The CAC evaluated adding a 24-hour category to ARRL DX, but rejected the
idea.
As I recall, the primary worry was that it would encourage people who put in
more than 24 hours, but less than 40 hours, to reduce their operating hours.
Another worry was a big increase in the number of awards from adding a new
subcategory to multiple main categories (ARRL DX already has a large number
of potential awards due to single band categories and section-level awards.)
My feeling is that there's no data suggesting that overall operating hours
would be reduced. After all, people who operate more than, say, 15 hours but
less than 24 hours might be encouraged to increase their operating hours. We
know that the operating hours are skewed heavily to the lower end, so it's
likely that the impact will be positive or at least not negative.
I'm sympathetic to the awards problem, but that could have been addressed by
replacing Single Band with Low/High Band categories and replacing
Section-level awards with Division-level awards. If Section-level awards
have to be preserved to attract more casual participants, then printable
certificates would reduce the overhead.
Personally, I see no harm in adding a 24-hour category to CQ WW and ARRL DX
for a couple of years to see what happens. It won't affect existing records
and will tell us a lot about the preferences out there. Also, it's easily
dropped if the effect is negative.
Unfortunately, there's little appetite in the contest community for
experimentation and change, which is probably a function of the increase in
the average age of the participants.
Also personally, I've never been a big fan of the "iron man" emphasis in the
current world of contesting. While I admire those who can sit in the chair
for 48 hours, and try to keep up with them as best as I can, I don't see the
value in comparing ability to stay awake, stay in front of the radio,
operate in the face of fatigue, etc., perhaps to the point of impacting
one's health. I have to admit that the more I push myself to operate longer
hours, the less enjoyable contesting becomes. That's one reason I like WPX
Single Op so much -- I get to rest!
To me, the competition should be about who has the most operating skill and
station building ability. In what respect is the ability to pull consecutive
all-nighters indicative of those attributes? As Sprint, NAQP and IARU
demonstrate, it's possible to evaluate these things without killing
ourselves in an endurance contest. In fact, I would argue that we should be
comparing skills and stations when the operators are at their best, not
their worst.
73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Smith N4ZR [mailto:n4zr@contesting.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 7:55 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] A 24-hour category? was: Re: How many hours do
> SOAB entrants actually operate?
>
> What would be the effect on activity of a 24-hour category, I wonder. A
> survey a few years ago on CQ-Contest suggested that more people would
> put in more hours than would put in less, so the net effect would be
> favorable.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
> http://reversebeacon.net,
> blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
> For spots, please go to your favorite
> ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
>
> On 3/28/2013 5:29 PM, Jimk8mr@aol.com wrote:
> > I don't think there would be many.
> >
> > Most of the 24 hour people are people like me who have a 24 hour
> > station - good enough to have fun in the good hours, and to work the
> > easy multipliers on the low bands, but not good enough to be
> > competitive after about 30 hours when dipoles at 60 feet don't do
> > much on 40 and 80 meters, not to mention 160.
> >
> > A good op at a big station who decides to compete in a 24-30 hour time
> > limited category will always beat my decent station, spending the same
> > amount to time on the air.
> >
> >
> > 73 - Jim K8MR
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 3/27/2013 2:45:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > wa5rtg@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > It would be interesting to know whether there is some maximum number
> > of hours (for single operators only) that would cause many of those
> > who play around for 20-30 hours to go all in.
> >
> > How many don't give it a full effort because they can't go 46 but
> > would make the attempt to go 40, for example? I wouldn't recommend
> > less than about
> > 40 or 42 max but would think it might be a positive to have some
> > required off time if the end result was more activity overall. Looks
> > like only 3% (less than 150 out of 5,000) operate even as many as 36
> hours.
> >
> > There are some who are passionate about the 48 hours but it can't be
> many.
> >
> > Stan, K5GO
> >
> >
> > On Mar 25, 2013, at 2:53 PM, David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Great info, Doug.
> >>
> >> That's only the results from the people who submitted logs, right?
> >> I'd
> > bet that the curve is skewed even more toward fewer hours for the
> > people who did not submit a log, and I wonder how many of those would
> be more
> > inclined to submit a log if categories existed for fewer hours. I
> suspect quite
> > a few.
> >> 73,
> >> Dave AB7E
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
|