[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] [WRTC2006] Why did the Canadians (PT5M) beat theAmerica

To: CQ-contest@contesting.com, WRTC 2006 <wrtc2006@wrtc2006.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [WRTC2006] Why did the Canadians (PT5M) beat theAmericans (PW5C) in WRTC 2006?
From: Dave N2NL <n2nl@n2nl.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:45:57 -0700
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Jose, thanks for your observations and analysis. It looks like you spent 
quite a bit of time crunching the data! In one form or another, I have 
already seen the future NCJ articles by K3NA and N6BV that have reached 
some of the same conclusions you made, but there are a couple things I 
wanted to comment on as one of the four participants in your analysis.

As even a playing field WRTC can offer, there are still a huge number of 
uncontrollable variables. It’s too easy to look at the final results and 
make an opinion about how good or bad a particular team is. Being 6,000 
miles away from the population centers at the bottom of the sunspot 
cycle, small differences in terrain unfortunately had a large effect on 
a particular location’s capabilities. Add to that were the teams who 
suffered antenna failures and line noise, and the variables become 

Oms and his crew need to be commended for pulling off a fabulous event. 
Imagine the logistics in locating 50 hosts willing to have strangers 
stay in their home and erect a tower on their property. Add to that the 
requirement of finding hosts in as-equal a setting as possible in a very 
mountainous region. Then, building and erecting 50 towers from scratch, 
100 yagis, 50 dipoles, 150 feed lines, 50 ground points, 50 rotator 
cables, 50 amplifiers, ETC, ETC. The logistics are mind numbing. Add to 
that the hundreds of hours spent with the power company locating and 
correcting as many line noise sources as possible, in a coastal (salt 
air) environment with questionable power infrastructure. Those guys did 
an amazing job in minimizing these variables as much as possible. The 
rest of us need to be aware that those variables did exist, and these 
variables did have an effect on the final standings.

Dan and I asked each other immediately following the contest whether or 
not we would have done anything differently. Unanimously, our decision 
was an emphatic “NO”. Our initial goal all along was to do our best, 
have a clean log, avoid mechanical failure, and most importantly, to 
have fun. We met all those goals. The bottom line is that VE3EJ and 
VE7ZO were the better team, and they deservingly won. Those two are a 
great team, and their result is no fluke. That said, most of the 
competitors and I realize that the final standings likely would have 
changed had the station selection gone differently. ALL of the 
competitors should be commended for their ability to make it to Brasil 
with the airline difficulties, bring all their equipment, them set up a 
station, deal with the problems they found, and simply participate.

The Russian contingent is very excited at the prospect of hosting the 
next WRTC in their home country. They have a long history of national 
competition with a very level playing field (everyone operates in a 
large, open area). I’m sure they will build on the past events and pull 
off another success, similar to what the Brasilians and all the past 
WRTC hosts have accomplished. I only hope to be able to participate once 


73, Dave N2NL/6

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [CQ-Contest] [WRTC2006] Why did the Canadians (PT5M) beat theAmericans (PW5C) in WRTC 2006?, Dave N2NL <=