[CQ-Contest] RTTY replace CW contesting??
aa4lr at arrl.net
Sat Jun 14 12:48:42 EDT 2008
On Mar 28, 2008, at 6:13 PM, Steve London wrote:
> Let's split these up and look at them case-by-case.
> [CQ WW RTTY]
> That should not even be considered until CQWW RTTY has the same
> rules and
> scoring as the real CQWW contests, such as 0 points for intra-
> country QSO's.
> [ARRL RTTY RU]
> Possibly. Push the idea with KX9X, the ARRL contest manager.
> [WPX RTTY]
> WPX RTTY. Another contest with inferior rules compared to WPX Phone
> and WPX CW.
> Clean up your act, then ask the question.
> [SS RTTY]
> Yeah...change the ARRL RTTY Roundup to ARRL RTTY SS. Makes good sense.
The rule differences between the CQ WW and WPX contest, as well as
those between the SS and RU contests are most likely due to the same
cause: The number of potential RTTY operators has historically been
much lower than that for CW or Phone.
If you've ever operated the NAQP RTTY (which has only one minor rule
difference -- no 160m) in comparison to the NAQP CW or Phone, there's
quite a dramatic difference in rate, even when propagation is good.
In order to keep the CQ WW, WPX and even RU contests interesting, the
contest sponsors have adopted rules accordingly. While these rules
might seem to "easy" on CW or Phone, they might not seem so lenient
with a pool of operators 1/10 to 1/20th the size.
I wonder if the same was true back in the earliest days of contesting,
when all hams operated CW and only a few were able to work Phone.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
More information about the CQ-Contest