[CQ-Contest] Annual Suggestion

Richard L. King k5na at ecpi.com
Tue Feb 20 09:49:49 EST 2007

At 02:41 2/20/2007, Eric Hilding wrote:
>John K1AR, wrote:
> > If we introduced a 36-hour group, a subset of those operators who  continue
> > to "lose" in their newly created category would want to parse  it 
> further. It$
> > an endless downward spiral.
>Based upon comments in support of such a venue, maybe THEE solution 
>is not a separate category, but as N3BB suggested, to go the route 
>of WPX, etc. and max the SO time at 36 hours.
>Let's see:  WPX, SS, CQP & others have SO time limits out of the 
>total event hours, so an established precedent exists for such a venue.
>However, God Forbid anyone screw with the existing 48 hours for the 
>M/S, M/2 or M/M categories, and I in no way advocate any changes thereto.
>Rick, K6VVA

If a 36 hour rule is enforced, what category will I be placed in when 
I operate for more than 36 hours?

I suppose it would have to be M/M category. And I guess this is a 
good way to get more M/M entries in the contest. There are so few now.

If I did a 40 hour S/O without packet, would I still be in the M/M 
category with M/M stations that use packet. Or do we make a category 
called "S/Os who can operate more than 36 hours" both assisted and 
not assisted?

Seriously, if we start limiting S/O time in these contests to 
accommodate our aging process, it is the beginning of the end of 
contesting. We are effectively saying that when we die, contesting 
dies with us because there is no young (48 hour capable) blood out there.

I know the dangers of sitting in one place for 48 hours and I am 
adjusting my own operating habits to try and have less stress on my 
body. But I don't expect the contests will be changed to accommodate 
my personal aging process just to make me more competitive.

73, Richard - K5NA

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list