I second Steve's analysis of band-by-band conditions.
Even excluding WP3R, stations in southern latitudes had extreme advantages
in 10 meters that northern folk simply didn't have.
I often scanned 10 as I was running, and found lots of guys in the south
running with really good rates for a long time working stations we couldn't
hear. Even W7GG had 299 Qs on 10, vs. my 6, VE4GV's zero and similarly
sub-20 Q rates by many in the midwest.
The work-once-period rule serves as a bit of a geographic equalizer,
particularly during waning sunspot years. Turning SS into a once-per-band
contest may appeal to southerners, but it would decimate participation among
northerners. If you want to kiss a sweep goodbye forever, this is a good way
to do it.
I'm all for making a change to boost participation, but I think this one
isn't it. You'd trade increased participation by some for less by others.
Not good.
73, kelly
ve4xt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Root" <steve.root@culligan4water.com>
To: "Cq-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>; "Pete Smith"
<n4zr@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
> Pete,
>
> I think that it's a great idea for all of us to consider ways to encourage
> contest activity or make needed improvements. At the same time, we need
to
> be careful about how those changes would affect all of the players.
>
> SS is pretty special the way it is right now. Especially for a lot of us
> who live in the Northern Latitudes. You wouldn't believe how awful 10
> meters (and frequently 15 meters) can be up here. In an SS 10 meters is
> pretty much worthless. For example, in last year's CW SS I made 3% of my
> QSO's on 10 meters. And that's with an efficient SAO2R setup. Strategy
> comes in to play in figuring out how to find the people you're missing on
10
> meters on other bands. If you can do that, then you can be somewhat
> competitive. That's part of SS that makes it a great contest.
>
> Good luck to everybody this weekend!
>
> 73 Steve K0SR
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
> To: "Richard Zalewski" <w7zr@citlink.net>; "Cq-Contest"
> <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
>
>
> > While we're at it, let's get serious about revising this contest to
> > stimulate more activity. Make mults one per band rather than
> > overall. Wouldn't the first 5-band or 6-band sweep be something? Allow
> > one QSO per station per band, and eliminate the Sunday doldrums.
> >
> > To my mind, this would make virtually the perfect contest -- an exchange
> > with content that *must* be copied, retaining potential for modest
> stations
> > to make lots of contacts and rack up respectable scores, and 24 hours
> > on-time. Having more mults and Qs available would make the off-time
> > decision into a critical strategic choice rather than deciding which 6
> > hours will be the worst.
> >
> > In the past, suggestions of this sort were met with the complaint,
"That'd
> > be just another NAQP." My response is "What's wrong with that,"
> > particularly if it attracts SS-plus levels of participation instead of
the
> > few hundred regulars who get involved in NAQPs.
> >
> > 73, Pete N4ZR
> >
> > At 07:18 PM 11/22/2004, Richard Zalewski wrote:
> >
> > >This is part of my post from Sweepstakes.
> > >
> > >When are we going to wake up and sit at
> > >the table and restructure the operating classes of not only this
contest
> but
> > >all. If we are going to have classes and not just a free for all then
> SO2R
> > >needs to be dealt with so that the classes have some meaning. And
while
> > >we are
> > >at it Packet is here for the foreseeable future so deal with it also.
> > >
> > >Let the fun begin!!
> > >
> > >Dick W7ZR
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|