[CCF] SAC-proposals for 2007 and beyond

[jari.jokiniemi at nokia.com]

Why so?

So far the major contests have been won by QTH, power, and antennas. In
this particular order. According to a published statistical study (mine,
PileUp Magazine and CQ Contest Magazine). This has been known for ages
by anyone who seriously participates in contests. That is exactly the
reason for going south to win CQWW. The effect of following the spots
have been proven to be minimal. I wonder if self spotting would be much
different when the big masses do it. 

In other words, I am 100% sure that 6 over 6 is much better for the
score than spotting. You get what you pay for. 6 o 6 is much more
expensive than getting internet nowadays. 

73

-Jari, OH3BU

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ccf-bounces at contesting.com 
>[mailto:ccf-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of ext Pertti Simovaara
>Sent: 03 October, 2006 02:52
>To: CCF at contesting.com
>Subject: [CCF] SAC-proposals for 2007 and beyond

>Allowing spotting, not to talk about selfspotting, would drop 
>out many who have no internet capabilities in their contesting 
>QTH eg. in my case OH2PM and OH0PM/OH0R QTHs. Here in Kiikala 
>I have it, but not in the shack. Also spots as such emphasize 
>more skils like clever fingers than operators ability to sniff 
>the propagation and radio/operator human interface. If 
>spotting brings more participants, why not. The next step is 
>then to go directly over internet and carry radios to museum. 
>Some lowband DXers are already pretty close toit, at least I 
>am tempted  conclude that from spots by some  lowband DXers.