[CQ-Contest] Remote Base

Mon Aug 22 08:07:26 EDT 2005

My opinion is that remote base operators should be given bonus points to
offset the difficulties in operating where you can't actually touch the
equipment.  The technical challenges and overcoming the operating problems
that this must introduce due to extra delays and retraining to not grab the
big knob should be recognized as a handicap to being competitive and be
rewarded, not hindered!  I say give them an extra 10% bonus for added level
of difficulty!

David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of N7MAL
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 04:42
> To: Bob Naumann - W5OV; 'W2RU - Bud Hippisley'; 'Richard Thorne'; cq-
> contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Base
> 
> For many years now I have been amazed at the way a subject, any subject,
> can get so twisted that it loses its original meaning.
> Bob I'm not picking on you but you said:""I felt that the comments were
> made in a more general sense than just towards
> the NAQP.  For example, his reference to W6RJ running "outrageous power".
> ""
> In my original posting I was referring specifically to NAQP and mentioned
> nothing else. My subsequent reply was to WA7BNM referencing his remarks
> regarding updating the NAQP rules. I don't know how my remarks could have
> been considered general. As for my comments about Bob, W6RJ, I used W6RJ
> as an example of remotes that can be and are being used today. I have
> nothing but respect for Bob and everything Bob has accomplished. He has
> been for many, many, years a proven DX'er and contester. I believe he has
> earned everyone's respect. That being said today, in time, he is using a
> remote base located at one of the highest points in the State of
> California. In addition he is running at least a KW. That gives him an
> unfair, very unfair, advantage over everyone else. It his right to use his
> remote base and is legal in every respect. He can, and does, compete with
> the east coast hams on 80/75m openings to Europe not to mention crushing
> those of us out here in the west on any opening. I
>  f he lived up on the mountain it would be different, but he doesn't.
> Saturday a friend of my was giving out points during NAQP from his house,
> on the east coast, via a remote TS2000 on a hilltop in Southern CA. I want
> guys w/remote stations to be able to contest, I want technology to move
> forward. But, at the same time, I think remotes need to be defined and
> some way segregated from the overwhelming majority who don't have remote
> capability.
> WA7BNM has said they are aware of the remotes and will be working on rules
> changes. I have every confidence Bruce will get it right and am willing to
> wait for the new/modified rules.
> Best 73
> 
> MAL         N7MAL
> BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
> http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
> http://geocities.com/n7mal/
> Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
> It's already tomorrow in Australia
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Bob Naumann - W5OV
>   To: 'W2RU - Bud Hippisley' ; n7mal at CITLINK.NET ; 'Richard Thorne'
>   Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 1:13
>   Subject: RE: Remote Base
> 
> 
>   Bud,
> 
>   I felt that the comments were made in a more general sense than just
> towards
>   the NAQP.  For example, his reference to W6RJ running "outrageous
> power".
> 
>   I also think that the rules I quoted convey a basic understanding that I
>   think most would presume would apply in all contests.  Specifically, for
>   something as fundamental as a station definition and limits.  If we
> don't
>   all agree on something that basic, something is seriously wrong.
> 
>   The NAQP, you have to remember, and I know you do, was originally the CD
>   Party sponsored by ARRL.  I suspect that not including such rules were
> an
>   oversight when the NAQP was established independently, rather than
>   intentionally opening the door to allowing for remote receiver sites in
>   multiple time zones in the NAQP for example.  I do think it would do the
>   NAQP good to adopt the ARRL general rules as applying to the NAQP as
> well in
>   order to help avoid this sort of "it's not specifically mentioned in the
>   rules" stuff.
> 
>   I also don't see any harm in the use of remote stations, as long as they
>   abide by the rules (CQ and/or ARRL).
> 
>   73,
>   Bob W5OV
> 
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: W2RU - Bud Hippisley [mailto:W2RU at frontiernet.net]
>   Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 7:30 PM
>   To: 'Bob Naumann - W5OV'; n7mal at CITLINK.NET; 'Richard Thorne'
>   Subject: RE: Remote Base
> 
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: Bob
>   > Naumann - W5OV
> 
>   > What Bruce says is correct.  On what basis are you challenging his
>   > statement?
>   >
>   > Contest rules do not allow for remote receiver sites.
> 
>   Not to be obtuse, Bob, but the contest rules you quoted are for ARRL and
> CQ
>   contests.  I find nothing in the four web pages of NAQP rules that
> tackles
>   the topic or ties NAQP rules in any way to ARRL's rules.  I think Mal's
>   point is well-taken for NAQP, which is what the original question
> pertained
>   to.
> 
>   Bud, W2RU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest