Bill Turner wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "K=D8HB"
wrote:
Let's go beyond the SO1R/SO2R question and look
at the bigger picture.

OK

I think it's time to revise the basic structure of
contest competition.
Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small
fortune to be competitive, and I think that is hurting
contesting itself.

That depends on what you mean by "competitive" and "a small fortune".

For some hams, "competitive" means winning outright, or at
least making the Top Ten. For others, "competitive" means
winning their section, or maybe division, or maybe getting into
the top ten of same.

And for others it's simply doing better than last year.

In similar fashion, cost is relative. A $5000 station is small
change to some and beyond others' wildest dreams. Same for many
other spending levels.

Just a few years back, having a dedicated computer in the shack
was a major expense. Not any more!

I believe there are two general groups of contesters:

1. People who like the head-to-head competition on a
personal level and
are not motivated by having large amounts of expensive
hardware. These
people focus on operating skill, knowledge and strategy instead of equi=
pment.

-and-

2. People who will do anything legal to maximize their score,
including
spending huge amounts of money on rigs, antennas and any other hardware=
which gives them an advantage.

I disagree strongly!

I think there are many more basic groups, from the casual types
just putting in a few hours and maybe picking up a new state
or country, to the all-out multi-multis, to the middle-of-the-
pack folks, to the special-interest ones (like the QRP types
with incredible antenna farms).

On top of this is the fact that the superstations require
operating skill, knowledge and strategy just like the 100 W
and dipole folks.

Both groups have good points and neither is superior to the
other.

Agreed!

In fact the superstations need the little guys in order to make super
scores. And the little guys need the superstations.

What
is wrong with contesting today is both groups are combined into one when
it comes to competing, and that is hurting contesting.

Well, there's division by power level, by multiop vs. single, and
packet spotting.

I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:

1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware,
i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting,
and perhaps some others,

-and-

2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.

Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power
level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would
remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.

The trouble is where the lines are drawn.

What does "one radio" mean? Is a second receiver allowed? How
about if the second receiver is built into the rig?

One antenna per band could work a hardship on even some modest
stations. At my previous location I had an inverted V for 80/40
that could be made to work on 20. Also had a 20 meter vertical
with elevated radials. 100 W homebrew transceiver. Hardly a
superstation but I did pretty well.

On 20 the vertical was usually better, but sometimes the inverted
V would do the trick. "One antenna per band" would eliminate that.

The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has
acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its
present form.

I don't see it that way at all. I think we need an "iron" class for a
very different reason.

One thing that makes a contest fun (for me) is the competition.
It's radiosport, pure and simple. I think the message that needs
to be emphasized more is that you don't need a superstation to
have a good time.

I know too many hams with "100W and dipole" stations who think
contesting with such a setup isn't practical. And compared to
the results of superstations, they're right. But if they could
see how they did against similar setups, we might get more of
them - which is a good thing all around.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Bill Turner wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:
Let's go beyond the SO1R/SO2R question and look
at the bigger picture.


OK

I think it's time to revise the basic structure of
contest competition.
Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small
fortune to be competitive, and I think that is hurting
contesting itself.


That depends on what you mean by "competitive" and "a small fortune".

I don't agree with the basic premise, Jim. The operator is a lot more
important than the equipment.

For some hams, "competitive" means winning outright, or at
least making the Top Ten. For others, "competitive" means
winning their section, or maybe division, or maybe getting into
the top ten of same.

And for others it's simply doing better than last year.

And if they keep it up, they will eventually become the top dogs.

In similar fashion, cost is relative. A $5000 station is small
change to some and beyond others' wildest dreams. Same for many
other spending levels.

Just a few years back, having a dedicated computer in the shack
was a major expense. Not any more!


I believe there are two general groups of contesters:

1. People who like the head-to-head competition on a
personal level and
are not motivated by having large amounts of expensive
hardware. These
people focus on operating skill, knowledge and strategy instead of equipment.

-and-

2. People who will do anything legal to maximize their score,
including
spending huge amounts of money on rigs, antennas and any other hardware which gives them an advantage.


