[CQ-Contest] Future WRC, WRTC
Kenneth E. Harker
kenharker at kenharker.com
Fri Feb 3 14:02:34 EST 2006
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:33:53AM -0500, K3BU at aol.com wrote:
> NN3W wrote:
> >>If there is one thing that has annoyed me about the WRTC point scoring
> system is that folks have entered categories and scores for operations
> conducted outside of the region that they've entered as a contestant. It
> seems strange when one tries to apply their results from Oceana in the ARRL
> DX contest when they live in the eastern section of the United States.<<
> While the original idea of selecting contesters based on their various
> results from contests over selected period was fine in the beginning, now when the
> WRTC is gaining in the significance, the problems are popping up. One,
> mentioned above, two, announcements of back timing. One would have to adjust his
> operating and selection of contests to maximize selection criteria points, etc.
> I think the idea of having regional qualifying rounds is the best, it does it
> under same conditions for those who choose to go for the ultimate, regardless
> how handicapped or located.
It's always seeemed odd to me that the Brazilians (et. al.) are in charge
of deciding how contesters get selected for Team Canada, Team France, etc.
Nobody expects the Bulgarians this year to be selecting the members of the
Czech Republic national ARDF team, for example. I think it would make more
sense for the WRTC committee to designate a certain number of teams to each
IARU member society and then leave it up to each member society as to how
they select their teams (be it some formula of general contest results,
qualifying competitions, voting, whatever they want.)
As an extra twist, maybe the bottom two or three places in the results
get recycled to new/other member societies in the next competition. Like,
if the USA had nine teams, and one of them finished in last place, next
year the USA only gets eight teams and that ninth slot goes to a new country
like New Zealand or Korea or whoever is next on the list.
> Chris wrote:
> > Wait... Design AND operate THEIR stations?
> > Well that leaves people like me out. Bummer.
> Obviously, nowadays, I didn't mean to build (solder) your station from
> I can see it as this:
> Specify weight limit (like 40 lbs or ?) for complete station, rig, antennas
> and bag to carry it in.
> DESIGN would mean using brains to assemble the station. Pick the rig (706,
> K2, TS870, SGC, ???) Amplifier ( ????) Antennas (wide open to ingenuity and
> compromise of weight of antennas vs. power and rest of the stuff) and gadgets
> (keyer, tuner, ????) or build your own.
> Sponsor would provide lottery style selected location which would consist of
> power, chair and table (plus antenna mast?). Easy to sponsor. All you need is
> one judge per location and one scale.
> Bands can be limited to 10 - 80 or whatever.
> Specify maximum number of seats and divide among continents according to
> contester's distribution.
> Competition can be in single op or tandem-op categories.
> This would involve true test of skills in what our sport is about -
> assembling the station and operating it by those who want to prove they are the best,
> of the best, of the best.
> It would also provide compact stations for emergency communications and with
> airline carry-on station in a bag. Chance for contesters to shine when
> disaster strikes.
> Any takers, comments?
> Yuri, K3BU.us
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker at kenharker.com
More information about the CQ-Contest