Felipe,
Yes, it is hard to compare the US/VE state or regional contests to most of the
non-US/VE contests. Mobile participation is a major component of most of the
successful contests on this continent. Many of these folks are real road
warriors and participate in more than one QSO Party annually.
Certainly, there are very fun international events like RDXC and PACC that use
regions in their areas as multipliers. I'm not sure how important mobiles are
to those events.
I, too, have leaned towards shorter events. I do like the multi-contest
insanity of the first weekend in May, but they are all relatively short events.
There are probably folks here who remember when the DX contests were a week
long ;o) Last year I participated in 70+ contests, that's plenty of air time!
Cheers,
Julius
Julius Fazekas
N2WN
Tennessee Contest Group
TnQP http://www.tnqp.org/
Elecraft K2/100 #4455
Elecraft K3/100 #366
--- On Fri, 1/9/09, Felipe J Hernandez <fhdez@islandnetjm.com> wrote:
> From: Felipe J Hernandez <fhdez@islandnetjm.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improving the Fabulous CQ 160 Contest
> To: phriendly1@yahoo.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
> Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 10:01 AM
> Julius,
>
> Got some direct messages regarding the local qos parties
> and they are very insightful, it looks like those have been
> succesful
> which is great particularly if they can attract new local
> talent.
>
> Obvioulsy regarding international hf activities, every
> country will have its own view of success.. so It would be
> unfair
> from me to think different from US qso parties vs regional
> or country wide contests(international).
>
> God knows that contesting growth lately has come in it
> mayority from international operators..
> Oh well.. things have a way to sort themselves and Im sure
> theres a reason behind all those activities.
>
> If I come to think about what I like the most about
> contests is the camaraderie and the high spirits behind
> operators and dxpeditions. I think thats a mayor motivation
> behind contests.. maybe thats what keeps alive the small
> activities.
>
> I will love to have some smaller cqww's 12/24 versions
> during the year.. that will fire more competition.
>
> Felipe
> np4z
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Julius Fazekas
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com ; Felipe J Hernandez
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 9:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improving the Fabulous CQ 160
> Contest
>
>
> Felipe,
>
> I think there would be difficulties with a consolidated
> QSO party for say the 4th call area (and some other US
> regions as well).
>
> First, most of the QSO parties you have mentioned have
> very strong in-state support. The Tennessee QSO Party has
> been dramatically growing. Too, there has been great
> inter-club support for the neighboring state events as well.
>
> Second, (well this might be first) are the mobiles, which
> are a major draw to any state or region QSO party, often run
> multiple QSO parties. In 4 land, I suspect you would lose
> some coverage if one was to combine the region.
>
> Third, administration of the event might be more
> difficult. As anyone involved with running an event will
> tell you, if you don't have folks working hard behind
> the scene, the event will fizzle. Sometimes that will happen
> even if people work hard to put on a contest. I think 7QP
> was a risky venture to start, but has turned out well.
>
> By the by, SP does not have any multipliers (unless you
> mean the power level multiplier). It's strictly
> distance. It's also one that is difficult to really know
> where you stand until the adjudication is complete, as one
> picks up points depending on the number of QRP and LP
> worked, assuming those folks send in logs. It's
> complicated and bless those folks who do the work on it.
>
> I can't say I disagree with some consolidation of HF
> events. Not sure HOW it could be done... I think more
> sunspots would help the congestion ;o)
>
> No flame intended :o)
>
> 73,
> Julius
>
> Julius Fazekas
> N2WN
>
> Tennessee Contest Group
> TnQP http://www.tnqp.org/
>
> Elecraft K2/100 #4455
> Elecraft K3/100 #366
>
>
> --- On Thu, 1/8/09, Felipe J Hernandez
> <fhdez@islandnetjm.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Felipe J Hernandez
> <fhdez@islandnetjm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improving the Fabulous CQ
> 160 Contest
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 5:40 PM
> > What is it that you guys like most about the SP?
> > Is it the distance scoring or the many grids?...
> Those two
> > are a match in heaven
> > thats why everyone like the SP so much.. nothing
> like
> > plenty of multipliers on a short band with limited
> audience.
> > also some funky marketing from the sponsors and some
> > history behind the man make it more interesting,
> even Epic..
> >
> > Leave those two contests alone, they work well and
> they
> > have their audience.
> >
> >
> > NOw, God knows that we need to consolidate some hf
> > contests and create some new entities
> > maybe with grids, maybe with distance scoring on
> some
> > bands, IOTA or Field day kind of Fun and innovation
> and
> > keeping some
> > regional proudness..
> >
> > Instead of Florida Qso party, Ga qso party, tn qso
> party
> > ,al qso party etc.. do a 4th call area qso party..(
> i think
> > this existed once?)
> > organized by all, nice interstate competition as
> well.. and
> > do the same in all call areas..
> > Maybe in Europe, Africa, S. America ect and make
> them count
> > to wrtc points as well..
> >
> > The contest operators are getting diluted by
> hundreds of
> > activities, that never seem to get full efforts from
>
> > their participants and never generate enought
> participation
> > from their own crowds.
> >
> > Felipe.. please flame on..
> > NP4Z
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: K1TTT
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 6:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improving the Fabulous
> CQ 160
> > Contest
> >
> >
> > The cq 160m contest is not the stew perry
> contest... keep
> > them separate and
> > unique.
> >
> >
> > David Robbins K1TTT
> > e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
> > web: http://www.k1ttt.net
> > AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or
> telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Victor A. Kean, Jr.
> [mailto:vkean@k1lt.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 02:52
> > > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Improving the Fabulous
> CQ 160
> > Contest
> > >
> > > For the 2010 edition of CQ 160 contest, I
> propose
> > the following
> > > changes as followons to the 2009 changes:
> > >
> > > 1. Make the exchange 59(9) grid where
> > "grid" is 4 character
> > > Maidenhead grid square, a-la the Stew Perry
> test.
> > >
> > > 2. Make the QSO point scoring proportional
> to
> > distance. You could
> > > take the Stew Perry scheme and scale it so
> that the
> > longest possible
> > > QSO is 10 (or maybe 12) points.
> > >
> > > 3. Keep multipliers to encourage DXpeditions
> and
> > pile-ups.
> > >
> > > Let the flaming begin.
> > >
> > > Victor, K1LT
> > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|