[CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions
robert
wa1fcn at charter.net
Fri Aug 16 10:21:46 EDT 2019
GM Ria
A few comments:
I have no information and did not comment on "conspiracies about it
being a money thing "
Your achievements are very nice. Did you use Low Power?
Were FT8 part of this ? During the 6 months of my using FT8
about 1 1/2 years ago I could not believe the number of YB's
and other
rare DX that were easily worked on 40 meters. Is it really fair
for so many
other many hams trying for a decent number of DXCC countries for
years to all of a sudden see others with high country totals
using FT8
after just a couple years ?
FT8 certainly has it's place in ham radio, but the ARRL
DXCC program
needs a serious new look when it comes mixing up FT8 with CW,
SSB, and RTTY.
73 BoB WA1FCN
On 8/15/2019 8:32 AM, rjairam at gmail.com wrote:
> It took me 13 years to get 327 DXCC, challenge 1900+ and 9 band DXCC
> including 160. I did my first DXCC in one year from a mobile station
> with a 6 foot whip.
>
> I did most of it on CW.
>
> I really don’t see how FT8 made it any easier.
>
> The reason it takes so little time now is because of the DX cluster
> and all of the data aggregation tools.
>
> The game changes, and if anything FT8 has made it harder for those of
> us who can just get in/out of a CW/SSB pileup because we developed
> that skill. But it has made DX possible for those who live in
> apartments and other heavily restricted places.
>
> At the League we discuss this and the consensus generally is that FT8
> is popular and brings in new operators. It’s a good thing. Separating
> them would tell ops who operate this mode that they are somehow not
> real hams or real DXers which is not a message to be sending.
> Especially since the average age of DXers is trending higher.
>
> The conspiracies about it being a money thing really aren’t valid. If
> anything processing the increased volume of QSLs and LoTW server load
> costs the League money, so it’s definitely not a money maker.
>
> 73
> Ria
> N2RJ
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:08 AM robert <wa1fcn at charter.net
> <mailto:wa1fcn at charter.net>> wrote:
>
> GM Matts/Yuri
>
> I agree with you about the ARRL's DXCC credit system.
>
> A mistake for sure. As a life long low power operator it has
>
> taken me 54 years to reach 40 meter DXCC of 280. By allowing
>
> FT8 credits mixed in with every thing I foresee in the near
> future,
>
> many achieving this in 10 years or less of effort. At
> the
> next sun spot
>
> cycle peak high DXCC totals on 10, 12, and 15 will be
> meaningless. I
>
> know of hams who no longer take part in DXCC for just
> this reason.
>
> FT8 credit for DXCC is fine, but keep it separated from
> single
> band/mixed
>
> mode totals.
>
> 74 BoB WA1FCN
>
> On 8/15/2019 1:30 AM, Mats Strandberg wrote:
> > I tend to agree with Yury.
> >
> > CY9 was much more balanced between modes, than the 3D2 (or least
> that was
> > my perception).
> >
> > It might be so that at the time of John’s (GD) participation in
> KP5 and
> > KP1, that there was no ambition to maximize the revenue through
> donations
> > (before, during and after the expedition). I don’t question that.
> >
> > However, since FT8 appeared as an equal mode for DXCC (along
> with CW,SSB
> > and RTTY), it definitely has changed some expeditions into becoming
> > automated QSO/QSL-creating machines...
> >
> > John, during KP1/KP5, the FT modes were not available, so
> comparison might
> > not be fully relevant.
> >
> > It is maybe good that FT8 will bring new “DXers” to the table,
> but the
> > appearance of this dull mode... has forever changed the feeling
> of “being
> > on the other side of the expedition”, and most likely also, being an
> > operator of that expedition as well.
> >
> > I question myself, what is the pleasure of being that rare DX,
> giving out
> > the ATNOs and the new band points, when the reality is that NO
> operator
> > skills are required from me to make those “contacts” happen!
> >
> > Before, good DX-expeditions we’re separated by less good ones,
> because of
> > operator skills. How wonderful was it not to listen to great
> operators,
> > handling thousand of callers, to maximize the number of contacts
> and happy
> > DXers on the other side?
> >
> > Those days were interesting and a memory of our past. The new
> FT8 euphoria
> > has forever changed the perception of DX-big, thanks to ARRL’s
> greed for
> > award revenue ;(
> >
> > And, what we now see is the result of the wrong decision to
> equalize FTx,
> > JT and other artificial modes, with RTTY, SSB and CW, and accept
> them for
> > DXCC Mixed.
> >
> > The correct way would have been to create FT/JT DXCC separate
> from Classic
> > DXCC...
> >
> > DXCC as we all knew it, has been hurt tremendously by ARRL
> unthoughtful
> > decision to accept FT/JT in Mixed!
> >
> > 73 de RM2D (Mats)
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 05:14, John Crovelli <w2gd at hotmail.com
> <mailto:w2gd at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> <mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com>> on behalf of Yuri <
> >> ve3dz at rigexpert.net <mailto:ve3dz at rigexpert.net>>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:57 PM
> >> To: 'Jeff Clarke' <ku8e at ku8e.com <mailto:ku8e at ku8e.com>>;
> cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com> <
> >> cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto: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
> <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list