Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests

[Milt -- N5IA]

-----Original Message----- 
From: Herbert Schoenbohm
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:16 PM
To: topband at contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests

CUT -- Remaining remarks in the original message are from Jim, K9YC

> I've seen two ideas floated to solve the multiplier issue. One is to make 
> all members of the European Union a single multiplier. That would 
> certainly give the east coast a taste of what it's like contesting from 
> the western half of the US! A different idea is to provide multipliers for 
> VK states and JA prefectures. Either of these ideas move in the direction 
> of providing an equivalent number of multipliers.

> Another issue, especially with topband contesting, is the point value of a 
> QSO. The path from W6/w7/VE7 to VE1/VE9/VY2/W1/W2,W3/W4 is not quite as 
> long as from W1/W2/W3 to EU, but it is over land, not water, so there is 
> greater loss at the point of earth reflection. Yet a transcontinental 
> contact is worth only 40% of an EU contact in ARRL 160, and 20% in 
> CQWW160, or a contact within the Carribbean, which is even closer than 
> W6/W7 for east coast stations. And then there's the PJ4/P4 advantage in 
> the CQ-sponsored contests, where nearly every Q is worth 10 points because 
> they're SA islands, as compared to 5 points for NA islands a few hundred 
> miles north!

CUT

> 73, Jim K9YC
=======================================================================


Since the thread has morphed a bit and the entangling web has enlarged, I 
thought I would pass along my suggestions made recently to the CQ 160 
Contest Director.

Just my Dos Centavos.  73 de Milt, N5IA

OBTW, IMHO remote receivers for 160 Meter contesting should be allowed 
within a 75 mile radius circle (150 mile diameter) of the transmitting 
location.  Better hearing makes for more Qs for everyone.
........................................................................................


Andy,

I have been mulling over this question for perhaps 15 years.

Why are US operators, and operators in other very large countries, permitted 
only 2 points for 'in country' contacts?

Why has no one at CQ 160 ever considered a more equitable 'in country' 
points awarding for such geographically large countries as the USA, Canada, 
Russia, China and Australia?

All you have to do to discern the discrepancy is look at and compare the Qs 
and mult totals of the current Top 4 claimed SOHP scores on 3830.

ZF2DX(K5GO)    1288    58    57    26    900,910
VA2EW              1311    59    50    30    845,077
VE3EJ                 1230    59    50    28    742,528
K3ZM                 1410    60    59    30    723,480

Where is there any common sense reasoning that says K3ZM should not be the 
leader and potential winner of the class?  This station made nearly 100 
more, or more, Qs and more mutipliers than the three stations ahead of him. 
I would venture to say that K3ZM has significantly more 10 point contacts 
than the other 3 stations to even be close in the race.

Why should he NOT be the winner?  More of all three requisites for the best 
score.

And the same scoring discrepancy continues on down through the list.  Let me 
provide an example using my claimed score for my N7GP operation from 
Arizona.

My station location in AZ as well as my home in NM are a bit less than 100 
miles from Mexico, XE land.

The claimed score for my AZ operation is 336,016, and is currently listed at 
# 21 in the world.

If the log, with same amount of contacts with the same entities, had been 
made as an XE2 station, less than 100 miles distant, the claimed score would 
be 490,485 and it would be sitting at # 11 in the world.  That is a FORTY 
SIX % increase in score.  What that means is any other North American 
station outside the USA could put in a significantly lesser effort than I 
did, and still score higher.  That is what is shown in the K3ZM example 
above.  What appears to be the superior operator, at a superior station, 
making a greater number of both Qs and mults, will be relegated to an also 
ran finish.

I never address a perceived problem unless I can at the same time suggest a 
possible and logical solution to the problem.  I truly hope that you and the 
balance of the CQ 160 contest committee will seriously consider making a 
change to the scoring formula along the following line of thinking.

I propose -- NO CHANGE -- to any awards.

I propose an east to west geographical separation for scoring in the 5 
countries I listed above, and any others the committee might deem falling 
into the same category.

Specifically for the USA I suggest three geographical divisions.  I have 
long taken note of the scoring year after year and a logical division for 
the continental USA would be by using the Mississippi River and the 
Continental Divide as the two dividing lines.

You might ask, there are already 3 CQ Zones; why not use them?  Mainly it is 
because Zone 4 is so tremendously large.  When I compete from my home at 
just 3 miles from the AZ state line and less than 100 miles from Mexico, I 
am lumped in with the group of VE3s 2,000 miles distant who now dominate 
Zone 4.  In this case, for domestic scoring, the USA needs to be somewhat 
divided into three equi-distant E to W areas.   Old Man River and the CD 
make near perfection divisional lines to accomplish that end.  And they are 
very easily recognizable; no lines to draw.

I propose for scoring that a contact with an adjacent region is a subdivided 
country be awarded 3 points and a contact with a non-adjacent region in a 
subdivided country be awarded 4 points.   Contacts with a different country 
on the same continent continues to be worth 5 points and contacts to another 
continent continues to be worth 10 points.

I do NOT make any suggestions on region divisional lines in Canada, Russia, 
China or Australia.  I leave it up to the committee to consider both the 
inclusion and therefore the divisional lines for those countries.

I sincerely hope that these changes could be made effective for the 2016 
runs of the CQ 160 contests.

Thanks for all your efforts in the contest.

73 for now de Milt, N5IA
=============================================================================