Let me tell you why antenna- or propagation-challenged ops
did NOT like the High/Low band categories in the ARRL DX
test and why the single band categories were big improvements.
Low band means you must have good antennas for 3 difficult
bands - 40, 80 and 160 to be competitive. Many of us can
swing one or another of those, at least on a temporary
basis but cannot get up or keep up all three.
Similarly, while tribanders are popular antennas for the
high bands, to do well in the High Band category, you need
propagation on all three bands! This may be ok for those
in Florida, who apparently get 10 meter openings to DX even
in the punk years, but is murder for those in the Midwest.
The Single Band categories are much superior. If you want
to operate two or three bands, you can, and still enter
you best band as a Single Band score. This is much more
likely to be competitive or "respectible" than entering
a Tri-band category with only one band's score, especially
since multipliers count on a "per-band" basis.
Terry Zivney, N4TZ/9
-----Original Message-----
From: David A. Pruett [mailto:k8cc@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:55 PM
To: Dave Hachadorian; cq-contest Reflector
Cc: aa7a@arrl.net; contests@arrl.org
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Restoring High Band/Low Band categories in
ARRL DXTest
I have to agree wholeheartedly with Dave. When the high and low band
categories were created for the ARRL DX Contest in the middle seventies, it
seemed to me like a great idea. To paraphrase Dave's points, it seemed
like there were a number of ways to be really competitive in high band;
from a TH6 to a big quad, to a monobander Christmas tree. When I first
went off to school in Arkansas in 1976, I saw the other side. My new
friend WA5RTG (now K5GO) was an avid entry in the low band category, with a
Mosley S-402 shorty-fourty (a big antenna in those days) and an assortment
of low band wires. As Dave points out, you don't have to focus on big
antennas for six bands.
While I respect the efforts put forth by the single band entrants, those
categories have little or no interest to me.
I never understood why the low and high band categories were done away
with. I would like to see some consideration given to bringing them back.
Dave/K8CC
At 01:25 PM 6/18/02 +0000, Dave Hachadorian wrote:
>With the advent of ARRL's enhanced on-line contest reporting, constraints
>on the number of contest categories imposed by available QST space are
>removed, or at least reduced. Computerized log-checking has also reduced
>the need to minimize the number of categories in contests, since the
>administrative overhead has been reduced.
>
>I'd like to see the High Band (10, 15, 20) and Low Band (40, 80, 160)
>categories restored in the ARRL DX Test. There are a number of reasons why
>I think this move would enhance the contest world-wide:
>
>1. Declining JA activity has made it much more difficult for western USA
>stations to compete in all categories, but especially the all-band category,
>where absorption on 40, 80, and 160 precludes big European runs.
>
>2. There are a lot of stations around the world who have a small tower and
>tribander in the back yard, and an assortment of low, seriously
>compromised antennas for 40, 80, and 160. There is not much incentive for
>these stations to get on the air in the all band category, since they know
>that they cannot turn in a competitive score. On the other hand, a
>tribander can do a quite creditable job on the high bands, which would
>encourage activity.
>
>3. The single-band category, while enabling disadvantaged stations to be
>more competitive on one single band, rapidly gets to be pretty boring.
>
>4. The High band/ low band categories would enable SO2R operation, making
>the contest much more interesting than single band category, where SO2R is
>impracticable for most people.
>
>To me, the payoff in any contest is to enjoy the contest experience
>itself, and, afterward, to to see how I ranked, with the data arranged the
>way I like to see it presented. I really don't care about QST listings or
>certificates. By the time QST and the certificates come out, the contest
>is old news. Coupled with the ARRL's growing accent on Internet score
>reporting, I think the additional categories would add a spark of growth
>and an interesting new dimension to the ARRL DX Test.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
>Yuma, Arizona
>K6LL@despammed.com
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
|