[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules (draft 2)

Anthony Scandurra K4QE k4qe at att.net
Mon Jun 17 14:29:00 EDT 2013

I agree 100% with Mike's statements.  The allowance of M1 plus multiplier(s)
has made it impossible for the true single transmitter stations to compete.

73, Tony K4QE

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
W0MU Mike Fatchett
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:11 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules (draft 2)

Thanks Randy and all that helped in this 2nd revision.

My question concerns Multi One or Multi two. To me and more casual ops,
Multi One means Multiple operators one radio/transmitter. Multi Two means
Multiple operators two radios/transmitters.

The rules in Version 1 attempted to limit the number of radios/transmitters
being used in these classes.  Now that appears to have been over turned.

I never understood the purpose of the multiplier station in the M1 scenario.
Do we really need a multiplier station?  Multi entries have the full use of
packet and RBN.

Is the intent to have 3 or more operators manning radios searching out mults
or scanning the same band with a TX lockout which essentially turns another
radio into a multiplier radio on the same band.

Why have we gone back to one transmitted signal?

Multi one should be one rig and multiple ops who can change bands when they
want and take turns at the single radio.  If you want a 10 minute rule so be

Multi Two is as above with 2 radios/transmitters.  The ops can choose how to
run those 2 transmitters/rigs how they wish with whatever minute rule you

MM is many ops and many radios doing many things but limited to one signal
per band at any one time.

Do we really want or need M1 stations built with lockouts so that 4 or more
people are operating at the same time?  Is this the true intent of the

Are these changes catering to a few small groups who have pushed the
envelope of what M1 is?  These new changes appear to be re-written for the 1
or 2 percenters and not how most of the people view the M1 or M2 classes.

The only reason I can see that the mult station was added to M1 was to give
bigger M1 team members something to do.  Why would those entries simply not
move into the M2 class?

M1 and M2 are simply subclasses of the MM.  You build a big MM station and
then pull apart pieces of it to accommodate the rule variation.  If you have
more than two radios capable of transmitting at a M1 or M2 aren't you really
a MM?

Why not write the rules for the average participant where a single tower
with antennas on all bands could be competitive in a true M1 class where it
is one op and one rig where a few people get together that don't want to
operate the entire contest themselves, who would rather give it their all
for 4 or 8 or 12 hours etc or they have more fun operating as a team.  If
you have a slightly bigger tower/station or more operators then move up to
M2 with two Rigs.

We need to get back to more simplified rules that address how most people
operate the contest not create rules and classes for a handful of
extreme/elite ops and stations.

Mike W0MU

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list