from the DX, at any rate.
>>
>>Thats enough to begin with, I will await the shark attack...
> We're so far from salt water here, I don't think the sharks even
made it during the Cretaceous. Maybe we'd have better 160 propagation to EU
if they had.... Thanks for broaching the subject!
>>As far as packet and more recently internet spotting is concerned that is
>>something for general debate, I personally think that the word contest has
>>lost its meaning in the context of our activities...its hardly a contest if
>>you pit David against Goliath, no matter what the fable said, in the real
>>world the big guy wins.....So how far do we go to make more qsos than the
>>competition?? Answer...as far as the rules allow. What do we want to do
>>about this fiasco??
>>
>>Thouhts, ideas, grumbles and mumbles, lets hear it all and lets DO SOMETHING!
>>
>>Regards to you all, without you 160 would be really boring!!
>>
>>Dave AA0RS / G3SZA
>>
>>
>>
>
|