CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

K2WI on 160 tests

Subject: K2WI on 160 tests
From: WAQI@aol.com (WAQI@aol.com)
Date: Sat Feb 10 03:57:37 1996
--PART.BOUNDARY.0.1518.emout06.mail.aol.com.823942654
Content-ID: <0_1518_823942654@emout06.mail.aol.com.137574>
Content-type: text/plain

Some reflections on the latest 160 contests


--PART.BOUNDARY.0.1518.emout06.mail.aol.com.823942654
Content-ID: <0_1518_823942654@emout06.mail.aol.com.137575>
Content-type: text/plain;
        name="SELFSPOT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

REFLECTIONS ON THE 1995 ARRL 160 AND 1996 CQWW 160 CONTESTS
=0D
Perhaps it was reading the writing on the wall(changes in cqww rules abou=
t =

packet self-spotting) that caused a seemingly spontaneous cessation of th=
e
endless self-spotting of years past in ARRL 160 and a much lower rate in =
the
CQWW 160 this season, at least on the east coast.  This was a good thing =
as I
have aways found it distasteful. We probably could not make an effective =
rule
to formalize a prohibition of this practice but it would be good if we co=
uld
at least have a gentleman's agreement to avoid self-spotting.  =

=0D
Most of the time the self-spotting is an effort to pick up the extremely =

dull daytime hours in these contests which brings me to my next point.
I think both these contests would be a lot more fun if they were structur=
ed
with a time off period a la ARRL 10 meter contest.  At the K2WI ARRL 160 =
and
WW2Y CQWW 160 operations the daytime rate never seems to be bigger than 1=
5
per hour so a 6 hour break would reduce QSO totals by 90 assuming the qso=
s
were not made up in other hours.  Since these are all low point-value qso=
s I
don't think this would change the character of the contest greatly.  The =
big =

numbers come from the nighttime dx contacts. For example in WW2Y CQ160 70=
% =

of the qso points were from 10-point qsos.  =

=0D
I propose a single 6 hour off period for all classes in these contests. L=
et's
take a break, walk the dog, sleep, be with our families, and rest up for =
some
serious competition during the night hours.  =

=0D
We missed the competition from KN8Z this year who usually keeps us on our=
 =

toes in the ARRL 160.  Would like to hear from Doc's group.  AB4RU made a=
 =

strong effort as usual, nice job, fellas.  Would like to hear from you to=
o.
=0D
The multiop class in CQ160 was real competitive this time around.  Congra=
ts
to W2GD.  Now you guys know how disabled we were last year by line noise =
and
putting the new elements of our array right in the midst of our beverages=
=2E
Nice job to W1KM, too.  My father-in-law lives down the road from you so =
I
know how nice your location is.  As the multis improve their stations, go=
ne =

are the days when the single ops come out ahead.
=0D
The conditions in both these contests were the best ever. We worked our f=
irst
ever JAs in both contests, working 2 in ARRL and 7 in CQWW.  I would be =

interested to know how other stations did on that score.  I have never he=
ard
the JA window so crowded that they were qrming each other like this CQWW.=

=0D


--PART.BOUNDARY.0.1518.emout06.mail.aol.com.823942654--


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • K2WI on 160 tests, WAQI@aol.com <=