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

[Richard DiDonna NN3W]

Here's my tally from the Sweeps SSB side...

Total worked from ON: 25

ONS: 9
GTA: 8
ONE: 5
ONN 3

The first ONN I worked was at 2253z Saturday and he gave me #19; the 
second one worked worked was at 0203z Sunday and he gave me #97; and, 
the third was worked at 0554z and he gave me #81

73 Rich NN3W

On 8/10/2012 9:41 AM, Steve London wrote:
> That's a rather remarkable result, Rich. We must not have been working the same
> contest.
>
> I went through my 2011 CW SS log. Having won the contest, and being located in a
> favorable location for working VE3 on the high bands, I think it represents a
> very good assessment of Ontario CW contest activity.
>
> Total Ontario worked: 23
>
> GTA: 11
> ONE: 7
> ONS: 5
> ONN: 0
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
> On 08/09/2012 08:51 PM, Richard DiDonna NN3W wrote:
>> 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
>> area.......
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>