[CQ-Contest] CR3L Category Switch and PJ2T
tonno.vahk at gmail.com
Wed Dec 9 07:27:28 EST 2015
The funny thing here is that even if CR3L had stayed in MM it would be way
premature to hang gold medals on PJ2T guys:)
Nobody seems to notice that W3LPL is just 0.6% away by the raw scores and
judging by the fact that Frank's crew has been able to match or beat PJ2T's
UBN every single time in the last 5 years I would rather place my bets on
So maybe it was W3LPL who was actually "robbed" from their historic World
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Jeff Maass K8ND
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 8:06 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Cc: 'W0CG Geoff Howard'; 'Jim Galm'; KB7Q Gene Shea
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CR3L Category Switch and PJ2T
I was one of the operators at PJ2T during the CQWW CW contest. This posting
is my personal opinion, and doesn't speak for the PJ2T CQWW CW Team or the
CCC club as a whole
On the day before the submission deadline, I predicted to the
prematurely-celebrating PJ2T team members that CR3L would change categories
from Multi-2 to Multi-Multi, based on the scores posted to 3830. This has
happened to us before, and had prompted us to withhold 3830 postings until
after posting deadlines for several years. It will likely do so again.
I collected screen captures from the 3830 and the CQ 'Logs Received' website
showing the progression of the CR3L submissions, and have now gathered them
on a web page at <http://www.k8nd.com/Radio/temp/CR3L_Category.html>
First, it is fact that CR3L first submitted their log to CQ in the 'Multi-Op
Two' (Multi-2) category.
Second, it is fact that CR3L later submitted their log to CQ in the
'Multi-Op Unlimited' (Multi-Multi).
Third, it is fact that there was nothing contrary to the rules in doing so.
I have seen an email from one of the principle operators at CR3L that the
reason for the category switch was some question about their lock-out of a
multiplier station in the first six hours of the contest. I have no reason
to believe or disbelieve that claim, but 'It Just Doesn't Matter'. A Multi-2
meets the requirements for Multi-Multi, and is free to submit in that
category. Is it "slimy" or "unsportsmanlike" to do so based on 3830 scores
reported? I'm too close to the issue to make judgement, and leave such
attributions to the contesting community and the CQ Contest Committee.
Should a Multi-Multi PJ2T have beat the score of a Multi-2 CR3L: YES. I
attribute that we did not run up a larger score than CR3L on some events
beyond our control:
1. PJ2T suffered a power failure, requiring us to run low power under
generator power on 40, 20, 15 and 10 meters for 6+ hours on Saturday during
2. PJ2T suffered a 13+ hour Internet failure during the daylight hours on
Sunday, requiring us to operate without PacketCluster and Skimmer Server
3. One of our PJ2T ops fell ill in Miami Airport on his way to Curacao, and
was in the hospital throughout the contest. In addition to losing his
skilled operator services, in his luggage were necessary parts for our DX
Engineering 4-square receiving system and a laptop that was key to our
planned on-site CW Skimmer system for 160- and 80-meters.
So, congratulations to CR3L, who will be first in Multi-Multi category
unless log checking swaps our places, or they are disqualified or demoted to
'Check Log' for some unrelated rules violation.
73, Jeff K8ND
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest