[CQ-Contest] CW versus SSB in 160 Contests

[Maurizio Panicara]

Hi Bill,

I'm not totally convinced that the proportion with SSB/CW QSOs are so much a
matter of band, to me this fact depends also by the rules (mainly time) and
because of a relatively small number of entrants in the CQ160.

If the band was the true and only matter, the advantage of CW vs SSB would
replicate in any contest but this is not.
Let's consider the contest of contests:
in CQWWDX the 160m world top scores are:

World:   CW
1.8     C4A (9A3A/5B4ADA)    261,489     969    21    80   99
World   SSB
1.8     IG9/IV3TAN                   441,252   1203    24   102   96

Neglecting the score and considering the QSO number only, the difference is
24% but here in favour of SSB.
Moreover C4 and IG9 are enough close to each other to have similar
conditions and paths, beeing C4 a DXCC country while IG9 is not.

I'm quite convinced that a CQ160 modified in time and rules as indicated in
the poll of a few months ago (www.contesting.com)could substantially reduce
the
existing gap between CW and SSB, expecially when people won't have the high
bands open any more like in the solar peaks..... leaving *alone* for many
hours the 160m entrants.

73,
Mauri I4JMY



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Tippett" <btippett at alum.mit.edu>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 12:29 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CW versus SSB in 160 Contests


>
>         I've about used up my annual quota of posts but here's one more
> observation regarding CW versus SSB effectiveness on 160.  The September
> CQ-Contest Magazine lists the top 118 high-claimed scores for both the
> 2001 CW and SSB CQ 160 Contests...same rules, similar activity levels
> (December CQ Magazine actually lists slightly more unique calls for SSB
> than CW...4606 versus 4512 in the 2000 contest results) and similar
> propagation (contests separated by 30 days):
>
>        #1 Score       #118 Score
> CW      884,477         204,288
> SSB     273,980          33,702
>
> Since the CQ 160 scoring system highly weights inter-continental QSO's,
> this demonstrates just how much more effective CW is as a mode for DX on
> 160.  The #1 score for SSB would only make the #75 position in the CW
contest.
> Perhaps 2001 was a particularly bad year for SSB or good year for CW but
> you can see the same advantage in the alltime CQ 160 CW and SSB records
at:
>
> http://members.aol.com/k3bu/W160Records.htm
>
>         Here are the average margins for alltime CQ 160 records in the
> following categories:
>
>                 CW over SSB (%)
> World              +107
> Africa             +107
> Asia                +44
> Europe             +123
> North America       +68
> USA                 +30
> Oceania             +57
> South America      +212
> Multioperator       +90
> Low Power           +63
> QRP                 +98
>
> Average margin      +91
>
>         CW rules on 160!...but you knew that didn't you?
>
>                                                 73,  Bill  W4ZV
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>



--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com