Well, we could refine our entry class definitions to the extent that there
is an entry category that uniquely describes each of our unique stations and
operators. Everyone would be a "winner", and the only entrant, in their
category. Or, we could go to the other extreme and eliminate all categories
with SO1R competing with SO2R competing with beams competing with MORE beams
competing with wire dipoles competing with one signal at a time competing
with teams of stations, etc.
But, if we want to have a reasonable and finite number of entry categories
in between these two extreme limits, then there are going to be
"inconsistencies" and "unfairness". It is unavoidable. I'm not convinced
that even a complete re-design of contest entry categories would
significantly change this fact.
Example 1 -- MS Band Change Restriction
NW0L just brought up the MS band change rule. For example, a single-op can
change bands as much as they want. But, if a second operator is added and
they go MS, then suddenly they are more restricted than a single op. Same
for a single op using packet who must enter as MS ... they suddenly can't
make good use of the spots because they can't change bands more than 6 times
in a clock hour. In fact, a single op in MS (because of packet) can't do
SO2R because of the band change restriction. I used to think this was
grossly inconsistent, but have come to rationalize it as follows. If a
single op can, by themselves, find new mults and stations to work on other
bands, then they deserve the freedom to do so. If the operator uses help
from either packet spots from other operators or an additional operator(s)
on site, then they are constrained by 6 band changes per hour to level the
playing field.
OK, I admit that I still have trouble with this MS band change rule! For
CQP I advocated, and we subsequently changed, the MS rule last year to limit
TRANSMITTING OPERATOR changes to every 10 minutes. At least that seemed to
be more directly addressing the issue of distinguishing MS from MM.
Example 2 -- Power
It is universally accepted that QRP should be a different class from LP or
HP, right? It is also unknowingly assumed that "QRP" also means crummy
antennas such as single wires (even untuned) or trapped verticals. But,
what if someone ran 5 watts at the antenna farm of one of the country's, or
world's, BIG GUNs? Would cries of "unfair" rise up because the QRPer not
only bested all other QRPers, but all LP entrants as well and most of the HP
entrants?
Personal experience ... I was fortunate to participate in the initial Team
Vertical assault on the North America and World QRP records in CQWW CW a
couple years ago. We went to the north shore of Jamaica and erected
multi-element vertical antenna arrays on 80 through 10 meters. Based on
some research done by N6BT and others on the performance of verticals over
salt water, the models showed that two 80 verticals with two elevated
radials each when placed over salt water had performance that exceeded a 3
element full size 80 meter beam at 200' over land. I ran 40 meters that
year and had a two-element vertical array (center-fed dipoles, no radials)
fixed on Europe and another on the US/JA. I ran 5 watts with an Elecraft
K2, made over 1400 contacts and smashed the NA and world QRP records. I was
even able to hold my run frequency and chase KW stations away because of my
transmit signal strength. My single-band 40 meter result compared favorably
with LP and HP entries around the world.
Admittedly, this is an unusual case, but what does this mean that our QRP
rules should be amended to say "no multi-element antennas" or "no verticals
near salt water"? Where do we draw the line?
I see all the same "inconsistencies" and "unfairness" that others see in our
contest rules. But, I also see just as many problems with most of the
changes being proposed. Instead, I carefully read and understand the
contest rules as they exist and then pick the category I want to enter based
on what best matches my situation and how I can have the most fun. I've
said all my contesting life that I would never use packet spotting and that
RTTY was a weird way to contest. Well, this past year, thanks to my contest
club's activities, I've used packet in a couple contests and I ran RTTY for
the first time in my life in the RTTY RU last weekend. (My hearing is still
contaminated with "diddles"!) Guess what ... I had a BLAST with both of
these new experiences and now have a larger menu of personal options with
which to have contesting fun.
73,
Ed - W0YK
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|