The solution to nearly any contest doldrums (VHF contests during non-skip
periods being an exception) is to start over fresh being able to work everybody
again. This is one of the joys of being a mobile in a state QSO party - you get
to start over every thirty minutes or so, and can have a lot of fun with good
rates even with a relatively small pool of active participants.
SS has always had its unique features - a long exchange, only one QSO per band,
and a relatively long period with no set off times. It may not be your cup of
tea, but for a lot of people it is a pretty neat challenge. It is a bit like a
marathon, where at about mile 20 things really separate the men from the boys.
Rather than totally change the character of the contest, I simply suggested
that it be made easier for a person to start over fresh. Those who love the
marathon pain aspects of SS will still be able to enjoy that, but with perhaps
some more people cheering them on to the finish line with a QSO. Those who like
to run fast for the whole time can do so simply by finding a friend or club
willing to make their callsign available for a second or third entry. No need
to find multiple rigs, to travel between locations, etc.
The only change to the competition might be to add recognition for those doing
multiple efforts by noting the combined scores (sum of the individual scores,
not total QSOs times total unique multipliers.) This was an interesting
challenge for me in my four station efforts from Ohio, at good stations but not
in a particularly favorable location. Some years my combined score beat the
overall winner (who could work any person only once), some years I did not.
Note that the CQ contests do not have a single call/transmitter rule, and still
seem to have good competition. I’ve often done two separate efforts in the CQ
160 CW contest, using a different call each night. I’ve never heard of anybody
who objected to having had a second QSO with me.
73 - Jim K8MR
> On Nov 8, 2017, at 6:41 AM, K9MA <k9ma@sdellington.us> wrote:
>
> The fact that one can only work a station once in SS is a great equalizer,
> making it possible to compete with modest antennas from nearly anywhere in
> NA. I love NAQP, but propagation can put some parts of the country at a
> great disadvantage. For example, when skip is long on the high bands, the
> coasts have a big advantage over the central US. Likewise, when propagation
> is poor on the low bands, those in densely populated areas have an advantage.
> In SS, no matter where you are, you have a pretty good chance of working each
> station on SOME band under all sorts of conditions. There are, of course,
> lots of examples of top scores in SS from stations with modest antennas. The
> top spot in 1967 CW was won with a TH3 and some wires.
>
> I don't know what the solution is to the Sunday doldrums, but I'd prefer the
> one contact rule rather than one per band. Perhaps a short contest period
> starting earlier on Saturday would work.
>
> 73,
> Scott K9MA
>
> On 11/7/2017 09:51, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>> I like the idea of two QSOs split by time, as it means stations with the big
>> low-band antennas aren’t necessarily going to run up the rate meter all over
>> again.
>>
>> If you split it by high-band vs. low-band, you might not actually solve the
>> Sunday doldrums problem, as the big stations might just work through all
>> their second QSOs Saturday night anyway.
>>
>> As well, making the split high-band vs. low-band will hand the contest to
>> the stations with the big low-band antennas. The way SS works now, big
>> low-band antennas aren’t a huge advantage because they primarily provide
>> access to stations already worked on the high bands. The bigger low-band
>> antennas in some way are a disadvantage, because the one-Q per station rule
>> means they are more often working just the closer stations they couldn’t get
>> on the high bands, just like stations with smaller low-band antennas (low
>> inverted vees, etc.).
>>
>> A way to solve Sunday doldrums without costing SS its democratization would
>> be perfect.
>>
>> I think splitting it by time solves the doldrums plus gives equal advantage
>> to small and big stations.
>>
>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|