On 3/31/2013 10:55 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
I'm not saying that a full 48 hour effort isn't fun and challenging
for some, but catering ONLY to the less than 1% who fall into that
category seems misdirected to me. What I don't understand is why the
categories shouldn't be able accommodate both. I used to do a lot of
semi-competitive cycling and many events had different categories for
different distances ... 25 miles, 50 miles, and 100 miles all at the
same time. It seems to me we could rather easily do the same here.
73,
Dave AB7E
Because in cycling, the efforts of one cyclist don't necessarily impinge
on the efforts on others. By encouraging stations to operate only 24
hours, you will have an effect on how the bands load and the
availability of stations during certain periods. I can guarantee you
that if stations got to chose to chose a 24 hour operating period, most
would chose to operate during daylight hours and would avoid marginal
bands as you can't mess up in a 24 hour contest. Look at the scores
from this past weekend's CQWPX contest - SOAB stations completely
minimized their efforts on 80 and 160 because the ratio of time versus
QSOs does not justify being up that late.
I'll also stand in total agreement with other posters who note that
creating a new "24 hour" category won't guarantee any victories for
non-hard core stations. It will instead mean that certain hard core
stations who don't want to do 48 hours, will instead do 24 hours and
will knock off the competition.
73 Rich NN3W
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|