[CQ-Contest] arrl correction factor
tony.kaz at verizon.net
Wed Jul 6 12:02:10 PDT 2011
As W8JI and others pointed out there are many factors involved besides
distance. In some cases such as 10M, particularly with present band
conditions those closer to the US may be at a disadvantage. It is not fun to
listen to zone 10, 11, 12, 13 stations running the US on 10M when those of
us in the northern parts of the Caribbean can't hear the US stations and can
only dream of their runs.
Hey, maybe for closer in stations such as in the Leeward Islands we should
be allocated time off and a special distance multiplier when the sun is hot
and the rum drinks along the beach are cold?
I vote to leave ARRL Test the way it is.
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Luc PY8AZT
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 7:21 AM
To: Martin , LU5DX
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] arrl correction factor
If this change will implemented on ARRL, we really do know, but If It
would every contester might be hazarded. Life would change, and
changes panic everyone. So, it's acceptable everyone is trying to
minimizing their impacts.
You hit the spot! Every point you got will represent the actually QSO
value, doesn't matter where you are or the path you signal took.
There is only one top 1st place, so let winner win and the others get
the score they deserve by working Distance, I mean DX.
PW7T Team member
WRTC.2010 Brazilian Team Leader
PY8AZT (also PT7AG, PX8C, ZZ8Z, ZY7C)
LABRE, ARRL, CWJF & Fortaleza DX Group Member
2011/6/30 Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar>
> Kind of a selfish point of view.
> We down here do not complain about having a small time window to work USA
> 160M , most probably just a couple of hours right before our sunrise
> of the time.
> But what does that have to do with assigning each QSO the value they have
> based on the distance and the challenge involved in working those
> What pressure are you talking about for other contest organizers?? They
> likely will not move a finger to change anything.
> Hats off to the ARRL for thinking about changing something that will
> EVERY SINGLE ENTRANT based on what really matters when it comes to DX
> contacts : DISTANCE!!!!!!!!!!! DX = DISTANCE. Get it??? No matter if your
> time window on 160 to EU is 48 hours, 1 hour or 2.5 minutes, or if your
> to EU is over the pole or beaming 90 degrees, or if the A index is 1 or
> Tom W8JI I must be one of your top fans in the universe, but come down to
> and build whatever you want and try to win 160 from here!
> You guys are really missing the point. It is not about WINING it about
> recognition to the effort it takes to make a QSO based on the most
> factor involved in DX communications = DISTANCE.
> Martin, Lu5dx
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Tom Haavisto <kamham69 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As Tom - W8JI has indicated, I don't see where such a scheme helps me
> > much, and folks west of me - who have even a tougher time working
> > Europe than I do - don't get much help either. Spend a few minutes
> > with Jim - VE7ZO, and I am sure he can fill you in on how propagation
> > is from this part of the world. It is what it is, and its a LOT
> > different than what you are seeing in the sunny south. Then again, no
> > hurricanes here either :-)
> > However, I see a far bigger problem looming. Lets assume you succeed
> > in your assault on Newington, and they implement the change you seem
> > so desperate to have. What then? EVERY major contest will then be
> > subject to the same pressure to "level the playing field" because
> > someone, somewhere is disadvantaged by where they live, and it would
> > be only fair to fix the scoring on those contests as well. Pretty
> > soon we will all need computer logging and scoring to try and figure
> > out where we can get the most points, what countries we should try and
> > work, and and and on. Then, we need to tweak the scoring a bit more
> > to make up for the folks that got short changed in the last set of
> > scoring adjustments... So we tweak it some more. And on and on we
> > go. To what end?
> > EVERY contest is not fair to someone, somewhere. At the same time,
> > that does not mean we cannot get on, have some fun, and do our best if
> > that is our motivation. With skill, practice, good engineering and a
> > bit of good luck, we can even win sometimes. That is why we have
> > different contests at different times of the year. You win some, you
> > loose some, and hopefully it all evens out in the end.
> > Please stop trying so hard to "win" the ARRL DX here on the Internet,
> > and do it on the air - just like the rest of us. If YOU cannot build
> > a winning station where you live, that's not MY problem.
> > Tom - VE3CX
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Rick Dougherty NQ4I
> > <nq4i at contesting.com> wrote:
> > > Here goes my take on how to fix ARRL.....
> > > assign points on the following formula
> > > 1000 miles = 1.0 points
> > > 2000 miles = 2.0
> > > 3000 miles =3.0 at so forth...so if W1 workd a DL1 and the distance is
> > > 2800 miles that equals 2.8 points
> > > W4 to DL1 is 3700 miles = 3.7 points
> > > W1 to JA = 10,000 miles = 10 points
> > > w4 to JA = 12,000 miles = 12 points
> > > W1 to FP8 = 370 miles = .37 points
> > > W4 to FP8= 1100 miles = 1.1 points
> > >
> > > It is a fairly easy alogrithym to implement....use the distances
> > > provided in the dat file in each computer based on the lat long of the
> > > stations.
> > >
> > > It will need to be tested to see how it affects score...but it is
> > > straight line distance based scoring system. I propose to make it fair
> > > it should go both ways..i.e. the DL1 station would get the same amount
> > > of points also...this would sure level things out.
> > >
> > > My whinning and complaining for the day.
> > >
> > > NQ4I
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest