[CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest

[jimk8mr at aol.com]

Hi Dennis,
I'd suggest a somewhat middle ground: digital modes (FT*, etc.) and analog modes (SSB, CW, FM voice, etc.). 

And then allow single "mode" or mixed "mode" (analog - digital) entries, with repeat QSOs on the other mode.
It did not happen for me this weekend, but it has not been unusual in the past to have cross-mode QSOs - CW to SSB. I would not want to make those impossible, as most were me calling a distant station on CW who was unable to copy me on SSB. 

As for CW vs. SSB, I had just about the same number of QSOs on each of those modes. Maybe because it was easier to punch F1 with the left hand and punch "page down" with the right hand as I was reading the online news on a separate computer.
And thanks for that CW QSO!

73  -  Jim   K8MR



 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis McAlpine <dbmcalpine73 at gmail.com>
To: K9JK.cq <K9JK.cq at gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Sumner <sumner at snet.net>; Com' <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 23, 2019 1:00 pm
Subject: [CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest

GM John,

 

I enjoyed the past weekend and the CQ VHF Contest quite a lot.  For once,
there was propagation from SC to most areas East of the Mississippi both
afternoons.  I, for once, actually thought I had done pretty well
considering that I only run about 400 watts into an H-Doublebay antenna with
the top at about 35' above ground.  I ended up `with 326 QSOs and 120 grid
squares for a score of 39,120, all on 6M.  I have not used FT8/FT4 in
contests since I think it is against the principle that these contests are a
test of operator skill as much as equipment savy.  I was a bit surprised
when I filled in the 3830 score submittal that it did not request a
breakdown by mode into CW, SSB, digital but then there was no separate
category within the contest either.  All was fine until I started seeing
other scores coming in.

 

It fast became obvious that unless one used the digital modes, they would be
banished to the lower echelons of the standings and my score quickly slid
down the rankings.    So, I started looking at the top scores for 6M.  I was
amazed at how many digital QSOs these scores contained.  For example, K1TO
had 150 FT8 QSOs out of 715 in total, which was 21%.  Similarly, N4BP had
194 digital out of 673 total (29%); W5PR had 157 out of 564 (28%); KU8E had
88/508 (17%); N4PN 212/312 for 68%; WQ5L 103/445 (23%); and W4PV 124/193
(64%).  

 

Even more important was the much higher number of grid squares worked.  It
would appear that digital added 20-80 grid squares to the total mult.  I
can't break it sown further because the summaries do not ask for such a
breakdown in the submittal.  Again, there are no numbers to back this up,
but how many EU stations did you work on CW or SSB?  Probably not many (I
had none and heard none) .  But, I bet the top digital scores were loaded
with DX QSOs that other modes never heard or had a chance of hearing.  No
wonder the mult totals were so high.  I never worked anyone west of the
Mississippi so I was really sucking wind.  

 

In looking at the total scores, I saw one very startling fact.  Of the top
three scorers, K1TO had 6 CW QSOs, N4BP had 1 and W5PR had 1.  To say they
ignored the CW mode is an understatement.  It is evident from these numbers
that CW is an endangered species when it comes to the CQ VHF Contest.  If I
wanted to use digital modes, I would certainly ignore CW in the future if I
wanted a higher score. 

 

I respectively request that you consider the following proposals.  First,
require submittal forms to include a breakdown of CW, SSB, Digital (maybe
broken down into FT-4 and FT-8) QSOs and mults.  I think these are easily
found on logging programs like n1mm+.  This would probably require that
mults be counted per mode and that QSOs could be made with the same person
on different modes.  Then, valid comparisons could be made.  Second, allow
mode entries.  A competitor could submit multiple logs, i.e. one for CW, one
for SSB, one for digital and one for combined.  It would make the log
checkers job easier.  Think of how tough it was to make QSOs when conditions
were not as good as they were last weekend.  Allowing QSOs per mode would
triple the number of possible QSOs and keep the contest from being a real
drag. 

 

Let's adapt the rules to the situation before it becomes too late and CW
sinks down into the mud, never to raise its head again.  

 

73,

Dennis, K2SX

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest