Why necessarily set certain height limits? I know
plenty of folks out in California whose single antenna
would be a wire vertical that is shot 60 feet into the
top of a palm tree.
Perhaps a category that is limited to wire antennas
and no more than a three/four element tribander.
Rich NN3W
--- Original Message ---
From: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill@earthlink.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category
>I would like to suggest this thread consider
something else--keeping the
>casual operator in the contest. I have read many
comments about the
>necessity to have the casual operators in the
contests-- they are involved
>in the majority of Qs-- we need them!
>
>As it is now, there is argument about using
categories to "level the playing
>field" or not. My guess is the casual contester
perceives this as
>self-serving B.S. He knows that the greatest
hardware difference he faces
>is the ability to put up BIG antennas. He correctly
perceives that no
>matter what category he chooses, there will be 100 or
200 foot tower
>stations competing in the same category. With fairly
low antennas, you can
>give him all the SO2R, High Power, Multi-Ops,
Computer usage, Extra Class
>privileges in the world, and he can never compete
with the 200 foot tower
>guy, or even with the 70 foot tower guy. Why should
he bother to try? Are
>there many super scores from a station with stacked
monobanders limited to
>50 feet in height? No? So guess what? The little
pistol, on average,
>doesn't try, he gets on for a little while on
Saturday to "give out a few
>contacts", etc.
>
>I believe that if we had a category which limited
antenna height to 50 feet
>or so, and we honored those who do well with that
limitation, we might
>encourage the little pistol to improve his station
and make a serious
>attempt to place well in the low antenna category.
In the process we might
>just get more participation from the little pistols,
and isn't this what we
>want?
>
>I don't believe the antenna height for the category
should be any higher
>than 50 feet. In the past, I competed successfully
on 10 M and occasionally
>on 15 M with a 60 foot tower, and had a lot of fun.
At 60 feet stacked 10M
>is very plausible. I think we should establish a
category height which
>allows discourages the use of stacks at HF, in order
to give the vast
>majority of hams, the little pistols, an opportunity
to compete with each
>other. And we definitely do not want a height (22M)
which just happens to
>allow for 20M monobanders at a wave-length high. It
would defeat the
>purpose.
>
>Those of us who want to compete with our towers at
above 50 feet would not
>be hurt in the slightest by having an antenna
category which allowed the
>little pistols the opportunity to compete with each
other and gain
>recognition. We might come out way ahead, and even
avoid the Sunday
>Doldrums, by giving this encouragement to the little
pistols.
>
>No, I don't think we need more categories. Separate
category for SO2R?
>Nope, that relates to operator proficiency. I can't
do SO2R, and that is my
>problem. I do not want a separate category to
protect me from the more
>proficient operator. He deserves to win.
>
>Incidentally, my pitch for a 50 foot category is not
self serving. I have a
>72 foot crankup which will support 15 M at 37 and 72
feet very nicely (when
>I get around to it), or when the sun spots get
better, perhaps 10 M at 37,
>54, and 72 feet. (I personally like Single Band.)
More hardware makes more
>Qs makes more fun, and I have no intention to play in
the sub 50' category.
>But I do strongly believe the contesting community
would be better off with
>such a category.
>
>Thanks for the BW.
>
>73, Rusty, na5tr
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-
contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|