That's exactly the point. The KT0R Multi-op effort from MN (currently 4th
highest claimed score) made almost 1800 QSO's in Phone SS, and NONE of them
were on 10 meters.
I don't want to get into a discussion of "level playing fields" or what is
fair, but some parts of the continent have a complete lack of propagation in
some circumstances. Changing the SS rules would be devastating.
73 Steve K0SR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Wruble" <w7gg@comcast.net>
To: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mb.sympatico.ca>; "Steve Root"
<steve.root@culligan4water.com>; "Cq-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>;
"Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:09 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
> fwiw, w7gg had 199 ss fone q's on10m this year ..... when it's open that
> number goes over 1000! 10m nfg on sunday this year but that's to be
> expected at this time of the cycle ....
> de w7gg
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mb.sympatico.ca>
> To: "Steve Root" <steve.root@culligan4water.com>; "Cq-Contest"
> <cq-contest@contesting.com>; "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
>
>
> > I second Steve's analysis of band-by-band conditions.
> >
> > Even excluding WP3R, stations in southern latitudes had extreme
advantages
> > in 10 meters that northern folk simply didn't have.
> >
> > I often scanned 10 as I was running, and found lots of guys in the south
> > running with really good rates for a long time working stations we
> couldn't
> > hear. Even W7GG had 299 Qs on 10, vs. my 6, VE4GV's zero and similarly
> > sub-20 Q rates by many in the midwest.
> >
> > The work-once-period rule serves as a bit of a geographic equalizer,
> > particularly during waning sunspot years. Turning SS into a
once-per-band
> > contest may appeal to southerners, but it would decimate participation
> among
> > northerners. If you want to kiss a sweep goodbye forever, this is a good
> way
> > to do it.
> >
> > I'm all for making a change to boost participation, but I think this one
> > isn't it. You'd trade increased participation by some for less by
others.
> > Not good.
> >
> > 73, kelly
> > ve4xt
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve Root" <steve.root@culligan4water.com>
> > To: "Cq-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>; "Pete Smith"
> > <n4zr@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
> >
> >
> > > Pete,
> > >
> > > I think that it's a great idea for all of us to consider ways to
> encourage
> > > contest activity or make needed improvements. At the same time, we
need
> > to
> > > be careful about how those changes would affect all of the players.
> > >
> > > SS is pretty special the way it is right now. Especially for a lot of
> us
> > > who live in the Northern Latitudes. You wouldn't believe how awful 10
> > > meters (and frequently 15 meters) can be up here. In an SS 10 meters
is
> > > pretty much worthless. For example, in last year's CW SS I made 3%
of
> my
> > > QSO's on 10 meters. And that's with an efficient SAO2R setup.
Strategy
> > > comes in to play in figuring out how to find the people you're missing
> on
> > 10
> > > meters on other bands. If you can do that, then you can be somewhat
> > > competitive. That's part of SS that makes it a great contest.
> > >
> > > Good luck to everybody this weekend!
> > >
> > > 73 Steve K0SR
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
> > > To: "Richard Zalewski" <w7zr@citlink.net>; "Cq-Contest"
> > > <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:19 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
> > >
> > >
> > > > While we're at it, let's get serious about revising this contest to
> > > > stimulate more activity. Make mults one per band rather than
> > > > overall. Wouldn't the first 5-band or 6-band sweep be something?
> Allow
> > > > one QSO per station per band, and eliminate the Sunday doldrums.
> > > >
> > > > To my mind, this would make virtually the perfect contest -- an
> exchange
> > > > with content that *must* be copied, retaining potential for modest
> > > stations
> > > > to make lots of contacts and rack up respectable scores, and 24
hours
> > > > on-time. Having more mults and Qs available would make the off-time
> > > > decision into a critical strategic choice rather than deciding which
6
> > > > hours will be the worst.
> > > >
> > > > In the past, suggestions of this sort were met with the complaint,
> > "That'd
> > > > be just another NAQP." My response is "What's wrong with that,"
> > > > particularly if it attracts SS-plus levels of participation instead
of
> > the
> > > > few hundred regulars who get involved in NAQPs.
> > > >
> > > > 73, Pete N4ZR
> > > >
> > > > At 07:18 PM 11/22/2004, Richard Zalewski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >This is part of my post from Sweepstakes.
> > > > >
> > > > >When are we going to wake up and sit at
> > > > >the table and restructure the operating classes of not only this
> > contest
> > > but
> > > > >all. If we are going to have classes and not just a free for all
> then
> > > SO2R
> > > > >needs to be dealt with so that the classes have some meaning. And
> > while
> > > > >we are
> > > > >at it Packet is here for the foreseeable future so deal with it
also.
> > > > >
> > > > >Let the fun begin!!
> > > > >
> > > > >Dick W7ZR
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|