I disagree strongly!

I think there are many more basic groups, from the casual types
just putting in a few hours and maybe picking up a new state
or country, to the all-out multi-multis, to the middle-of-the-
pack folks, to the special-interest ones (like the QRP types
with incredible antenna farms).

On top of this is the fact that the superstations require
operating skill, knowledge and strategy just like the 100 W
and dipole folks.


Both groups have good points and neither is superior to the
other.


Agreed!

In fact the superstations need the little guys in order to make super
scores. And the little guys need the superstations.


What
is wrong with contesting today is both groups are combined into one when
it comes to competing, and that is hurting contesting.


Well, there's division by power level, by multiop vs. single, and
packet spotting.

I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:

1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware,
i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting,
and perhaps some others,

-and-

2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.

Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power
level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would
remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.


The trouble is where the lines are drawn.

What does "one radio" mean? Is a second receiver allowed? How
about if the second receiver is built into the rig?

One antenna per band could work a hardship on even some modest
stations. At my previous location I had an inverted V for 80/40
that could be made to work on 20. Also had a 20 meter vertical
with elevated radials. 100 W homebrew transceiver. Hardly a
superstation but I did pretty well.

On 20 the vertical was usually better, but sometimes the inverted
V would do the trick. "One antenna per band" would eliminate that.

The whole concept is way way way to complicated. Also unenforceable.
Will the contest committee send out Hamcops to ensure compliance?


The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has
acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its
present form.


I don't see it that way at all. I think we need an "iron" class for a
very different reason.

One thing that makes a contest fun (for me) is the competition.
It's radiosport, pure and simple. I think the message that needs
to be emphasized more is that you don't need a superstation to
have a good time.

No you don't.

I know too many hams with "100W and dipole" stations who think
contesting with such a setup isn't practical.

100 watts and a dipole is only about 90 percent of contesters!

And compared to
the results of superstations, they're right. But if they could
see how they did against similar setups, we might get more of
them - which is a good thing all around.

My experience is that contests have two different aspects. Operator
skill and power. This is assuming that the operator has a receiver of
adequate performance. If you have to get rid of one parameter, go with
operator skill.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Bill Turner wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "K=D8HB"
wrote:
Let's go beyond the SO1R/SO2R question and look
at the bigger picture.


OK

I think it's time to revise the basic structure of
contest competition.
Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small
fortune to be competitive, and I think that is hurting
contesting itself.


That depends on what you mean by "competitive" and "a small fortune".

I don't agree with the basic premise, Jim. The operator
is a lot more
important than the equipment.

To a point, yes. But the guy with 100 W and a dipole at 40 feet isn't
going to win CQWW or even SS no matter how good he is. He's not even
going to make Top Ten.

That doesn't mean he can't do well, just that winning is a different
game.

For some hams, "competitive" means winning outright, or at
least making the Top Ten. For others, "competitive" means
winning their section, or maybe division, or maybe getting
into the top ten of same.

And for others it's simply doing better than last year.

And if they keep it up, they will eventually become the top
dogs.

But there comes a point where doing better becomes equipment
limited.

In similar fashion, cost is relative. A $5000 station is small
change to some and beyond others' wildest dreams. Same for
many other spending levels.

Just a few years back, having a dedicated computer in the
shack was a major expense. Not any more!


I believe there are two general groups of contesters:

1. People who like the head-to-head competition on a
personal level and
are not motivated by having large amounts of expensive
hardware. These
people focus on operating skill, knowledge and strategy instead of eq=
uipment.

-and-

2. People who will do anything legal to maximize their score,
including
spending huge amounts of money on rigs, antennas and any other hardwa=
re which gives them an advantage.


I disagree strongly!

I think there are many more basic groups, from the casual types
just putting in a few hours and maybe picking up a new state
or country, to the all-out multi-multis, to the middle-of-the-
pack folks, to the special-interest ones (like the QRP types
with incredible antenna farms).

On top of this is the fact that the superstations require
operating skill, knowledge and strategy just like the 100 W
and dipole folks.


