[TOEC] Fw: Fw: SAC CW SM5MX SOAB LP

[sm6lrr at gmail.com]

Why not Rolf?

Maybe an idea worth to consider for the future SAC CC.

73 de LRR


 ----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
Från:Rolf Salme, SM5MX
Till:toec at contesting.com
Ämne:[TOEC] Fw:  Fw:  SAC CW SM5MX SOAB LP


Micke,

>>One could however discuss, why single monobanders should not be allowed 
>>if a OB16-3 is allowed, since its pretty much a bunch of monobanders on 
>>the same boom.

>>Its tricky stuff...


The situation today, with separate LP categories for some sort of "LP in 
general" vs. LP with "TB & Wires", means in reality "Monobanders" vs. 
"Tribanders", which is a rather pointless distinction. 

Hence my proposal "LP Beam(s)" vs. "LP No Beam(s)". This would 
automatically take care of the kind of "tricky stuff" issues you raised. 

73,
Rolf
SM5MX


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mikael Larsmark <mike at sm3wmv.com>
To: toec at contesting.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [TOEC] Fw:  SAC CW SM5MX SOAB LP

Hello

I think in the TS category, there should be a very clear definition of 
what is allowed.

For example, my opinion is
Single triband beam, that means no stacks but a FB33, KT34XA, OB16-3 etc.
Single element, is according to me a single vertical or a dipole

I don't have any problem with such a category. It still doesn't make it 
an leveled playing field, but it sure levels it out a bit with those 
guys not needing to compete against the monster stations.

One could however discuss, why single monobanders should not be allowed 
if a OB16-3 is allowed, since its pretty much a bunch of monobanders on 
the same boom.

Its tricky stuff...

Mike, SM2WMV (SJ2W)
_______________________________________________
TOEC mailing list
TOEC at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/toec