[CQ-Contest] Ideas for WRTC 2004

Kenneth E. Harker kharker at cs.utexas.edu
Wed Jul 17 18:27:56 EDT 2002

On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:29:24AM -0800, KL7RA wrote:
> >Considering that the OJs ran 100W to a rather low tribander, I have to 
> >believe that it was difficult for a "SSB" team to compete. ///snip  
> >-Mike N2MG
> You're probably right Mike, but during the last few hours of the test
> their SSB rates were around five a minute, 300 hour, or more and 
> I was having some difficulty cracking their ssb piles. The usual 
> thinking is to double the points for CW and the Finns decided not 
> to do this.  

Doubling the points for CW would be terrible.  The WRTC stations 
already make more CW QSOs than phone QSOs.  Give them double points,
and they'd spend substantially less time on phone than they already do.

> My thinking is a super ssb op would have some advantage over the
> CW op simply because he could go faster, there are more ssb stations 
> on and more mults. When the rate falls due 100 watts/ low antenna,  you 
> change bands.

The actual WRTC results haven't historically supported this hypothesis.
Even in 2000, when the scoring was specifically designed to make CW and 
SSB QSOs equally important (by making one's CW or SSB score based upon 
a percentage of the highest QSO total made on that mode) the WRTC 
operators _still_ on average made more CW QSOs than phone QSOs.

Kenneth E. Harker      "Vox Clamantis in Deserto"      kharker at cs.utexas.edu
University of Texas at Austin                   Amateur Radio Callsign: WM5R
Department of the Computer Sciences      VP, Central Texas DX & Contest Club
Taylor Hall TAY 2.124                         Maintainer of Linux on Laptops
Austin, TX 78712-1188 USA            http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list