Both groups have good points and neither is superior to the
other.


Agreed!

In fact the superstations need the little guys in order to make super
scores. And the little guys need the superstations.


What
is wrong with contesting today is both groups are combined into one w=
hen
it comes to competing, and that is hurting contesting.


Well, there's division by power level, by multiop vs. single, and
packet spotting.

I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:

1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware,
i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting,
and perhaps some others,

-and-

2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.

Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power
level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would
remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.


The trouble is where the lines are drawn.

What does "one radio" mean? Is a second receiver allowed? How
about if the second receiver is built into the rig?

One antenna per band could work a hardship on even some modest
stations. At my previous location I had an inverted V for 80/40
that could be made to work on 20. Also had a 20 meter vertical
with elevated radials. 100 W homebrew transceiver. Hardly a
superstation but I did pretty well.

On 20 the vertical was usually better, but sometimes the
inverted
V would do the trick. "One antenna per band" would eliminate
that.

The whole concept is way way way to complicated. Also
unenforceable.
Will the contest committee send out Hamcops to ensure
compliance?

Who enforces the present rules? Power level, packet spotting, etc.?

The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has
acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its
present form.


I don't see it that way at all. I think we need an "iron" class for a
very different reason.

One thing that makes a contest fun (for me) is the competition.
It's radiosport, pure and simple. I think the message that needs
to be emphasized more is that you don't need a superstation to
have a good time.

No you don't.

But it takes more than the average station to win.

I know too many hams with "100W and dipole" stations who think
contesting with such a setup isn't practical.

100 watts and a dipole is only about 90 percent of contesters!

And they don't win.

And compared to
the results of superstations, they're right. But if they could
see how they did against similar setups, we might get more of
them - which is a good thing all around.

My experience is that contests have two different aspects.
Operator
skill and power. This is assuming that the operator has a receiver of
adequate performance. If you have to get rid of one parameter, go with
operator skill.


"Power" is actually signal strength. I'd rather have really good
antennas and QRP than high power and poor antennas.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

But it takes more than the average station to win.

Winning isn't about being average.

Average sailors in average boats don't win the Americas Cup. Average golfers
with average clubs don't win the Masters. Average drivers in average cars don't
win Indy. Average jockeys on average horses don't win the Belmont. Average
radiomen with average stations don't win CQWWDX.

Life isn't set up to give plaques to "average joes". Winners are above average.
Second place is "First Loser".

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

But it takes more than the average station to win.

Winning isn't about being average.

Agreed!

Average sailors in average boats don't win the Americas Cup.
Average golfers
with average clubs don't win the Masters. Average drivers in
average cars don't
win Indy. Average jockeys on average horses don't win the
Belmont. Average
radiomen with average stations don't win CQWWDX.

But the radiosportsmen take over big parts of the popular HF ham bands
when a contest is on. Which is more than a few weekends a year. There's
no real equivalent to that in the other contests.

And unlike the other contests, getting more radiosport contestants
helps, not hurts, the winners.

Life isn't set up to give plaques to "average joes". Winners
are above average.
Second place is "First Loser".

"Winner" has all sorts of definitions. Winning your section is
one level, winning your division another, etc. Just setting
a personal best score is winning.

Most radiosport contests have several levels of competition.
That's a good thing. My "Iron" class proposal doesn't reduce
or eliminate anyone's win.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:

"Winner" has all sorts of definitions. Winning your section is
one level, winning your division another, etc. Just setting
a personal best score is winning.

Winning is beating the Yankee Clippers. Try operating at that "level"
for the ultimate contesting experience.=20

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
wrote

But it takes more than the average station to win.

Winning isn't about being average.

Agreed!

Average sailors in average boats don't win the Americas Cup.
Average golfers
with average clubs don't win the Masters. Average drivers in
average cars don't
win Indy. Average jockeys on average horses don't win the
Belmont. Average
radiomen with average stations don't win CQWWDX.

But the radiosportsmen take over big parts of the popular HF ham bands
when a contest is on. Which is more than a few weekends a year. There's
no real equivalent to that in the other contests.

