To: | <cq-contest@contesting.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category |
From: | "Russell Hill" <rustyhill@earthlink.net> |
Date: | Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:20:04 -0600 |
List-post: | <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> |
I would like to suggest this thread consider something else--keeping the
casual operator in the contest. I have read many comments about the
necessity to have the casual operators in the contests-- they are involved
in the majority of Qs-- we need them! As it is now, there is argument about using categories to "level the playing field" or not. My guess is the casual contester perceives this as self-serving B.S. He knows that the greatest hardware difference he faces is the ability to put up BIG antennas. He correctly perceives that no matter what category he chooses, there will be 100 or 200 foot tower stations competing in the same category. With fairly low antennas, you can give him all the SO2R, High Power, Multi-Ops, Computer usage, Extra Class privileges in the world, and he can never compete with the 200 foot tower guy, or even with the 70 foot tower guy. Why should he bother to try? Are there many super scores from a station with stacked monobanders limited to 50 feet in height? No? So guess what? The little pistol, on average, doesn't try, he gets on for a little while on Saturday to "give out a few contacts", etc. I believe that if we had a category which limited antenna height to 50 feet or so, and we honored those who do well with that limitation, we might encourage the little pistol to improve his station and make a serious attempt to place well in the low antenna category. In the process we might just get more participation from the little pistols, and isn't this what we want? I don't believe the antenna height for the category should be any higher than 50 feet. In the past, I competed successfully on 10 M and occasionally on 15 M with a 60 foot tower, and had a lot of fun. At 60 feet stacked 10M is very plausible. I think we should establish a category height which allows discourages the use of stacks at HF, in order to give the vast majority of hams, the little pistols, an opportunity to compete with each other. And we definitely do not want a height (22M) which just happens to allow for 20M monobanders at a wave-length high. It would defeat the purpose. Those of us who want to compete with our towers at above 50 feet would not be hurt in the slightest by having an antenna category which allowed the little pistols the opportunity to compete with each other and gain recognition. We might come out way ahead, and even avoid the Sunday Doldrums, by giving this encouragement to the little pistols. No, I don't think we need more categories. Separate category for SO2R? Nope, that relates to operator proficiency. I can't do SO2R, and that is my problem. I do not want a separate category to protect me from the more proficient operator. He deserves to win. Incidentally, my pitch for a 50 foot category is not self serving. I have a 72 foot crankup which will support 15 M at 37 and 72 feet very nicely (when I get around to it), or when the sun spots get better, perhaps 10 M at 37, 54, and 72 feet. (I personally like Single Band.) More hardware makes more Qs makes more fun, and I have no intention to play in the sub 50' category. But I do strongly believe the contesting community would be better off with such a category. Thanks for the BW. 73, Rusty, na5tr
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Radiosports for the 21st Century, Pat N8VW |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category, Richard DiDonna NN3W |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Radiosports for the 21st Century, asciibaron |
Next by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: LimitedAntenna Height Category, Pete Smith |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |