In general, and while I empathize with your concern, I don't think that
it's very practical to have a restricted antenna category in a contest.
It's simply too arbitrary to draw the line between all the possible
permutations without any practical way of judging their actual
performance, especially when factors like terrain, ground conductivity,
and nearby structures are considered. With power levels, we generally
have fairly discrete jumps in actual usage ... and it is a quantifiable
and easily measured difference. Most contestants that are not running
five watts are likely to be running 100 watts or more, and most
contestants running more than 100 or 150 watts are probably running more
than 500 watts. With antennas, there are LOTS of non-quantifiable
factors affecting performance in a continuous range. It doesn't really
matter if the impact is huge if the ability to realistically do anything
about it is minimal.
WPX makes an attempt at this with its tribander/wires category, but even
that has limitations in terms of relevance. I still hold a call area
TB/wires record for WPX from back when I had only low wire dipoles
simply because I live on a long hillside that gave me a very low takeoff
angle to the high population centers of the eastern U.S. and Europe. I
subsequently upgraded to a tower with a couple of yagis, and in multiple
comparison tests with a nearby ham my single OB16-3 with its 4 elements
on 20m at 73 feet on that same hillside was consistently better to
Europe than his triple stack of C31XR's at 40/80/120 feet sitting on
flat terrain.
I manage the Competition Ladder for the Arizona Outlaws Contest Club (
http://www.arizonaoutlaws.net/ladderresults.html ), which sums and
tracks points scored by members in various operating categories from
more than 50 contests over a running 12 month period. I included a
"Restricted" category to cover members constrained to marginal setups
(mobile whips mounted on a balcony railing, attic dipoles, etc), but the
criteria I use is strictly arbitrary and I have trouble justifying the
demarcation line even to myself. I can barely imagine the grief a
contest sponsor would have trying to define and justify a similar
distinction to a much larger and less understanding user base.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 9/17/2014 7:37 AM, David Cockrum wrote:
As I read the responses about the history of low power, specifically
150 vs 100 watts, I think we are missing the elephant in the room.When
it comes to factors that help an operator do well in contests at the
top of the list should go antennas.We divide competitors in many
contests into three categories based on power:high, low, and qrp.Yet
in each of these categories the best scores are made by those with the
best antenna systems.
For the most part the power categories divide us into groups that
correspond to antenna systems as well.The stations with big antenna
systems usually operate in the high power category, those of us with
lesser systems often operate in low power and QRP categories.
From my point of view I have a small antenna system (SteppIR at 50
feet), but I know I have it much better than many others.After every
contest in which a relatively large number of "casual" operators are
worked, I receive many QSL cards which state the antenna is a "wire
antenna in the attic," multiband vertical, or other marginal antenna.
As long as there are communities that regulate antenna height and
deeds with restrictive covenants, contesting will continue to have a
hard time attracting new blood to replace our aging membership. No one
wants to compete in an activity in which they have little chance to do
well. Perhaps every contest should have a category for those
individuals with restricted space antennas.
73,
Dave, N5DO
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|