On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:07:27 -0600, Russell Hill wrote:
>Joe, you echo my argument I circulated on Friday about tower height, and you
>have probably stated it better than I.
<snip>
>I would like very much to see a discussion started. I think this is the
>only way we can get increased participation on a large scale.
_________________________________________________________
Ok, here's a subject for discussion: How about re-doing contest
classes entirely? I'm suggesting just two basic classes, Limited and
Unlimited.
Limited class would spell out the hardware limits specifically, much
like the WRTC does already. It would be oriented toward a "typical"
ham station, not a contest station. I would suggest one radio, no
packet or other spotting assistance, one antenna per band, dipoles
only and a height restriction. "Dipole" could be defined to be any
antenna with the equivalent gain of a dipole. This would allow
inverted vees, quarter wave GPs, etc.
Unlimited would allow anything else, provided it's legal of course.
This would allow the little pistols to get their feet wet and still
have a chance of winning their class. The hardware guys could go nuts
if they like and compete against guys who think the same way they do.
You could, if desired, subdivide those classes into LP and HP or
multioperator, but the hardware would remain the same.
What do you think?
--
Bill W6WRT
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|