It is that way on HF. But on VHF the different modes aren’t segregated.
Do we really want a CQWW VHF SSB contest, CQWW VHF CW contest, a CQWW VHF
RTTY contest AND a CQWW VHF FT8 contest?
There’s also the issue of boats having different handicaps. One can have a
large engine but a current only for it pushing it back. This is the
parallel of east coast vs west vs whatever.
Contesting is a unique sport, and therefore these comparisons don’t work.
Ria
N2RJ
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 1:20 PM Jeff Stai <wk6i.jeff@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that racing sailboats, row boats, canoes, and kayaks in the same
> race is not necessarily desirable. Operating each requires different skill
> sets. They each go at different rates. They each excel in different
> conditions. They each have different limitations.
>
> Contesting phone, CW, FTx, and yes RTTY in the same contest is a similar
> proposition. Each has its own challenges. Each requires different skill
> sets. Each I would argue requires different station setups for a winning
> station - my station can do any mode any time but when set up for a serious
> contest effort it is different for each mode. There is a reason we already
> separate most contests into different modes.
>
> I think the FT modes do require different skills than the other modes to
> win a contest. This is one reason why I would advocate keeping FT modes in
> separate contests (and out of RTTY contests too, just by the way).
>
> The good news is MORE CONTESTS and MORE FUN! :)
>
> 73 jeff wk6i
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:34 PM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think it would be worthwhile to compare participation pre and post FT8.
>>
>> I suspect a lot of those who are using the FT8 mode are not really the
>> ones who were using CW and SSB before.
>>
>> From what I head these modes actually increased participation and many
>> who use these modes wouldn't otherwise be able to participate.
>>
>> The only constant is change and there are things that come along that
>> knock us down a peg or two. For me on HF it's commercial remote
>> operation. I can't see how someone who builds their own station can
>> compete against someone who rents airtime on a pre built mega station
>> in Maine. But that's the reality now. On VHF the game has shifted
>> heavily toward weak signal digital modes.
>>
>> The game has changed. So I play differently now. Different categories,
>> different goals and different expectations. I tried (team) roving
>> last year for ARRL VHF and I liked it. However, time for a rove is at
>> a premium, and my roaming partner (K2EZ) has work schedules that may
>> place her in Texas or somewhere else so it's a hit or miss.
>>
>> I suspect resistance will be futile. Putting the digital modes in its
>> own contests basically says that we don't want these new modes and we
>> prefer to compete the same old way against the same old (and getting
>> older) guys. You also only have so many weekends per year.
>>
>> Let's go back to a basic question:
>>
>> What are you measuring with contesting? Skill? Station? There are a
>> lot of variables. And it's not as easy as sitting and punching buttons
>> on FT8/FT4. To begin with the rate is lower. You also have to consider
>> that sometimes a station will abandon you to move on to someone else.
>> And it takes 15-60 seconds to realize that. On CW and SSB you can tell
>> right away if someone faded away or simply dropped the QSO.
>>
>> Not offering a solution one way or the other here. I realize that this
>> issue has passions on both sides. I'm firmly on the "let's change it
>> up and try new things" camp. However, I draw the line at full
>> automation which I think is reasonable.
>>
>> 70% of ham traffic is now FT8. That's the reality. However, fully
>> automatic operation will not be (and should not be) allowed for credit
>> contesting and DXing. Honor system and obvious automation is easy to
>> spot.
>>
>> But I may be willing to try removing the FT/JT modes from these VHF
>> contests as an experiment. I suspect participation will drop off as
>> the digital stations will just stay on digital and work the band
>> openings.
>>
>> 73
>> Ria
>> N2RJ
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 13:00, Dennis McAlpine <dbmcalpine73@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > GM John,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I enjoyed the past weekend and the CQ VHF Contest quite a lot. For
>> once,
>> > there was propagation from SC to most areas East of the Mississippi both
>> > afternoons. I, for once, actually thought I had done pretty well
>> > considering that I only run about 400 watts into an H-Doublebay antenna
>> with
>> > the top at about 35' above ground. I ended up `with 326 QSOs and 120
>> grid
>> > squares for a score of 39,120, all on 6M. I have not used FT8/FT4 in
>> > contests since I think it is against the principle that these contests
>> are a
>> > test of operator skill as much as equipment savy. I was a bit surprised
>> > when I filled in the 3830 score submittal that it did not request a
>> > breakdown by mode into CW, SSB, digital but then there was no separate
>> > category within the contest either. All was fine until I started seeing
>> > other scores coming in.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It fast became obvious that unless one used the digital modes, they
>> would be
>> > banished to the lower echelons of the standings and my score quickly
>> slid
>> > down the rankings. So, I started looking at the top scores for 6M.
>> I was
>> > amazed at how many digital QSOs these scores contained. For example,
>> K1TO
>> > had 150 FT8 QSOs out of 715 in total, which was 21%. Similarly, N4BP
>> had
>> > 194 digital out of 673 total (29%); W5PR had 157 out of 564 (28%); KU8E
>> had
>> > 88/508 (17%); N4PN 212/312 for 68%; WQ5L 103/445 (23%); and W4PV 124/193
>> > (64%).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Even more important was the much higher number of grid squares worked.
>> It
>> > would appear that digital added 20-80 grid squares to the total mult. I
>> > can't break it sown further because the summaries do not ask for such a
>> > breakdown in the submittal. Again, there are no numbers to back this
>> up,
>> > but how many EU stations did you work on CW or SSB? Probably not many
>> (I
>> > had none and heard none) . But, I bet the top digital scores were
>> loaded
>> > with DX QSOs that other modes never heard or had a chance of hearing.
>> No
>> > wonder the mult totals were so high. I never worked anyone west of the
>> > Mississippi so I was really sucking wind.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In looking at the total scores, I saw one very startling fact. Of the
>> top
>> > three scorers, K1TO had 6 CW QSOs, N4BP had 1 and W5PR had 1. To say
>> they
>> > ignored the CW mode is an understatement. It is evident from these
>> numbers
>> > that CW is an endangered species when it comes to the CQ VHF Contest.
>> If I
>> > wanted to use digital modes, I would certainly ignore CW in the future
>> if I
>> > wanted a higher score.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I respectively request that you consider the following proposals.
>> First,
>> > require submittal forms to include a breakdown of CW, SSB, Digital
>> (maybe
>> > broken down into FT-4 and FT-8) QSOs and mults. I think these are
>> easily
>> > found on logging programs like n1mm+. This would probably require that
>> > mults be counted per mode and that QSOs could be made with the same
>> person
>> > on different modes. Then, valid comparisons could be made. Second,
>> allow
>> > mode entries. A competitor could submit multiple logs, i.e. one for
>> CW, one
>> > for SSB, one for digital and one for combined. It would make the log
>> > checkers job easier. Think of how tough it was to make QSOs when
>> conditions
>> > were not as good as they were last weekend. Allowing QSOs per mode
>> would
>> > triple the number of possible QSOs and keep the contest from being a
>> real
>> > drag.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Let's adapt the rules to the situation before it becomes too late and CW
>> > sinks down into the mud, never to raise its head again.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 73,
>> >
>> > Dennis, K2SX
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Stai ~ WK6I ~ wk6i.jeff@gmail.com
> RTTY op at W7RN
> Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|