I've got a suggestion that may help resolve this impass between
those who think single radio stations deserve a category of their
own and those who see them as a little bunch of whiners.
This would be to create a category for those who are forced to
do all of their contesting from truly inadequate stations. I
basically had this conversation with a VE7 around 1974 at
the Fresno DX Convention. It was a memorable occasion.
For me, at least.
Basically, it went like this:
"I know I'll never become a good operator. I'll never run
more than 150 watts, and I'll never have good antennas or
a good location, geographically or topographically. But I'm
active in many contests each year, and I believe I should have
a category in which I should be able to stand out as the clear
leader."
Well, this guy always came in second in his section behind
the well-equipped VE7CC (then VE7BDJ); I could see
where he could be unhappy with his accomplishments. But
here in Southern California he really seemed to have a fine
signal -- in fact always pounding in -- quite a contrast to the
average contact I made in most contests. And his scores
were always within 20-25% of the top scorers of the day.
If I remember right, he soon moved to Northern California,
joined the NCCC, got a USA issued callsign, put up bigger
antennas, bought a kilowatt, and still had lackluster scores.
In fact, I couldn't see where he had much reason to complain.
Except for the opportunities I had to join multi-operator
efforts at big stations or be a guest single operator I'd never
been as loud as he was. I'd always wished for a home
station that would clearly perform as well as his VE7 station.
Well, here's the secret behind getting a single-radio category
for all of the single-radio afficianados. Think bigger.
Right. Think BIGGER (smaller).
Make the category more restrictive. It's no use spitting into
the wind. Rather than singling out the guys with two
transceivers available in their stations and smearing them as
cheaters or something, face reality. You need a really
restrictive category to fit into. Unless you invent a truly
restrictive category, you're not going to get what you want
anyway -- which is to have a category that you can really
look sharp in. Nearly top scorer, maybe number one.
Don't just limit the category to single-radio stations. Make
the category restrictive enough that the vast majority of
hams can be on par with the very best in class.
1) Limit the category to 100W and an all-band vertical. No
dipoles, no wires, no beams.
2) Don't allow lattice type towers or tubular towers. Restrict
the category to masts no higher than 20 feet, no heavier than
1-1/4 inch water pipe.
3) Place limits on the number of radials. Two per band, max.
4) One single piece of coaxial cable, no antenna switches
allowed.
5) Disallow narrow filters -- receivers must use bandpass
filters no narrower than 2.1 KHz. This would be known
as the Fred Laun rule.
6) What packet? Computers are out completely.
7) Require the use of straight keys. No bugs. No phone.
Real contesters operate CW.
8) Flat terrain only, no hilltops, no DX, no rare sections.
9) No more than three bands may be operated.
10) No more than 12 hours operating time.
I'm sure there could be more rules. No underground
power-lines, no experienced contesters, no headphones,
no callsigns shorter than six characters.
Finally, a level playing field!
Finally a category someone can enter with minimum
committment and investment and without complete
assurance of being clobbered!
Phase two -- automatically enter every single licensed
ham in the world. You are automatically assured of
finishing in the top one tenth of one percent of category
entrants as soon as you have made your first contact!
----- Original Message -----
From: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
To: <CQ-CONTEST@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 5:05 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Be careful
> Be careful what you wish for..... .....you might get it.
>
> All this sentiment for a "level playing field" flies directly in the
face
> of what competition is all about.
>
> The very essence of radiosport contesting is for each
operator/station
> designer to do EVERYTHING within the rules to TILT (not level) the
playing
> field in their favor. If you can develop a skill not widely
prevalent
> (SO2R), then more power to you --- you deserve the fruits of your
labors.
> But someone will come along lobbying that you're being "unfair" to
those
> who haven't developed the skill.
>
> If you can improve your antenna farm to gain a 3 or 6 dB advantage
over the
> masses, then more power to you --- you deserve the fruits of your
labors.
> But someone will come along lobbying that your tall tower is
"unfair" to
> those who haven't built their own. Soon someone will rent a clue
and
> decide that those with longer booms/more elements are also being
"unfair",
> and there'll be a new lobby against long booms.
>
> If you can improve your receiver over what the masses can buy out of
the
> box you'll hear stuff that the masses can't hear --- more power to
you ---
> you deserve the fruits of your labors. But sooner or later there'll
be a
> lobby against non-stock receivers as "unfair".
>
> Starts to sound pretty ridiculous, doesn't it! I don't want any
part of
> "level playing field radiosport where anyone can win" --- I want
excellence
> in operating skills, excellence in station design, and excellence in
> strategy to have the advantage. If you can't compete because you
lack
> "excellence" in skills or station design, then improve yourself/your
> station, and quit crying for rules changes to take away that
advantage from
> those who have acquired it.
>
> For the logical outcome of a "level playing field", I recommend the
> excellent Kurt Vonnegut short story "Harrison Bergeron" at
> http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> ---
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|