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

David Gilbert ab7echo at gmail.com
Mon Nov 16 19:52:48 EST 2020

On 11/16/2020 3:22 PM, jimk8mr at aol.com wrote:
> 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.
 >> Except that they would be competing against other stations that 
could do exactly the same thing, and is part of what I meant when I said 
that it opens up some interesting strategy considerations.  I'll repeat 
... this is a new and separate category, it's not a change to the 
traditional M/M category like you stated.<<

> 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.
 >>The number of M/M entries compared to the number of single op entries 
is marginal at best.  I don't see this new category as changing that 
situation ... and if it does it simply means that it is a popular idea.  
Why would that be bad?<<

> 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.
 >>You mean like already happens for various single op categories???  
How is this any different?<<

> 73  -  Jim  K8MR

I'm not trying to be a cheerleader for this new category, but I don't 
see what all the fuss is about it.  I think there are more valid 
complaints about the changes to unassisted operation.


Dave   AB7E

> -----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 <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest 
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list