[CQ-Contest] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE

Wed Jan 20 10:16:46 PST 2010

Hello again everyone,

I've done some more looking at data, but I'm feeling a little limited by the
data that is easily available.  I'm looking at the CQWW Records instead of
results simply because they are readily available in a format I can import
to Excel easily to massage the data.  I'd love to do this same kind of
analysis with the overall results from several years of contests - that data
just is not readily available to me.

With that limitation in mind, what I think I'm finding (with purely the
data, no other information) is that serious ops who have really good skills
can do better with assistance.  However, it seems that when an entrant is
operating "more casually" they tend to operate in the assisted category, and
thus have lower scores not because they are assisted, but rather because
they are operating more casually.

For example, let's look at VK5GN and D4B SSB records for SOAB and SOAB(A).
Both records were set within a couple of years of each other, with the
larger score coming later in the solar cycle decline. The propigation
conditions would have been similar, although I do concede that specific
solar weather conditions (flares) are not take into consideration.  I've
been looking for a source of historical Solar Flux, Sunsupt Number,
Planateray A &K indices, but have not found anything comprehensive.  I have
found the following site (http://www.solen.info/solar/old_reports/) but it
only has data back to 2004.  Anybody know if a good source for historical
Solar Weather data?

  Category Call Score QSO's Zones Countries Year Zone  A VK5GN 3,709,900
2928 127 333 99 30  AA VK5GN 1,844,180 1841 108 238 97 30  A D4B(4L5A)
20,433,438 8799 172 674 04 35  AA D4B(4L5A) 11,567,412 5845 152 586 02 35

In the example above, there is the same operator, operating the same
station.  Now, within two years there could have been lots of station and/or
operator improvements, however the score differences are pretty significant.

Here's a few comparisons that go the other way:

   Category Call Score QSO's Zones Countries Year Zone  A VE3EJ 8,498,500
4603 164 575 02 4  AA VE3EJ(N5TJ) 11,080,260 5029 178 674 01 4  A S52AA
7,134,192 4378 151 473 92 15  AA OE4A(OE1EMS) 9,063,492 5118 164 640 04 15
A ER0WW(RL3FT) 5,517,720 5387 131 454 08 16  AA RU9WX 6,758,725 4091 125 536
07 16  A DU1/OH0XX 6,043,500 4341 138 336 94 27  AA KH2/N2NL 7,619,776 5156
151 385 99 27  A 5X1Z (SM7PKK) 4,900,518 3545 113 370 97 37  AA
5H3HK(JE3MAS) 5,786,933 4445 119 342 04 37
These all seem like pretty serious operations, from obviously competitive
stations.  In these cases assistance seems to have made the difference.

Looking at the following 12 "close races" (which I defined as generally
within 1meg points of each other) in the CQWW SSB records, the assisted
scores came out on top in 5 cases, or 42% of the time.  Again, this analysis
does not take into account other factors such as solar weather.

     Category Call Score QSO's Zones Countries Year Zone  A K6NA 3,642,240
2331 162 380 88 3  AA KI3V/7 2,299,142 1501 143 419 90 3  A VE3EJ 8,498,500
4603 164 575 02 4  AA VE3EJ(N5TJ) 11,080,260 5029 178 674 01 4  A VY2ZM
9,571,348 5854 134 494 07 5  AA KI1G 8,053,315 3768 168 617 01 5  A P40E
(CT1BOH) 15,583,506 7816 166 533 99 9  AA 9Y4ZC(DL6FBL) 14,979,055 8114 137
500 03 9  A CE3FIP 5,682,040 3990 135 355 91 12  AA CE3BFZ 4,607,938 3574
128 330 04 12  A S52AA 7,134,192 4378 151 473 92 15  AA OE4A(OE1EMS)
9,063,492 5118 164 640 04 15  A ER0WW(RL3FT) 5,517,720 5387 131 454 08 16
AA RU9WX 6,758,725 4091 125 536 07 16  A EX9A(UA3DPX) 7,270,560 4945 134 460
04 17  AA RG9A(UA9AM) 6,511,351 3374 155 566 04 17  A DU1/OH0XX 6,043,500
4341 138 336 94 27  AA KH2/N2NL 7,619,776 5156 151 385 99 27  A D4B(4L5A)
20,433,438 8799 172 674 04 35  AA D4B(4L5A) 11,567,412 5845 152 586 02
35  A 5X1Z
(SM7PKK) 4,900,518 3545 113 370 97 37  AA 5H3HK(JE3MAS) 5,786,933 4445 119
342 04 37  A TF1MM 1,949,184 2883 76 206 90 40  AA TF/N0HJZ 1,938,762 3454
73 249 05 40
My general "feeling" (meaning not directly data driven in any way) is that
operators tend to select the assisted class when they are operating "more
casually".  However, when an operator is doing a full tilt operation,
assistance does make a difference in the total possible multipliers AND
overall score.

I also draw the opinion that operating skills, operator dedication and
station design are much more important than assistance in achieving a good
overall score.

In the end, I still dont' think that SOAB entries (assited or not) will ever
rival MM mult totals - and if they do, their q totals will have suffered
significantly.  Records will continue to fall, maybe because of cheating (I
hope not), or maybe because of better equipment and operators.  Either way,
it's all just a very interesting game.

As before, this is posted to my blog as well (http://wp.me/pdJH2-1H), in
case the tables don't format right in your e-mail.

73 de Al, KE1FO

-----
Check out my Amateur Radio Contesting blog at ke1fo.wordpress.com.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Bill Tippett <btippett at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Alfred Frugoli <ke1fo at arrl.net> wrote:
>
> > Again, really?  I'm not buying it in either theory, or looking at the
> mult
> > totals.  For a top SOSB entrant, I would expect to see totals similar to
> a
> > MM because just like a MM, a SOSB entrant can be on that band for 48
> hours
> > straight, working the weird short small openings that are not worth a
> SOAB
> > entrant chasing.  In fact, the chart I just posted on my blog
> > (http://wp.me/pdJH2-1y) using CQWW SSB 2007 results shows that the world
> > winner SOSB entrants (who cannot use assistance) matched or beat the
> world
> > winner MM (who can use assistance) in mults.
>
> The problem with your analysis is that you're comparing across
> different geographical regions.  For example 10 and 15m propagation
> from Tunisia is not as good as from the southern hemisphere.  This is
> why all CQ WW World Records for both modes on 10 & 15 are from South
> America.  Similarly z33 is usually favored for the low bands.
>
> A top SOSB entrant can never compare with top MM multipliers from the
> same geographic area.  In 21 major DX contests over the last cycle, I
> never had multipliers close to the top 3 MMs (not always the same ones
> BTW) even though my QSO totals were higher on average.  This included
> setting current USA records for all 6 contests (both modes CQ WW, ARRL
> DX and WPX).
>
> http://users.vnet.net/btippett/new_page_6.htm
>
> The reasons for higher MM mults are:
>
> 1.  Packet spot alert MMs for marginal (weak) openings that might not
> be found by a SOSB (e.g. spots from another part of the world).
> 2.  Rare mults spend a short time on a given band when the SOSB is
> focused on rate (e.g. 12-16z  and 22-01z on 10m must be focused
> exclusively on rate to EU/JA)
> 3.  Passing mults from other bands.
>
> Using Packet would give an SOSB entrant the advantages of MM
> advantages 1 and 2 above, but still not 3.
>
> I'm glad the CQWW Committee is taking the stance they are.  You can
> either enforce the rules or not, and it's definitely more work to
> enforce them.  An analogy might be drugs in sports.  We can say
> everyone is doing it and therefore we'll stop testing, but that is NOT
> the right answer.  Combining SO and SOA may be easy for the sponsor
> but that's a cop-out IMHO.
>
> 73,  Bill  W4ZV
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>