And unlike the other contests, getting more radiosport contestants
helps, not hurts, the winners.

Life isn't set up to give plaques to "average joes". Winners
are above average.
Second place is "First Loser".

"Winner" has all sorts of definitions. Winning your section is
one level, winning your division another, etc. Just setting
a personal best score is winning.

Most radiosport contests have several levels of competition.
That's a good thing. My "Iron" class proposal doesn't reduce
or eliminate anyone's win.

73 de Jim, N2EY


In the for what its worth department;

I, W4NTI have been contesting seriously since about 1973 when I participated
in a major operation from DL5AY. (Army MARS station in Frankfurt). It was
the CQWWDX Phone and we had a blast. We had Americans, Germans, wives,
sons, daughters, company and Battalion commanders there. And great German
sausage and Beer. A fun time was had by all. We also made over 2.5 million
points. What a blast....

That is some of what contesting is to me. Soon I intend to go play with
some super stations of the South East Contest Club. These are by invite
only.

How does one get a invite? Be a contester, show improved scores and be a
good team player. Thats also part of contesting.

For me, my individual station is probably below par for the "average serious
contester". I have two radios....a MP and a TS-530s. I have two linears,
a old SB-200 and a AL-811H (with 572s in it). Both get about 700 out on a
good day.

I have no beams. Just loops, verticals, and dipoles. All on a 200 x 200
piece of property.

With this I manage decent scores and have put many certificates on my wall.
Of course no first place wins in CQWWDX. But I have placed first in my
section in ARRLDX and various sweepstakes contests, etc.

Why do I contest? To improve my score by improving my station and myself.

Its as simple as that.

Have a good day

PS; I worked a bunch of sporadic skip yesterday on six meters in the June
VHF contest.....with 8 watts and a 3 ele yagi at 20'.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Dan/W4NTI

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Bill Turner wrote:


On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:
Let's go beyond the SO1R/SO2R question and look
at the bigger picture.


OK


I think it's time to revise the basic structure of
contest competition.
Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small
fortune to be competitive, and I think that is hurting
contesting itself.


That depends on what you mean by "competitive" and "a small fortune".

I don't agree with the basic premise, Jim. The operator
is a lot more
important than the equipment.


To a point, yes. But the guy with 100 W and a dipole at 40 feet isn't
going to win CQWW or even SS no matter how good he is. He's not even
going to make Top Ten.

That doesn't mean he can't do well, just that winning is a different
game.

Who do ya want - a impatient knob twiddler with a FTDX 9000 and an
antenna farm of (insert your favorite antenna here), or a good capable
contester with say a dipole and an IC-746.


For some hams, "competitive" means winning outright, or at
least making the Top Ten. For others, "competitive" means
winning their section, or maybe division, or maybe getting
into the top ten of same.

And for others it's simply doing better than last year.

And if they keep it up, they will eventually become the top
dogs.


But there comes a point where doing better becomes equipment
limited.

All other things being equal.

Way too many people seem to think that you plunk down the money, and
you are an instant contester.




In similar fashion, cost is relative. A $5000 station is small
change to some and beyond others' wildest dreams. Same for
many other spending levels.


Just a few years back, having a dedicated computer in the
shack was a major expense. Not any more!



I believe there are two general groups of contesters:

1. People who like the head-to-head competition on a
personal level and
are not motivated by having large amounts of expensive
hardware. These
people focus on operating skill, knowledge and strategy instead of equipment.

-and-

2. People who will do anything legal to maximize their score,
including
spending huge amounts of money on rigs, antennas and any other hardware which gives them an advantage.


I disagree strongly!

I think there are many more basic groups, from the casual types
just putting in a few hours and maybe picking up a new state
or country, to the all-out multi-multis, to the middle-of-the-
pack folks, to the special-interest ones (like the QRP types
with incredible antenna farms).

On top of this is the fact that the superstations require
operating skill, knowledge and strategy just like the 100 W
and dipole folks.



Both groups have good points and neither is superior to the
other.


Agreed!

