Does high-speed CW have a place in contesting? Absolutely! I don’t think
anyone would argue that. However, I think you’d agree that CQing with no
answers (which happens to even the mega-stations later in the contest) is, in
fact, unproductive points-wise. I’m not suggesting that you’re “doing it
wrong” or even that you need a major strategy adjustment. My position is
simply that it’s mutually beneficial to QRS and complete the QSO with the
slower stations when your rate is low. How much time does that take? If you
log a QSO when you otherwise wouldn’t, does it matter? A fact I CAN claim is
that there are several fast stations who do not have my call in their logs
because they wouldn’t QRS. At the elite level they are working at, when the
scores are tallied and competitors are close, those single missed Qs make a
difference. Maybe my Q is only worth one or two points on its face, but with
the loads of multipliers already in the log for the 20M+ scores, it may
actually be worth more to your score.
From a philosophical standpoint, your assertion that us slower ops essentially
need to keep up or get out of the way is interesting...If there is no place in
CW contests for us average Joes, eventually it might just be the powerhouses
that all work each other in the first few hours of the contest and you’ll have
a perpetual tie. Where’s the fun in that?
Just my observation...
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 30, 2017, at 05:49, Gerry Hull <email@example.com> wrote:
> While 45 might seem a bit excessive, guys like ZF2MJ and TI7W, known
> World-class contesters, were using speeds like that. As a run op at an M/2,
> I spent 95 percent of my CQ time at 40 WPM and backed down to 38 at times.
> I did not feel it was non productive.
> Fast CW is impearitive to make 20 to 30 million point scores. Also,
> To make those scores, the operators on the other end of the pile must
> Be able to copy.
> So. if your CW speed does not cut it, listen to QSOs until you copy.
> Fast CW can and will be a part of these contests. Attempting to claim it
> is non productive is disproven by the facts.
> 73, Gerry W1VE
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:34 PM K9MA <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I completely fail to understand why so many operators insist on calling
>> CQ at 45 wpm, when no one is coming back. (There were lots of them last
>> weekend, especially from zone 33.) This seem entirely
>> counterproductive. Not only does it discourage operators who aren't
>> comfortable at that speed, but it also makes the call impossible to copy
>> under some conditions for even the best operators. Isn't a slow QSO
>> better than no QSO?
>> Scott K9MA
>>> On 11/28/2017 10:10, Ria Jairam wrote:
>>> I received comments from some of my friends that they didn't want to
>>> wade in because it would be like driving a unicycle on an interstate.
>>> There were some doing 40-50WPM... not that there is anything wrong
>>> with speed, but sometimes who want to casually participate and "give
>>> out points" get scared away.
>>> I did a steady 30WPM and QRS as necessary.
>>> Something to keep in mind.
>>> That said I worked several straight keys, tons of bugs, and a good bit
>>> of QLF. All in the fun.
>>> Ria, N2RJ
>>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Charles Harpole <email@example.com>
>>>> You have slow CW? My solution:
>>>> K3 set at 400 bandwidth. P3 panadapter and large monitor. Start at
>>>> of band and tune center of slim visual pip. K3, spots, and your head
>>>> confirm callers' letters.
>>>> Push programmed send..... send your call sign.
>>>> Learned my own call at high speed, so I read mine.
>>>> Read screen to confirm his info, even with cut numbers, including an E
>>>> 5 in 5NN, moan.
>>>> Push button to send ur info.
>>>> Log 'em.
>>>> Tune 500cycles up and work next loud sig.
>>>> A killer solution to slow copying speed. S&P produces about 1 to 2 per
>>>> minute, so dive in and enjoy 30+ wpm!
>>>> Charly, HS0ZCW
>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> Scott K9MA
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list