Fw: [CQ-Contest] 24 vs 48 - NO NEW CAREGORIES!

[k7qq]

QUACK's
I don't know about you young bucks but this just might make me try an all
band effort if it should take off.  I do single 10 becauz I getting too OLD
to try and keep up with the WIZ kids and EastCoast Fish in a barrel
shooters.

Rex  K7QQ

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius WN3VAW" <wn3vaw at fyi.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>; "Pete Smith" <n4zr at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 24 vs 48 - NO NEW CAREGORIES!


> Pete,
>
> What you have put your finger on is why so many discussions on the
> contesting reflector often degrade into silly arguments.
>
> In other words, when we are discussing the potential "24 hour" category in
a
> 24 hour contest, are we talking about operating solely within a single
> contiguous 24 hour window within the contest -- which is what I and others
> have thought -- or about a total operating time of 24 hours or less,
> non-contiguous, within the 48 hours -- which is what you and others have
> thought about?
>
> It makes a big difference.  With a contiguous 24 hour period, the operator
> has to watch the clock carefully to map out his optimal times, but s/he's
> going to have the overnight lulls (or whatever) just like everyone running
> the full blown contest does.  In other words, it's a condensed contest for
> these ops.  But with the non-contiguous 24 hours, a great deal more
strategy
> comes into play as these ops try to pick their operating times to maximize
> propagation.  Which implies (all else being equal) a great deal more
> activity on the high bands than the low bands, which I believe was one of
> K4OJ's disagreements with that concept.
>
> I'm not saying that either of these two concepts is wrong; each has their
> strong and short points.  But I wonder if there is truly a need for the
> non-contiguous 24 hour category, especially in contests that limit SO
> stations to 36 hours maximum of the 48.  To my thinking, the contiguous 24
> idea has a little more merit because it requires the operator, while
> carefully planning his start/stop times, to deal with one full
> round-the-clock cycle of operating -- which also gives the single band or
> limited band (be it high or low) ops an opportunity to work them, too.
>
> But I will agree with you on this:  anything that will help boost activity
> is worth examining.
>
> Let's just make sure we're all discussing the same things at the same
time.
>
> 73, ron wn3vaw
>
> 'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately
>   explained by stupidity.' --Hanlon's Razor
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr at contesting.com>
> To: "Ron Notarius WN3VAW" <wn3vaw at fyi.net>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 24 vs 48 - NO NEW CAREGORIES!
>
>
> At 10:40 AM 2/7/03 -0500, Ron Notarius WN3VAW wrote:
> >Jim has a point.
> >
> >For a 24 hour category to work w/in a 48 hour contest, it would have to
be
> a
> >contiguous 24 hour period.  Exactly which one may be up to the contest
> >sponsors (ie UTC Saturday only, UTC Sunday Only, or any given 24 hour
> >period) but it needs to be one 24 hour block.  Otherwise the "24 hour"
gang
> >can cherry pick the bands they want to maximize Q's.
>
>
> That's exactly why this category is potentially interesting.  The
strategic
> decisions to be made are part of the fun.
>
>
> >Or to put it another way, there should be a way of distinguishing, IMHO,
> >YMMV, between someone who runs in the 24 Hour category and someone who
> >operates 24 Hours in the 48 Hour category.  After all, isn't one of the
> >reasons for proposing this category is to accommodate those who only have
> >one 24 hour window available to operate on the contest weekend?
>
>
> No.  It is to encourage people who would only operate 8 or 10 or 12 hours
> to make a 24-hour effort, composed of whatever time they can spare or
their
> bodies will let them do.
>
>
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> The World HF Contest Station Database was updated 1 Feb 03.
> Are you current? www.pvrc.org/wcsd/wcsdsearch.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>