[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting Extinction

To: <sawyered@earthlink.net>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting Extinction
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:20:58 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Ed writes: 

> Some very interesting and meaningful posts on this.  The key 
> point coming through to me is young costester encouragement 
> and deed restricted challenges.  This reflector has talked a 
> lot about more categories.  It sure would seem that 2 
> categories that SHOULD be added for the long term health of 
> contesting is a YOUNG CONTESTER class (I would propose age 30 
> and under) and a DEED RESTRICTED class (I would propose that 
> you have to agree as you submit that you are legally deed 
> restricted on antennas and you have to include your antennas 
> described in the soapbox section).

Why make the category "Deed restricted?"  There has been a lot 
of complaining that it is impossible for new contesters to 
compete with the "big boys" for many reasons ... big antennas, 
SO2R, etc., etc.,  Why not simply make the classes "basic" and 

The "basic" class would be a single transceiver with not more 
than 100 watts output and single element antennas (e.g., dipoles 
not more than 50' above ground and single verticals).  These 
limits are consistent with deed or zoning restricted situations 
and allow new contesters a place to start without getting run 
over by the big antennas and SO2R operations.  Once a contester 
decides to "upgrade" the decision regarding the best bang for 
the buck (moderate antennas, big antennas, SO2R, all of the 
above) is up to the individual. 

I think the CAC should consider Basic/Unlimited categories as 
the standard single operator categories for all ARRL (and NCJ) 
sponsored contests.   


   ... Joe, W4TV 

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>