I only compete with my past effort - and consider which changes, if any
at my station has increased or decreased my ability to make contacts
under similar propagation conditions.
We could dissect most any contest into so many parts that each wins
his/her category.
72/73 de n8xx Hg
QRP >99.44% of the time
On 1/12/2014 21:25, cq-contest-request@contesting.com wrote:
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:58:24 -0500
From: "Jeff Clarke" <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Rules
Message-ID: <ED6245B897EE4EAD825A40198D051234@KU8EPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Am I the only one who has a big letdown when I check the 3830 scores and see
how badly I get beaten? I don?t know who figured out that someone like myself
who is running wire antennas (or someone with wires/tribander beam) can be
compared evenly to someone with a big station with multiple monoband beams on
towers just because we are both running 100 watts. That?s silly. Those big
stations would still probably beat me even if I ran a KW. And it?s not because
I?m a poor operator.
Here are some ideas :
1) Have both a SO2R class and a classic category (one radio) like they have in
CQWW .
2) Add a tribander/wires category
3) High and low power classes
4) Add an assisted category
5) Divide the US into regions and have top ten boxes for each of them. The way
conditions were yesterday the west coast had even more of an advantage then
they usually do because 15 and 10 meters were both open pretty good.
Don?t take this email the wrong way (as complaining) because I love NAQP CW and
the activity yesterday was great. It?s just a pretty stale contest because the
same 3 or 4 stations win every year for a long as I can remember. Plus I would
love to compete against someone who has a station more equal to mine.
Jeff KU8EJeff KU8E
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|