[CQ-Contest] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE
vk7gn at bigpond.com
Thu Jan 21 02:20:21 PST 2010
Just shows how good data is dependent on the assumptions.
VK5GN entered assisted only because he was silly enough to listen to a
friend on 2 metres tell him of a new mult then went and worked it (it
was a new country for my dxcc) so felt duty bound not to enter as
unassisted! It was also not a "full on" operation.
VK4VU/VK5GN/VK7GN have NEVER used assistance from other operators via
packet or internet in contests. Single op means one operator to me.
Having said that I am on the Oceania Contest committee and we allow
assistance to all single ops. The argument is that for Oceania stations
it is pretty irrelevant - you run and get mults that way and the points
system is such that it overcomes the multiplier strategy. However for DX
entrants trying to find the quite rare Oceania stations it seems
reasonable that they should use any means to help. Furthermore we want
maximum participation from casual operators who may just see a few calls
on the cluster and join in.
Alfred Frugoli wrote:
> 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
>>> totals. For a top SOSB entrant, I would expect to see totals similar to
>>> MM because just like a MM, a SOSB entrant can be on that band for 48
>>> straight, working the weird short small openings that are not worth a
>>> 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
>>> 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).
>> 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
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest