[CQ-Contest] Rule Changes for the CQ WW WPX SSB and CW Contests in 2021

[jimk8mr at aol.com]

I see two bad, or at least less than desirable features:

1.  The same country/same zone limit is way too loose. The guy at the station in Maine messages the station in Miami "I can't raise this BY mult here on 15. Can you QSY to work him?"  Something along the lines of 150 mile radius would be better.

2. Contests are better served by having lots of different stations to work. If multiple stations show up in the contest as one station, that's fewer people for everybody else to work.


I don't see "lesser stations" having much fun collaborating when the competition or benchmark is the group that sucks up all the good rent-a-stations for the weekend.


73  -  Jim  K8MR



-----Original Message-----
From: David Gilbert <ab7echo at gmail.com>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 16, 2020 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Changes for the CQ WW WPX SSB and CW Contests in 2021



It's a new M/M category, not a replacement for the existing M/M 
category.   It's an "addition", not a "change".   What causes that to be 
such a bad idea?  Maybe it is, but I'm having a difficult time seeing 
it.  If anything it makes an interesting possibility for lesser stations 
to collaborate, and I could imagine that it opens up some interesting 
strategy considerations.

Dave   AB7E


"The 2021 CQ WW WPX RTTY, SSB and CW contests will include a new
Multi-Transmitter Distributed category.  Stations operating in this category
may have a maximum of six transmitted signals, one per band at any one time,
from stations in different locations.  All equipment, including
remotely-controlled equipment, must be located in same DXCC entity and CQ
Zone.  Six bands may be activated simultaneously.  This is a new,
stand-alone category.  It is not intended to replace, or compete with, other
multi-operator categories."

  



On 11/16/2020 11:42 AM, K8MR via CQ-Contest wrote:
> The more troubling change to me is the essentially no-limits distributed multiops. Competitive Multi-op, especially multi-multi, over the years has been a category for conspicuous consumption station builders, combined with the chance for folks to spend a weekend hanging out with other serious contesters. With COVID I understand a place for distributing some stations over a relatively small geographical area. And likewise having remote operators operating a station with the equipment and antennas in one place.  But having a multi with transmitters and receivers in Maine and in Miami, and anywhere in between, switching back and forth between bands to take advantage of propagation advantages from a particular location, is crazy. While this change is presently just for WPX, if it is also a test run for CQWW, it's a very bad idea.
> While over the years I've done a lot of multi-ops from K8AZ, mostly in the ARRL and CQWW DX tests, operating as part of a "multi" while sitting at my own station leaves me cold. And the contests benefit from having more calls available to work, rather than putting in single call "multi" efforts tying up lot of stations and people.
>
> 73  -  Jim  K8MR

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