CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: New RAC (ARRL contest) sections

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: New RAC (ARRL contest) sections
From: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
Reply-to: n2ic@arrl.net
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:41:27 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
That's a rather remarkable result, Rich. We must not have been working the same 
contest.

I went through my 2011 CW SS log. Having won the contest, and being located in 
a 
favorable location for working VE3 on the high bands, I think it represents a 
very good assessment of Ontario CW contest activity.

Total Ontario worked: 23

GTA: 11
ONE: 7
ONS: 5
ONN: 0

73,
Steve, N2IC

On 08/09/2012 08:51 PM, Richard DiDonna NN3W wrote:
> I ran my log from last year against the maps from the new Ontario
> sections and found that I worked at least 3 stations in each section.
>
> I'll also add that the addition of new sections/new multipliers often
> breeds activity.  This was certainly the case with the Mexican states in
> ARRL 10. You could also get a new multiplier in NAQP in the mid-atlantic
> area.......
>
> 73 Rich NN3W
>
> On 8/9/2012 11:36 AM, w5ov@w5ov.com wrote:
>> Kelly,
>>
>> I think some of this is much more practical and the amount of potential
>> difficulty may exceed "big whoop" status.
>>
>> The key is how to identify which of these new sections one is in.
>>
>> How likely is it that casual SS entrants in Ontario will not know which
>> one of these new sections they're in? How many SS entrants are in each of
>> these new sections? Will they know which section they're in?
>>
>> I think that if they had announced these new sections would be used in the
>> 2013 running of SS, giving a full year+ to communicate it and allow people
>> to be informed, it might have been a better decision.
>>
>> It all seems a bit rushed - and unnecessary. It also seems a bit odd that
>> the ham population of VE3 was so unmanageable that it had to be divided
>> into 4 pieces. It also stands to reason that GTA is going to be the
>> biggest population - no?
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Bob W5OV
>>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> I'm afraid the logic of your argument might not quite hold water.
>>>
>>> ALL ARRL sections exist purely for administrative purposes. None exists
>>> for
>>> contesting reasons. That each section is also an SS multiplier is simply a
>>> fringe benefit.
>>>
>>> There's more to creating a section than saying 'You're a section.'
>>>
>>> The logic also falls apart when you consider the history of ARRL Sections.
>>> Every time a new section was added before, it became by default a
>>> multiplier
>>> in SS. California wasn't always LAX, SD, SJV and so on, and Florida wasn't
>>> always NFL, SFL and WCF. WTX is also relatively new. Should ARRL have
>>> ignored every new section each time a section was added?
>>>
>>> The SS rules say the multipliers are ARRL and RAC sections: the new
>>> sections
>>> are RAC sections. I fail to see why they shouldn't be multipliers too.
>>>
>>> So a sweep got a bit harder. Big whoop.
>>>
>>> 73, kelly
>>> ve4xt
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>