In fact the superstations need the little guys in order to make super
scores. And the little guys need the superstations.



What
is wrong with contesting today is both groups are combined into one when
it comes to competing, and that is hurting contesting.


Well, there's division by power level, by multiop vs. single, and
packet spotting.


I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:

1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware,
i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting,
and perhaps some others,

-and-

2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.

Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power
level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would
remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.


The trouble is where the lines are drawn.

What does "one radio" mean? Is a second receiver allowed? How
about if the second receiver is built into the rig?

One antenna per band could work a hardship on even some modest
stations. At my previous location I had an inverted V for 80/40
that could be made to work on 20. Also had a 20 meter vertical
with elevated radials. 100 W homebrew transceiver. Hardly a
superstation but I did pretty well.

On 20 the vertical was usually better, but sometimes the
inverted
V would do the trick. "One antenna per band" would eliminate
that.

The whole concept is way way way to complicated. Also
unenforceable.
Will the contest committee send out Hamcops to ensure
compliance?


Who enforces the present rules? Power level, packet spotting, etc.?

Good question. The answer is it is a gentleman's agreement, and you
trust the person to abide by the rules. So you make the rules as
rock-bottom simple as possible. Rules like no receiving while
transmitting, are simply not enforceable. Ideas such as monoband
antennas are going to knock a lot of people right out of the contest -
unless of course they decide to cheat, as is the one receiver idea.

Finally, the idea of separating the contesters by limited and unlimited
classes is incredibly counterproductive. So these small number of
superoperaters are just going to work among themselves and then sign
off, I suppose.

Whenever I hear rules change suggestions, I ask how this is going to
affect the person suggesting the changes. Funny how it is always to give
this person a big advantage, even when they claim they are just trying
to level the playing field.

This is just a punitive plan toward the big stations.

One time I listened to one of the high-powered, high scoring stations
noting how *they* should get extra points for listening to all those low
power stations with the weak signals!


The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has
acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its
present form.


I don't see it that way at all. I think we need an "iron" class for a
very different reason.

One thing that makes a contest fun (for me) is the competition.
It's radiosport, pure and simple. I think the message that needs
to be emphasized more is that you don't need a superstation to
have a good time.

No you don't.


But it takes more than the average station to win.

Define average? I've got an IC-745 and used a ladder line fed dipole
(96 feet long @50 feet high) to work the NEQP from Pennsylvania. Used a
MFJ-949E tuner on it.

Total outlay was around 350 dollars, and this has got to be a below
average station setup if there ever was one, especially by these
"contest standards".

But I put in a big booming signal to New England, and was definitely
limited by my own skills, (still working on 'em) and not my below
average station setup. Got a certificate one year.

I know too many hams with "100W and dipole" stations who think
contesting with such a setup isn't practical.

100 watts and a dipole is only about 90 percent of contesters!

And they don't win.

Sometimes. Depends on the class and their skills.

People have a tendency to operate with the stations that they have,
save for portable operations. Sounds like a "Well Duh!" statement, but
it is what most of us have to offer.


And compared to
the results of superstations, they're right. But if they could
see how they did against similar setups, we might get more of
them - which is a good thing all around.

My experience is that contests have two different aspects.
Operator
skill and power. This is assuming that the operator has a receiver of
adequate performance. If you have to get rid of one parameter, go with
operator skill.



"Power" is actually signal strength. I'd rather have really good
antennas and QRP than high power and poor antennas.

How about high power AND good antennas? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Bill Turner wrote:


On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "K=D8HB"
wrote:
Let's go beyond the SO1R/SO2R question and look
at the bigger picture.


OK


I think it's time to revise the basic structure of
contest competition.
Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small
fortune to be competitive, and I think that is hurting
contesting itself.


That depends on what you mean by "competitive" and "a small fortune".

I don't agree with the basic premise, Jim. The operator
is a lot more
important than the equipment.


To a point, yes. But the guy with 100 W and a dipole at 40 feet isn't
going to win CQWW or even SS no matter how good he is. He's not even
going to make Top Ten.

