[CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category

[Richard DiDonna NN3W]

Why necessarily set certain height limits?  I know 
plenty of folks out in California whose single antenna 
would be a wire vertical that is shot 60 feet into the 
top of a palm tree.

Perhaps a category that is limited to wire antennas 
and no more than a three/four element tribander.

Rich NN3W
--- Original Message ---
From: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill at earthlink.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category

>I would like to suggest this thread consider 
something else--keeping the 
>casual operator in the contest.  I have read many 
comments about the 
>necessity to have the casual operators in the 
contests-- they are involved 
>in the majority of Qs-- we need them!
>
>As it is now, there is argument about using 
categories to "level the playing 
>field" or not.  My guess is the casual contester 
perceives this as 
>self-serving B.S.  He knows that the greatest 
hardware difference he faces 
>is the ability to put up BIG antennas.  He correctly 
perceives that no 
>matter what category he chooses, there will be 100 or 
200 foot tower 
>stations competing in the same category.  With fairly 
low antennas, you can 
>give him all the SO2R, High Power, Multi-Ops, 
Computer usage, Extra Class 
>privileges in the world, and he can never compete 
with the 200 foot tower 
>guy, or even with the 70 foot tower guy.  Why should 
he bother to try?  Are 
>there many super scores from a station with stacked 
monobanders limited to 
>50 feet in height?  No?  So guess what?  The little 
pistol, on average, 
>doesn't try, he gets on for a little while on 
Saturday to "give out a few 
>contacts", etc.
>
>I believe that if we had a category which limited 
antenna height to 50 feet 
>or so, and we honored those who do well with that 
limitation, we might 
>encourage the little pistol to improve his station 
and make a serious 
>attempt to place well in the low antenna category.  
In the process we might 
>just get more participation from the little pistols, 
and isn't this what we 
>want?
>
>I don't believe the antenna height for the category 
should be any higher 
>than 50 feet.  In the past, I competed successfully 
on 10 M and occasionally 
>on 15 M with a 60 foot tower, and had a lot of fun. 
At 60 feet stacked 10M 
>is very plausible.  I think we should establish a 
category height which 
>allows discourages the use of stacks at HF, in order 
to give the vast 
>majority of hams, the little pistols, an opportunity 
to compete with each 
>other.  And we definitely do not want a height (22M) 
which just happens to 
>allow for 20M monobanders at a wave-length high.  It 
would defeat the 
>purpose.
>
>Those of us who want to compete with our towers at 
above 50 feet would not 
>be hurt in the slightest by having an antenna 
category which allowed the 
>little pistols the opportunity to compete with each 
other and gain 
>recognition.  We might come out way ahead, and even 
avoid the Sunday 
>Doldrums, by giving this encouragement to the little 
pistols.
>
>No, I don't think we need more categories.  Separate 
category for SO2R? 
>Nope, that relates to operator proficiency.  I can't 
do SO2R, and that is my 
>problem.  I do not want a separate category to 
protect me from the more 
>proficient operator.  He deserves to win.
>
>Incidentally, my pitch for a 50 foot category is not 
self serving.  I have a 
>72 foot crankup which will support 15 M at 37 and 72 
feet very nicely (when 
>I get around to it), or when the sun spots get 
better, perhaps 10 M at 37, 
>54, and 72 feet.  (I personally like Single Band.)  
More hardware makes more 
>Qs makes more fun, and I have no intention to play in 
the sub 50' category. 
>But I do strongly believe the contesting community 
would be better off with 
>such a category.
>
>Thanks for the BW.
>
>73, Rusty, na5tr 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-
contest