I have received a correction from N1ND regarding my
comments about entries being automatically being put
into the Limited Multi category. Here are his
comments:
"I read your post to the VHF-reflector. We do not
automatically change logs from Multi-Multi to
limited-multi without reason. Simply working 4 or
fewer bands does not make this happen automatically."
My comments about this came about because of what
happened to our entry the first time the Limited Multi
category was introduced. We entered as Unlimited,
believing we may have beaten all other multi entries
in the division. However, we were listed under Limited
Multi, as were many other entries, some of which, I
suspect, suffered the same reassignment downwards.
Sorry about that.
Paul, K7CW
--- Paul Kiesel <k7cw@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now that "'nuf's" been finally said, I'll tack on my
> own post-nuf comments.
>
> Dana's done some homework and what he says here
> counts. Dana's reasons and those of many others who
> are against making major changes in the rules are
> the
> real truth. Fact is, no matter what guise you put
> "level the playing field" under, it cannot be done.
>
> Out here in the Pacific Northwest, there's no way we
> could ever win a major VHF contest. But, right now,
> we
> have the freedom to try. We can build bigger
> antennas,
> run higher power, utilize more bands, etc. At least,
> it's possible to make a show. If changes are made to
> make it easier for anyone to win, what's going to be
> gained? This is supposed to be competition. The real
> competitors have been building their efforts for
> years
> around the present rules.
>
> Limited Multi: No, I didn't like it, either. The
> thing
> I don't like about it is that they automatically put
> your score in that group if you run four or fewer
> bands. It's possible to beat the Unlimited entries
> even with fewer bands, hence, that category should
> be
> chosen, not mandated, in that circumstance.
> Whatever.
> It's no big deal. If you don't like it, submit with
> more than four bands.
>
> Of course, having VHF competions contributes (in the
> long run) to populating the bands. But, levelling
> the
> playing field isn't the way to make people want to
> compete, that is, get something out of competing.
> Competitions are more fun when it's more difficult
> to
> win. The difficulty of the competitions leads to
> better equipment, antennas, operators - and - better
> use of the spectrum. To me, ERP-based rules would be
> a
> stairway to mediocrity.
>
> My proposal: Leave the major VHF/UHF contest rules
> alone.
>
> 73,
> Paul, K7CW
>
>
> --- N1OFZ <n1ofz@arrl.net> wrote:
> > I have been rereading and rethinking Ev's proposal
> > for many days now.
> > It got me to thinking about why these changes were
> > suggested in the
> > first place. Increased participation in the
> higher
> > bands. I'm pretty
> > sure the changing the scoring to ERP is not going
> to
> > do that.
> >
> > 17 of 445 class A ops used bands over 1296 in the
> > June 2003 contest.
> > Out of the top 10 class A ops only 1 had bands
> over
> > 1296. Further,
> > that op only had 2304 and made 2Q's. So it is
> > pretty clear that you
> > don't need a lot of bands to win SOLP. On the
> other
> > hand, 29 of 157
> > class B ops used bands over 1296. 6 out of the
> top
> > 10 ops had bands
> > over 1296. Looks like to be competitive in SOHP
> you
> > have to have more
> > bands. Dare I say that there is almost a self
> > imposed (natural) 5 band
> > limit in SOLP?
> >
> > The focus of increasing participation on the
> higher
> > bands needs to be
> > on finding an inexpensive, plug and play way of
> > getting the large
> > number of guys with IC-706's, FT-100's and all the
> > other HF-VHF/UHF
> > rigs on SHF+. The guys who can build transverters
> > themselves and the
> > scrounger/modifier are probably already on these
> > bands. What is left
> > is a big pool of people who need a way. Telling
> > them to shell out
> > $400+ for a transverter and then a few more
> hundred
> > for feed line,
> > relays, etc, doesn't make sense to them. They
> > probably only spent
> > $500-1000 for a rig that does HF-UHF. Why does it
> > cost almost as much
> > to add one SHF band? Why bother? The stats show
> it
> > is not even going
> > to help their score much. Where does ERP classes
> > provide an incentive
> > to add more bands? If anything it might move some
> > of the existing SOLP
> > into SOHP which may not make them too happy.
> >
> > In general guys who want to get on other bands do
> it
> > because they want
> > to. Curiosity, the challenge and I'm sure many
> > other reasons. The
> > only way to get the 'general population' to do it
> is
> > to make it easy
> > and cheap to do. No contest rules change is going
> > to do it...
> >
> > Dana
> > N1OFZ
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> >
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|