At medium high latitudes when the sun-cycle will be low, an "high band"
category will merge more or less into a SB20 entry.
73,
Mauri I4JMY
---------- Initial Header -----------
>From : cq-contest-admin@contesting.com
To : "cq-contest Reflector" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Cc : <contests@arrl.org>
Date : Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:15:56 +0100
Subject : Re: [CQ-
Contest] Restoring High Band/Low Band categories in ARRL DX Test
> Yes, this is a very good idea. Many low-
budget contesters find it hard to
> get good antennas for all the 6 bands, yet find that a weekend stuck o
n just
> one band can get rather monotonous. A Low or High Band entry gives a g
uy/gal
> more enjoyment and variety without the need for the such a big antenna
> set-up.
>
> But why keep it just for the ARRL DX Test ? Surely there are other con
tests
> where this would work as well.
>
> Who should we write to in order to get this idea really moving ????
>
> Tim, EI8IC
>
> www.qsl.net/ei8ic/
> HF and Budget Contesting Information Site.
> Recently updated -
Faster navigation, new Contesting pages and resources.
>
>
> At 01:25 PM 6/18/02 +0000, Dave Hachadorian wrote:
> >With the advent of ARRL's enhanced on-
line contest reporting, constraints
> >on the number of contest categories imposed by available QST space ar
e
> >removed, or at least reduced. Computerized log-
checking has also reduced
> >the need to minimize the number of categories in contests, since the
> >administrative overhead has been reduced.
> >
> >I'd like to see the High Band (10, 15, 20) and Low Band (40, 80, 160)
> >categories restored in the ARRL DX Test. There are a number of reason
s why
> >I think this move would enhance the contest world-wide:
> >
> >1. Declining JA activity has made it much more difficult for western
USA
> >stations to compete in all categories, but especially the all-band
> category,
> >where absorption on 40, 80, and 160 precludes big European runs.
> >
> >2. There are a lot of stations around the world who have a small towe
r and
> >tribander in the back yard, and an assortment of low, seriously
> >compromised antennas for 40, 80, and 160. There is not much incentive
for
> >these stations to get on the air in the all band category, since they
know
> >that they cannot turn in a competitive score. On the other hand, a
> >tribander can do a quite creditable job on the high bands, which woul
d
> >encourage activity.
> >
> >3. The single-
band category, while enabling disadvantaged stations to be
> >more competitive on one single band, rapidly gets to be pretty boring
.
> >
> >4. The High band/ low band categories would enable SO2R operation, ma
king
> >the contest much more interesting than single band category, where SO
2R is
> >impracticable for most people.
> >
> >To me, the payoff in any contest is to enjoy the contest experience
> >itself, and, afterward, to to see how I ranked, with the data arrange
d the
> >way I like to see it presented. I really don't care about QST listing
s or
> >certificates. By the time QST and the certificates come out, the cont
est
> >is old news. Coupled with the ARRL's growing accent on Internet scor
e
> >reporting, I think the additional categories would add a spark of gro
wth
> >and an interesting new dimension to the ARRL DX Test.
> >
> >Respectfully,
> >
> >Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
> >Yuma, Arizona
> >K6LL@despammed.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
|