Below is a copy of a letter I have sent to CAC to gain reaction, and
perhaps start a conversation among the reps. Drop a note to your division
rep with your comments. ---------------------- C O P Y
---------------------- March 4, 1993 . . From: Hans Brakob, K0HB
To: Contest Advisory Committee . Subj: "24-hour" category in
ARRL DX contest . Those of you who are plugged into Treys' reflector on
Internet are aware of the ongoing discussion (debate?) regarding the
perennial proposals for a "reduced length" (24 hour) category of SO
competition in the ARRL DX contest. This letter is intended to outline the
predominate schools of thought that I've seen, and to foster further
discussion by the CAC. . The current discussion boils down to basically 4
camps. . #1 - "It ain't broke. Let's not fix it." This camp is not in
favor of any change, other perhaps institution of a PIN or mug program as
in SweepStakes. Not surprisingly, a lot of the folks who have "publicly"
taken this stand are also commonly also found in the "top 10" box.
Frequently, their stated reason for opposition to a "short" category is a
feeling it will detract from the prestige of the winners in the current
48-hour format. . #2 - "Let's shorten the contest to 36 (or 24) hours."
While the discussion seems to have been started by a statement similar to
this, I see no remaining support for this idea. It did, however, seem to
bring individuals out of the closet who are in camps #3 and #4 below. .
#3 - "Lets' add a contiguous 24-hour class." (Contiguous is a key word
here.) This group also consists largely of historically successful
contesters. In a sense it seems that some of these folks might lean toward
"no change", but would like to see more participation. Thus their position
tends toward the conservative. . Their support seems based on the idea
that it may generate more activity from contesters who currently
participate casually, but can't devote a full 48 hours for endurance /
family / job / age reasons. The feeling is that this casual group could
be lured into greater participation by a shorter format. (48 hours is too
much for these wimps, but they maybe could handle a strenous 24 hours.) .
There has been concern voiced that some of the current 48-hour "not quite
top-10" competion would drop back into this category in order to "get their
name in the box". Some stated reasons for the sentiment for "contiguous"
is a concern that the operators in this class would tend to "skim" during
selected high-rate hours, and that "endurance" should be a significant
ingredient in a "good" contester. . #4 - "Lets' add a non-contiguous
24-hour class." This camp is in favor of a "pick your own hours" 24-hour
category, S/O only. The reasoning is that it might draw some of the
"noodlers" (domestic and DX) into more serious competition, thus increasing
targets for both sides of the contest. They favor not dictating exact
hours of operation, but enforcing at least two off-periods of 6-hours
minimum duration. (Other off-time could be taken, but at least these two
periods must be observed.) This would effectively spread these folks
across at least 36 hours of the contest, and most likely across the entire
48 hours as a group. . Arguments by this group against "contiguous" are:
..
1) It limits strategic thinking. The only decision that can be
made is choice of band. .
2) 24-hours straight will be seen as still too tough, and will
result in a very limited participation. . How would I vote? I would be
most in favor of #4, perhaps including a "PINS" program as in SS. I find
that I currently am only a casual participant in both ARRL and CQ DX
contests. A primary reason is because I simply can't devote 48 hours for
endurance reasons, even if I could block out the whole weekend away from
other commitments. . If there were a 24-hour category, I can imagine a
lot of folks planning a schedule similar to the following: . 00-0800
Sat: Operate 08-1400 Sat: Sleep 14-2000
Sat: Breakfast with family. Errands and "honey-do's"
20-2400 Sat: Operate. 00-0800 Sun Operate.
08-1400 Sun: Sleep 14-1800 Sun: Church and
lunch with family. 18-2200 Sun: Operate. . This leaves
flexibility at several points to adjust my strategy to take advantage of a
hot band, sleep late, run an errand, get done early, or whatever. . To
the "real" contesters, the above schedule would be excessively wimpy, but
bear in mind that the reason is to draw more QSO's. The target population
is not current serious folks, but those who now do not participate. A lot
of current "noodlers" would put in a good effort on a schedule like this,
giving more targets to the "real" (48 hour) contesters, spread out instead
of "lumped" in a contiguous time frame. . I really don't believe the idea
that this category diminishes the prestige of the awards earned by the
"full run" folks, just as the folks who win the "5K fun-run" segment do not
diminish the higher prestige of those who seriously compete in the 10K
segment of a running event. . Further, I think a lot of younger folks who
start in the 24-hour class, will "get bitten by the bug" and become serious
48-hour players in a couple of years. . As a point of comparison, I am
madly in love with SS, where I usually run three 8-hour segments, broken by
two 3 hour off-times. Instead of 100-150 contacts over two weekends, I
usually give 1500-2000 contacts over 2 weekends in SS. No, I never make
the top-ten, but I can always convince myself that I can win my section or
even division.
(Usually only come in at #3 or #4, but that's another story.) On the
other hand, at age 52 there is no chance to "be somebody" in a 48-hour
contest, so I don't make any kind of serious effort. .
|