yes, indeed:) This seems to be a rather small issue and the probability of
it being changed is also very small but still, seeing how you fight over
this and other issues hot here I am sort of happy that you guys live in a
pretty big country over there and not in a small village where you could
just walk up to your neighbour and blow his brains out:)
Seriously, if asked to vote then I am very OK with 36 hours that already
makes WPX a completely different contest from CQWW and really gives you all
the time in the world to sleep in between. We are forgetting that we are in
the bottom of the sunspot cycle and 3-4 years from now even the most distant
regions in the world should have plenty of activity for 36 hours. And if you
are in such a region you would never be able to compete against Africa, NA
or EU anyway. Why being against 36h?? It gives you chance for some more
QSOs. In reality we know that NA and EU will never be competing against CA
or AF. West coast can never compete with East coast in those contest where
working EU is important. East EU can never outcompete CT or CU or GI. We can
never make the palying field equal by greating handicaps and trying to
tailor them as the propagation changes, activity changes, etc. That is why
WRTC qualification competition is so interesting - you can actually compete
meaningfully in your own region!
W1MD made over 4300 QSOs as PJ2T in 2006 SOAB WPX SSB and says it got
boring??:)) What kind of rate do you want to have to avoid the temptation of
going to the pool? I am happy to run twice less QSOs in 36 hours and still
have plenty to do, especially if you run SO2R. In every WPX in the last
years I have had to quit a great run 4-5 hours before the end of the contest
with great sorrow.
I have to agree that most of those guys who don?t do 36 hours seriously will
also not do 30 hours. It is perfectly fine for everybody to enjoy the time
they have at their radio and 36 hours limit for SOAB guys give more stations
for everybody to work for sure and more activity in the air and that is what
we want, right? In reality the order of top scorers would not change really
with less than 20% change in the time limit.
So anyway, just an opinion and I am happy to participate in WPX being it 36,
30 or any other hours long!:)
73
tonno
es5tv
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Georgens, Tom
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 11:10 PM
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Move WPX Back to 30 Hours?
As long as we are shortening by 6 hours, why not another 6?
At 24 hours, those that want to shorten the contest are even happier.
For those that wish the contest was 48 hours, they can operate in two
halves with two different calls.
This satisfies the two extreme positions, which seem to dominate the
rhetoric
73, Tom W2SC
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve London [mailto:n2icarrl@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 11:53 AM
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Move WPX Back to 30 Hours?
Guy Molinari wrote:
> I've been doing the WPX seriously for about 4 years now. I'm not
sure I had
> a dog in this fight until now. With a 60 foot crankup tower with a
> tribander and a few wires, I've managed to get into the box scores a
> few time (Pretty low on the list though).
>
> What has gotten my attention is K5ZD's endorsement of the change. I
don't
> see where he is going to personally gain from it given his QTH.
Maybe as a
> top op he thinks this will benefit radiosport as a whole?
>
> Given that the contest was run a number of years spanning multiple
> cycles in both 30 and 36 hour formats, what are the pro's and con's of
the change back?
> Hard data. Not opinions. As a newer contester I want to know.
This is
> what is great about this reflector.
>
Hard data is going to be hard to come by. The change from 30 hours to 36
hours was made before the change that awarded 1 point for intra-country
QSO's. Thus, it's going to be hard to compare.
73,
Steve, N2IC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
__________ NOD32 2659 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|