It took me 13 years to get 327 DXCC, challenge 1900+ and 9 band DXCC
including 160. I did my first DXCC in one year from a mobile station with a
6 foot whip.
I did most of it on CW.
I really don’t see how FT8 made it any easier.
The reason it takes so little time now is because of the DX cluster and all
of the data aggregation tools.
The game changes, and if anything FT8 has made it harder for those of us
who can just get in/out of a CW/SSB pileup because we developed that skill.
But it has made DX possible for those who live in apartments and other
heavily restricted places.
At the League we discuss this and the consensus generally is that FT8 is
popular and brings in new operators. It’s a good thing. Separating them
would tell ops who operate this mode that they are somehow not real hams or
real DXers which is not a message to be sending. Especially since the
average age of DXers is trending higher.
The conspiracies about it being a money thing really aren’t valid. If
anything processing the increased volume of QSLs and LoTW server load costs
the League money, so it’s definitely not a money maker.
73
Ria
N2RJ
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:08 AM robert <wa1fcn@charter.net> wrote:
> GM Matts/Yuri
>
> I agree with you about the ARRL's DXCC credit system.
>
> A mistake for sure. As a life long low power operator it has
>
> taken me 54 years to reach 40 meter DXCC of 280. By allowing
>
> FT8 credits mixed in with every thing I foresee in the near
> future,
>
> many achieving this in 10 years or less of effort. At the
> next sun spot
>
> cycle peak high DXCC totals on 10, 12, and 15 will be
> meaningless. I
>
> know of hams who no longer take part in DXCC for just this
> reason.
>
> FT8 credit for DXCC is fine, but keep it separated from single
> band/mixed
>
> mode totals.
>
> 74 BoB WA1FCN
>
> On 8/15/2019 1:30 AM, Mats Strandberg wrote:
> > I tend to agree with Yury.
> >
> > CY9 was much more balanced between modes, than the 3D2 (or least that was
> > my perception).
> >
> > It might be so that at the time of John’s (GD) participation in KP5 and
> > KP1, that there was no ambition to maximize the revenue through donations
> > (before, during and after the expedition). I don’t question that.
> >
> > However, since FT8 appeared as an equal mode for DXCC (along with CW,SSB
> > and RTTY), it definitely has changed some expeditions into becoming
> > automated QSO/QSL-creating machines...
> >
> > John, during KP1/KP5, the FT modes were not available, so comparison
> might
> > not be fully relevant.
> >
> > It is maybe good that FT8 will bring new “DXers” to the table, but the
> > appearance of this dull mode... has forever changed the feeling of “being
> > on the other side of the expedition”, and most likely also, being an
> > operator of that expedition as well.
> >
> > I question myself, what is the pleasure of being that rare DX, giving out
> > the ATNOs and the new band points, when the reality is that NO operator
> > skills are required from me to make those “contacts” happen!
> >
> > Before, good DX-expeditions we’re separated by less good ones, because of
> > operator skills. How wonderful was it not to listen to great operators,
> > handling thousand of callers, to maximize the number of contacts and
> happy
> > DXers on the other side?
> >
> > Those days were interesting and a memory of our past. The new FT8
> euphoria
> > has forever changed the perception of DX-big, thanks to ARRL’s greed for
> > award revenue ;(
> >
> > And, what we now see is the result of the wrong decision to equalize FTx,
> > JT and other artificial modes, with RTTY, SSB and CW, and accept them for
> > DXCC Mixed.
> >
> > The correct way would have been to create FT/JT DXCC separate from
> Classic
> > DXCC...
> >
> > DXCC as we all knew it, has been hurt tremendously by ARRL unthoughtful
> > decision to accept FT/JT in Mixed!
> >
> > 73 de RM2D (Mats)
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 05:14, John Crovelli <w2gd@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I want to take a moment to dispel the notion suggested by Yuri that
> >> DXpedition operating strategy is all about financial considerations. It
> >> simply isn't for well planned operations.
> >>
> >> It is the intent of virtually every DXpedition to provide an opportunity
> >> for those running 100 watts or more to work an ATNO. DXpeditions teams
> are
> >> constantly considering ways to reach the broadest possible audience
> while
> >> on site.
> >>
> >> The implication that operating strategy and mode selection is all about
> >> post operation donations (to cover costs) is just not true. Well
> organized
> >> teams have these issues resolved well in advance.
> >>
> >> I've been on some large DXpeditions (KP5 and KP1 - both were top ten
> >> world). Our operating teams NEVER set goals based upon donations, and
> in
> >> fact, this issue was never even discussed since no one felt it to be
> >> important. Again, financing issues were resolved well before we ever
> >> departed for the islands.
> >>
> >> We did however (on a daily basis) take stock of propagation, probably of
> >> openings, and how we were providing global coverage ... to prevent
> missing
> >> opportunities to those regions traditionally most difficult. As a tool,
> >> FT8 can be useful.
> >>
> >> FT8 modes are providing options not previously available and for the
> most
> >> part now replaces RTTY activity. It is my expectation CW and SSB will
> >> always be the main modes for DXpeditions.
> >>
> >> John, W2GD aka P40W/P44W
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Yuri
> <
> >> ve3dz@rigexpert.net>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:57 PM
> >> To: 'Jeff Clarke' <ku8e@ku8e.com>; cq-contest@contesting.com <
> >> cq-contest@contesting.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
> >>
> >>>>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting FT8
> >> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't the
> >> future of ham radio.
> >>
> >> I might not be politically correct, but why not to mention that one of
> the
> >> all of the DXpeditions' goals is to try to maximize the overall QSO
> count
> >> in order to get more donation? That's what hiding behind "best kept
> secret"
> >> (that everybody knows) of F/H mode in FT8 in my opinion.
> >> I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it's a fact.
> >> Multi-channel streams need to be prohibited, otherwise it looks like
> >> hypocrisy.
> >> I still remember how the rules for M/S in the ARRL Contests were changed
> >> under the pressure after PJ4G(?) team managed to have 2 stations on the
> >> same band (even not at the same time).
> >>
> >> Yuri VE3DZ
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >> Jeff Clarke
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:51 AM
> >> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
> >>
> >> Didn't someone create a FT8 contest reflector? It would be nice to take
> >> all these comments over there. Seems like FT8 is monopolizing the
> contest
> >> reflector just like it is on the air.
> >>
> >> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting FT8
> >> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't the
> >> future of ham radio.
> >>
> >> BTW I do operate some FT8 because I'm working on a the digital DXCC.
> >> (because there is hardly any RTTY activity outside of contests) Now that
> >> I've reached 100 countries I'm starting to get bored with it.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
|