That doesn't mean he can't do well, just that winning is a different
game.

Who do ya want - a impatient knob twiddler with a FTDX 9000 and an
antenna farm of (insert your favorite antenna here), or a good capable
contester with say a dipole and an IC-746.

What we want is a seperate transmiter and receiver. Make it a Collins.


For some hams, "competitive" means winning outright, or at
least making the Top Ten. For others, "competitive" means
winning their section, or maybe division, or maybe getting
into the top ten of same.

And for others it's simply doing better than last year.

And if they keep it up, they will eventually become the top
dogs.


But there comes a point where doing better becomes equipment
limited.

All other things being equal.

Way too many people seem to think that you plunk down the money, and
you are an instant contester.

Way too many people? I didn't think contestors were that numerous.

In similar fashion, cost is relative. A $5000 station is small
change to some and beyond others' wildest dreams. Same for
many other spending levels.


Just a few years back, having a dedicated computer in the
shack was a major expense. Not any more!



I believe there are two general groups of contesters:

1. People who like the head-to-head competition on a
personal level and
are not motivated by having large amounts of expensive
hardware. These
people focus on operating skill, knowledge and strategy instead of =
equipment.

-and-

2. People who will do anything legal to maximize their score,
including
spending huge amounts of money on rigs, antennas and any other hard=
ware which gives them an advantage.


I disagree strongly!

I think there are many more basic groups, from the casual types
just putting in a few hours and maybe picking up a new state
or country, to the all-out multi-multis, to the middle-of-the-
pack folks, to the special-interest ones (like the QRP types
with incredible antenna farms).

On top of this is the fact that the superstations require
operating skill, knowledge and strategy just like the 100 W
and dipole folks.



Both groups have good points and neither is superior to the
other.


Agreed!

In fact the superstations need the little guys in order to make super
scores. And the little guys need the superstations.



What
is wrong with contesting today is both groups are combined into one=
when
it comes to competing, and that is hurting contesting.


Well, there's division by power level, by multiop vs. single, and
packet spotting.


I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:

1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware,
i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting,
and perhaps some others,

-and-

2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.

Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power
level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would
remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he =
is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.


The trouble is where the lines are drawn.

What does "one radio" mean? Is a second receiver allowed? How
about if the second receiver is built into the rig?

One antenna per band could work a hardship on even some modest
stations. At my previous location I had an inverted V for 80/40
that could be made to work on 20. Also had a 20 meter vertical
with elevated radials. 100 W homebrew transceiver. Hardly a
superstation but I did pretty well.

On 20 the vertical was usually better, but sometimes the
inverted
V would do the trick. "One antenna per band" would eliminate
that.

The whole concept is way way way to complicated. Also
unenforceable.
Will the contest committee send out Hamcops to ensure
compliance?


Who enforces the present rules? Power level, packet spotting, etc.?

Good question. The answer is it is a gentleman's agreement, and you
trust the person to abide by the rules. So you make the rules as
rock-bottom simple as possible. Rules like no receiving while
transmitting, are simply not enforceable. Ideas such as monoband
antennas are going to knock a lot of people right out of the contest -
unless of course they decide to cheat, as is the one receiver idea.

But, but, but...

If the ARRL DX desk don't approve it ain't ham radio. They approved
the Frenchmen's excursion outside of France's 6M band!!!

Finally, the idea of separating the contesters by limited and unlimited
classes is incredibly counterproductive. So these small number of
superoperaters are just going to work among themselves and then sign
off, I suppose.

It is common knowledge that many small contestors are ther to snag DX
and nothing else.

Whenever I hear rules change suggestions, I ask how this is going to
affect the person suggesting the changes. Funny how it is always to give
this person a big advantage, even when they claim they are just trying
to level the playing field.

At the end of the day, the big $$$ stations win. Everyone else
supplies contacts.

When wasn't it so?

This is just a punitive plan toward the big stations.

So you think the big $$$ stations won't go for it?

One time I listened to one of the high-powered, high scoring stations
noting how *they* should get extra points for listening to all those low
power stations with the weak signals!

