I also don't support a multi single limitation. I remember doing IARU a
couple years back and thinking to myself that I, as a single op, would be
running circles around a multi op given that any single op can work QSOs on
6 bands in a stretch of 1 minute if he so chooses.
The wait time and blown mult opportunities did not result in increased fun
or scoring.
73 Rich NN3W
----- Original Message -----
From: "W7VJ" <w7vj@millerisar.com>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:14 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] the "new" M/S for WPX
> After considering pros and cons of this, I have to side with those who
> oppose.
>
> We have done the WPX CW as a serious M/S, so the beer drinking contest
> scenario Doug suggests does not apply. Yes, the options are multi-ops
> with
> one rig or move to M/2. While not adverse to M/2, it's a bigger step up
> in
> station design considerations than M/S and would place us in a potentially
> uncompetitive category. Again, disagree with the natural progression to
> M/2
> Doug suggests. That a serious SOAB can out Q us in part because of
> arbitrary band change restrictions, is also not an appealing prospect - it
> takes a bit of effort to assemble a team prepare a station, and then watch
> a
> SOAB blow you away because of the flexibility in band changes.
>
> Then, why stop at the WPX... No I am not into domino theories, but it begs
> the question. The M/S category has worked because it allows for a bit
> more
> complexity and consideration of multi-operating factors, without the full
> scale deployment of a near M/M operation. Apply to WW, and the fun factor
> goes down precipitously.
>
> One of the comments made was along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't
> fix it." Randy justifies the basis for the change as "The new rules will
> establish a true single-transmitter category that is limited to 8 band
> changes per hour." I cannot help wonder why is this necessary? What
> conditions have suggested the need for a change. Perhaps if CQ can
> explain
> why the change is needed, I might be more inclined to support it. Simply
> creating a "true single-transmitter category" is not enough. If this is
> the
> aim, make it another category and leave the current M/S or whatever it
> would
> morph into, a separate category.
>
> Andrew
> W7VJ
>
>
> Random thoughts......
>
> 1. This will have no impact on the number of entrants compared to
> "before."
>
> There has not
> been a group of potential entrants NOT participating because, "Gosh, they
> just
> don't have
> a category for exactly me."
>
> 2. "Serious" M/S guys from the past will likely migrate to M2. M/S
> entrants
> from the past
> who never used 2 rigs anyway will see essentially no change.
>
> 3. So now, a serious SOAB SO2R entrant will be able to "out score" a M/S
> because they will
> have more flexibility in terms of "no time constraints." Find a mult on a
> nearly dead 10m?
> No problem for the SO...just go there and work it without concern. For
> the
> M/S, well, now it
> uses up a band change...for one qso.
>
> 4. The "new" M/S is a wonderful category for "a bunch of guys drinking
> beer
>
> who also want
> to operate the contest" instead of (potentially) vice-versa.
>
> 5. Well, at least now the category name will actually MAKES SENSE.
>
> de Doug KR2Q
>
> W7VJ
>
> Mitglied
>
>
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|