Friends,
M/S DX contesting has been my absolute fav since 1973. And I've had the
pleasure of doing it a lot - from small and large stations, competitive and
casual.
I want to voice my OPPOSITION to the proposed M/S changes. Frankly, my
concern is much more about CQ WW. I see this proposed change in WPX as a
precursor to the same change in the WW DX contest.
I don't think placing restrictions on an existing, exciting category adds
any value. I've been writing a long-winded email about it, but most of the
reasons I am articulating have already been stated very well by others.
Basically:
1. Variety in contest formats is a great thing for contesting. Bringing all
contests into compliance with "standards" is a limiting approach for which
there is no need. Let's provide more opportunities for contesters to find a
niche they can love and win.
2. The proposed changes will reduce expectations of score and the overall
number of QSOs generated in the category, and therefore, the contest. That's
bad for everybody.
3. Most high-end true M/S stations who want to win will never move up to
M/2 or M/M. They will just remain in the revised category and continue to
win, but also suffer with less ops, less operating time, less QSOs and less
fun than the current rules encourage. Why won't they move up to M/2? Because
lots of winning M/S stations are just single-op stations on steroids. You
can't win M/2 or M/M without multiple towers and the ability to
simultaneously run full power on more than one band, full-time - without
interference. In current M/S, simultaneous operation on more than one band
isn't a do-or-die requirement. We frequently have to stop the Run station
due to interference issues while Mults are worked on another band. But, we
can still win. We couldn't possibly make the station competitive in M/2
without building another tower or two, which will never happen. We are not
alone in this respect.
4. I am not opposed to the creation of another category for the "true" M/S
that is proposed. I don't think it's necessary, but, there's nothing wrong
with that concept for those who want it. If both categories existed, I think
a lot of teams at all levels of competition would still choose to operate
under the current rules because its not hard to do, and its a lot more fun.
5. No dispute about the origins of the M/S category - allow a few ops to
share the load of keeping a single-op's station on-the-air for 48 hours.
But, when the concept was initially implemented in the rules, inexpensive
transceivers with dual-RX capability weren't part of the equation. It was
much, much harder to enter the realm of multi-radio stations. Today, despite
the protests of many, it just isn't a big deal to put a very productive mult
station on the air. A low-power transceiver and an antenna switch or extra
dedicated dipoles can be very effective. It's exactly how we got started.
6. I also think the band-change rule encourages more rubber-clocking. When
you can work mults legitimately with a second radio, the number of
opportunities where the temptation to rubber clock arises is definitely
lower.
Ask most M/S teams whether they prefer the current CQ or ARRL M/S format. I
think the response will confirm what I've mentioned above.
73,
Jim K1IR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|