[CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions

[Yuri]

I'd like to thank John W2GD for taking his time to comment on my post. Obviously, opinion of such well known and famous contester and Dxpeditioner is greatly appreciated here.
Also thanks to the Moderators for allowing this civilized discussion to continue. :-)

Besides some misinterpretation of the my words in the original post I would tend to agree with John on one thing - yes, there are SOME well-organized DXpeditions, Top World Class ones, usually 1-2 a year, that doesn’t' necessarily lean on QSL/donation support and his example of KP5 and KP1 was a very good one! But I have to agree with Mats RM2D that those DXpeditions were in the pre-FT8 days...

To defend my point I have to ask John 2 questions (since he chose to talk on behalf of ALL DX expeditions):

1. If you say that one of the main DXpeditions goals is to provide an opportunity for those running 100 watts (and those who probably don't use very good antennas), then why most, if not all, DXpeditions do not upload their LOGs to LOTW right away? I would see it pretty logical if the goal would be just to help those "poor souls" to get their new ones... Instead we see 6, 9 months and in some cases 1 year delay.

2. John, if you look at OQRS on CLubLOG and on some of the DXpeditions websites, you should have noticed that a lot of them request $4, $5 or in some cases even more for a direct QSL card. The cost of mailing a letter overseas from the States is now at $1.15. And in most countries this cost rarely goes above $2...$3. So, where the rest of the money goes? :-)

Again, I'm not judging here. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just stating the facts.

And my original post was actually not about DXpeditions and donations, it was mainly about intended multi-channel streams in the future FT8/FT4 contests and how it is going to correlate with well-know PJ4G after which the rules for the ARRL Contests were changed.

Thank you.

73 Yuri  VE3DZ
Also 6Y2T  8P3A  8P9AA  9N1UZ  HC2TDZ  HD2T  N2WCQ  P40T  PZ5T  TO2U  UT4UZ  V31UZ  VE2IM  VO1AAM  VP9FOC  VY2IA  ZF1DZ  4J1FS (op.) …/FP  …/VP9 …/KP4  …/PP5 …/S5 …/SV2 …/TF  etc. 



-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of John Crovelli
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 10:45 AM
To: Yuri; cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions

I want to take a moment to dispel the notion suggested by Yuri that DXpedition operating strategy is all about financial considerations.  It simply isn't for well planned operations.

It is the intent of virtually every DXpedition to provide an opportunity for those running 100 watts or more to work an ATNO.  DXpeditions teams are constantly considering ways to reach the broadest possible audience while on site.

The implication that operating strategy and mode selection is all about post operation donations (to cover costs) is just not true.  Well organized teams have these issues resolved well in advance.

I've been on some large DXpeditions (KP5 and KP1 - both were top ten world).  Our operating teams NEVER set goals based upon donations, and in fact, this issue was never even discussed since no one felt it to be important.  Again, financing issues were resolved well before we ever departed for the islands.

We did however (on a daily basis) take stock of propagation, probably of openings, and how we were providing global coverage ... to prevent missing opportunities to those regions traditionally most difficult.  As a tool, FT8 can be useful.

FT8 modes are providing options not previously available and for the most part now replaces RTTY activity.   It is my expectation CW and SSB will always be the main modes for DXpeditions.

John, W2GD aka P40W/P44W

________________________________
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of Yuri <ve3dz at rigexpert.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:57 PM
To: 'Jeff Clarke' <ku8e at ku8e.com>; cq-contest at contesting.com <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification

>>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting FT8 first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't the future of ham radio.

I might not be politically correct, but why not to mention that one of the all of the DXpeditions' goals is to try to maximize the overall QSO count in order to get more donation? That's what hiding behind "best kept secret" (that everybody knows) of F/H mode in FT8 in my opinion.
I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it's a fact.
Multi-channel streams need to be prohibited, otherwise it looks like hypocrisy.
I still remember how the rules for M/S in the ARRL Contests were changed under the pressure after PJ4G(?) team managed to have 2 stations on the same band (even not at the same time).

Yuri VE3DZ

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Clarke
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:51 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification

Didn't someone create a FT8 contest reflector? It would be nice to take all these comments over there. Seems like FT8 is monopolizing the contest reflector just like it is on the air.

Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting FT8 first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't the future of ham radio.

BTW I do operate some FT8 because I'm working on a the digital DXCC.
(because there is hardly any RTTY activity outside of contests) Now that I've reached 100 countries I'm starting to get bored with it.

Jeff



_______________________________________________
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