[CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category

[Richard Detweiler]

This idea I could agree with,

The idea of being able to 'compete' for my antenna category is something 
that would allow me to have a chance at a certificate.

Exceptions might be on 80M and 160M where the beverages/ewe type antennas 
have more to do with success than the transmit antenna.

Rigs don't matter much at all,  the antenna is the big dividing line.   You 
need land and towers to put up a good antenna farm.  Almost all the cost of 
a really good station goes into the antenna systems.  For good reason.  That 
is where you can get the most DB gain on receive and far more DB gain at 100 
Watts on transmit than a full legal limit amplifier to a small antenna.

I am only allowed a 30 foot ground mounted vertical in my neighborhood,  
others have to use their rain gutters or some other stealthy antenna.

So When I get on a contest,  I operate for the contacts as there are far 
fewer pile ups.  I can usually get in with my 'weak' signal to that rare DX 
or US-county.

Would be nice to place well for once.

Best 73's
Rich
K5SF


>From: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill at earthlink.net>
>To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] Limited Antenna Height Category
>Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:20:04 -0600
>
>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