[CQ-Contest] Fwd: [N1MM] New RAC (ARRL contest) sections

Richard DiDonna NN3W richnn3w at verizon.net
Thu Aug 9 19:51:26 PDT 2012

I ran my log from last year against the maps from the new Ontario 
sections and found that I worked at least 3 stations in each section.

I'll also add that the addition of new sections/new multipliers often 
breeds activity.  This was certainly the case with the Mexican states in 
ARRL 10. You could also get a new multiplier in NAQP in the mid-atlantic 

73 Rich NN3W

On 8/9/2012 11:36 AM, w5ov at w5ov.com wrote:
> Kelly,
> I think some of this is much more practical and the amount of potential
> difficulty may exceed "big whoop" status.
> The key is how to identify which of these new sections one is in.
> How likely is it that casual SS entrants in Ontario will not know which
> one of these new sections they're in? How many SS entrants are in each of
> these new sections? Will they know which section they're in?
> I think that if they had announced these new sections would be used in the
> 2013 running of SS, giving a full year+ to communicate it and allow people
> to be informed, it might have been a better decision.
> It all seems a bit rushed - and unnecessary. It also seems a bit odd that
> the ham population of VE3 was so unmanageable that it had to be divided
> into 4 pieces. It also stands to reason that GTA is going to be the
> biggest population - no?
> 73,
> Bob W5OV
>> Paul,
>> I'm afraid the logic of your argument might not quite hold water.
>> ALL ARRL sections exist purely for administrative purposes. None exists
>> for
>> contesting reasons. That each section is also an SS multiplier is simply a
>> fringe benefit.
>> There's more to creating a section than saying 'You're a section.'
>> The logic also falls apart when you consider the history of ARRL Sections.
>> Every time a new section was added before, it became by default a
>> multiplier
>> in SS. California wasn't always LAX, SD, SJV and so on, and Florida wasn't
>> always NFL, SFL and WCF. WTX is also relatively new. Should ARRL have
>> ignored every new section each time a section was added?
>> The SS rules say the multipliers are ARRL and RAC sections: the new
>> sections
>> are RAC sections. I fail to see why they shouldn't be multipliers too.
>> So a sweep got a bit harder. Big whoop.
>> 73, kelly
>> ve4xt
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list