Yep. Recall the many, many, many times you've had to say to the qrp
station, "Say again all after xxx."

The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has
acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its
present form.


I don't see it that way at all. I think we need an "iron" class for a
very different reason.

One thing that makes a contest fun (for me) is the competition.
It's radiosport, pure and simple. I think the message that needs
to be emphasized more is that you don't need a superstation to
have a good time.

No you don't.

But it takes more than the average station to win.

Define average? I've got an IC-745 and used a ladder line fed dipole
(96 feet long @50 feet high) to work the NEQP from Pennsylvania. Used a
MFJ-949E tuner on it.

Didja win?

Total outlay was around 350 dollars, and this has got to be a below
average station setup if there ever was one, especially by these
"contest standards".

Far, far, far below. Revisit the notion when you've got that 746 and a
tri-bander at 60'.

That is the bottom of "average."

But I put in a big booming signal to New England, and was definitely
limited by my own skills, (still working on 'em) and not my below
average station setup. Got a certificate one year.

Ahem. Scan it and post it in place of Steve's photo. Please.
Somebody...

I know too many hams with "100W and dipole" stations who think
contesting with such a setup isn't practical.

100 watts and a dipole is only about 90 percent of contesters!

And they don't win.

Sometimes. Depends on the class and their skills.

What? What kind of contesting are you thinking about?

People have a tendency to operate with the stations that they have,
save for portable operations. Sounds like a "Well Duh!" statement, but
it is what most of us have to offer.

People have a tendency to improve their stations....

And compared to
the results of superstations, they're right. But if they could
see how they did against similar setups, we might get more of
them - which is a good thing all around.

My experience is that contests have two different aspects.
Operator
skill and power. This is assuming that the operator has a receiver of
adequate performance. If you have to get rid of one parameter, go with
operator skill.

"Power" is actually signal strength. I'd rather have really good
antennas and QRP than high power and poor antennas.

How about high power AND good antennas? 8^)

Now you're talking contesting.

bb wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote:

snippage

Way too many people seem to think that you plunk down the money, and
you are an instant contester.


Way too many people? I didn't think contestors were that numerous.

We have many hundreds every QSO party. And since much less than half
submit logs, the total participation is much higher. Some people are
just in the thing for fun.

And no, I don't know why they don't.


In similar fashion, cost is relative. A $5000 station is small
change to some and beyond others' wildest dreams. Same for
many other spending levels.


Just a few years back, having a dedicated computer in the
shack was a major expense. Not any more!




I believe there are two general groups of contesters:

1. People who like the head-to-head competition on a
personal level and
are not motivated by having large amounts of expensive
hardware. These
people focus on operating skill, knowledge and strategy instead of equipment.

-and-

2. People who will do anything legal to maximize their score,
including
spending huge amounts of money on rigs, antennas and any other hardware which gives them an advantage.


I disagree strongly!

I think there are many more basic groups, from the casual types
just putting in a few hours and maybe picking up a new state
or country, to the all-out multi-multis, to the middle-of-the-
pack folks, to the special-interest ones (like the QRP types
with incredible antenna farms).

On top of this is the fact that the superstations require
operating skill, knowledge and strategy just like the 100 W
and dipole folks.




Both groups have good points and neither is superior to the
other.


Agreed!

In fact the superstations need the little guys in order to make super
scores. And the little guys need the superstations.




What
is wrong with contesting today is both groups are combined into one when
it comes to competing, and that is hurting contesting.


Well, there's division by power level, by multiop vs. single, and
packet spotting.



I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:

1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware,
i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting,
and perhaps some others,

-and-

2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.

Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power
level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would
remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.


The trouble is where the lines are drawn.

What does "one radio" mean? Is a second receiver allowed? How
about if the second receiver is built into the rig?

One antenna per band could work a hardship on even some modest
stations. At my previous location I had an inverted V for 80/40
that could be made to work on 20. Also had a 20 meter vertical
with elevated radials. 100 W homebrew transceiver. Hardly a
superstation but I did pretty well.

On 20 the vertical was usually better, but sometimes the
inverted
V would do the trick. "One antenna per band" would eliminate
that.

The whole concept is way way way to complicated. Also
unenforceable.
Will the contest committee send out Hamcops to ensure
compliance?


Who enforces the present rules? Power level, packet spotting, etc.?

Good question. The answer is it is a gentleman's agreement, and you
trust the person to abide by the rules. So you make the rules as
rock-bottom simple as possible. Rules like no receiving while
transmitting, are simply not enforceable. Ideas such as monoband
antennas are going to knock a lot of people right out of the contest -
unless of course they decide to cheat, as is the one receiver idea.


But, but, but...

If the ARRL DX desk don't approve it ain't ham radio. They approved
the Frenchmen's excursion outside of France's 6M band!!!

Cmon Brian. I don't have an idae of how that is germane to this topic.
I mean all topics drift and such, but this seemed to be a good one
without your feud with Dave about that subject.


Finally, the idea of separating the contesters by limited and unlimited
classes is incredibly counterproductive. So these small number of
superoperaters are just going to work among themselves and then sign
off, I suppose.


It is common knowledge that many small contestors are ther to snag DX
and nothing else.


Whenever I hear rules change suggestions, I ask how this is going to
affect the person suggesting the changes. Funny how it is always to give
this person a big advantage, even when they claim they are just trying
to level the playing field.


At the end of the day, the big $$$ stations win. Everyone else
supplies contacts.

When wasn't it so?


This is just a punitive plan toward the big stations.


So you think the big $$$ stations won't go for it?


One time I listened to one of the high-powered, high scoring stations
noting how *they* should get extra points for listening to all those low
power stations with the weak signals!


Yep. Recall the many, many, many times you've had to say to the qrp
station, "Say again all after xxx."


The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has
acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its
present form.


I don't see it that way at all. I think we need an "iron" class for a
very different reason.

One thing that makes a contest fun (for me) is the competition.
It's radiosport, pure and simple. I think the message that needs
to be emphasized more is that you don't need a superstation to
have a good time.

No you don't.

But it takes more than the average station to win.

Define average? I've got an IC-745 and used a ladder line fed dipole
(96 feet long @50 feet high) to work the NEQP from Pennsylvania. Used a
MFJ-949E tuner on it.


Didja win?

I didn't take top, but I finished high enough to get some wallpaper
(3rd in my class to be specific)


Total outlay was around 350 dollars, and this has got to be a below
average station setup if there ever was one, especially by these
"contest standards".


Far, far, far below. Revisit the notion when you've got that 746 and a
tri-bander at 60'.

That is the bottom of "average."

I'm kinda drooling over the new 756 pro III at the moment....


But I put in a big booming signal to New England, and was definitely
limited by my own skills, (still working on 'em) and not my below
average station setup. Got a certificate one year.


Ahem. Scan it and post it in place of Steve's photo. Please.
Somebody...


I know too many hams with "100W and dipole" stations who think
contesting with such a setup isn't practical.

100 watts and a dipole is only about 90 percent of contesters!

And they don't win.

Sometimes. Depends on the class and their skills.


What? What kind of contesting are you thinking about?


I prefer the State QSO parties. We have a number of classes,

High power, medium power, QRP. We have a CW class with QRP and
medium/high power. We have classes for rover and mobile.

Now that I am the chairman of ours, we'll be adding digital modes.

We encourage the development of operating skills by giving multipliers
for the more difficult modes, such as mobile and QRP. This encourages
people to work those more difficult operations.


People have a tendency to operate with the stations that they have,
save for portable operations. Sounds like a "Well Duh!" statement, but
it is what most of us have to offer.


People have a tendency to improve their stations....

It has been my experience from being on the air, and among those I know
personally that most hams have a fairly modest setup. 100 watts, maybe a
g5rv, and a competent but not spectacular rig. Obviously that isn't
everyone, but it seems do describe teh great majority.

Of course, mayber the really big stations won't descend to talk to me! ;^)


- Mike KB3EIA -