W6WRT writes:
> You are going at it backwards, Joe. I'm not trying to define a class
> which would fit all existing stations, but rather which would fit many
> if not most and - this is important - would give people a reasonable
> target to aim for if they want to compete in the Limited Class. If
> they want more, go to the Unlimited Class.
The problem with trying to define a class is you discriminate against
certain techniques and attempt to draw a line in the sand. In doing
so your definition of limited vs. unlimited would create a greater
disparity between the antenna restricted vs. big tribander than
exists between the big tribander single radio station and someone
like AA5AU using SO2R and modest antennas.
The hardware design by YT1NT permitted PT5L (YT6A/YT6T) to operate
essentially SO2R with an antenna system that you propose for the
"limited" class, a single transceiver and an R4C.
> If they're already in Unlimited (as I am, having a four element
> quad), and they prefer Limited, change the hardware to fit.
This is really unrealistic ... why should you define a new set of
requirements that would force someone to choose between an antenna
that is more effective for 52 weeks a year in favor of being more
"competitive" in an "limited" class half a dozen weekends a year?
Again, if you are serious about limited vs. unlimited make limited
truly limited - reflective of those limitations that REALLY keep
operators away from contesting as opposed to singling out one
technique. To discriminate against SO2R is no more justifiable
than banning contesters from 4X or ZS.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
antenna for
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|