[UK-CONTEST] HF SSB Field day rules ..

[Jim Balls]

Dave,

Thanks for the reply, but it needed the "Snide Remark" to get you boys to 
answer, I was actually beginning to wonder if any of the HFCC watched the 
group, or even answered questions, you have confirmed this but it needed 
some provoking!

I understand what the HFCC has gone through and as you say it's difficult 
to find a happy medium, but I still feel you could ban the use of 2nd RX's 
in the restricted section.
I spend many weeks every year planning, building etc for the SSB FD to get 
our club noticed we have been quite successful in the 21/28 SSB contest and 
really enjoy all contests we enter.

So let look at it another way, if someone is using a FT1000MP, basically 
with 1 antenna, 1 TX and 2 RX vfo's why is it wrong for a TS870 user to use 
the 2nd rx output on the back of the 870, which has 1 antenna with a second 
receiver?

Is there any difference?

What happens if I put a TX/RX and a second RX in a big metal case with a 
little electronics so it can use one antenna and call it the M0CKE Contest 
Cheater .. is this then classed as a one box  single antenna single TX dual RX?

I think the rules are still not good enough .. stop 2 RX's all together in 
the entry level of the contest .. Simple!

As for the comments about the HFCC, I think you guy's do an invaluable job 
and if I had the time I'd love to help out with the log checking etc, but I 
have 2 young children (I'm only 31) and I have a full time job (6 days a 
week 12 hrs a day) now I don't find enough time to have with my family as 
it is, maybe in years to come, if contesting and amateur radio is still 
alive i will get  the time, who knows?

Oh well back to sitting on the back burner .... bubbling for a while!

See you all on the 21/28 SSB contest ... hopefully!

Jim M0CKE


At 06:05 AM 19/09/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Message text written by "Jim Balls"
> >I just want fair rules .. as usuall I guess it suited the rich boys of
> >contesting (who I guess just happen to be on the HFCC comittee)
>
>Given this sort of snide nasty remark it's not surprising that
>there isn't a rush of people coming forward to serve on the
>Committee. I have just spent many hours doing the checking
>and writeup for NFD. Thanks for your support.
>
>For the record, up until 1997 the rules said you could use
>"a transceiver". By that time several groups were using the
>FT1000, and I was the one who pushed for a rule change so
>that a second receiver could be used, precisely in order to
>level the playing field.
>
>My group did not use two rigs, neither at that time did any of us
>own an FT1000: I used my initiative and arranged to borrow
>one, making a 200-mile round trip to collect it. Perhaps you
>feel this is unfair.
>
>The rule we introduced was "count the receivers". You could
>have a maximum of two, either in the same box (FT1000, TS950)
>or separate single receive rigs. Oxford G5LO came up with some
>ingenious software which allowed two single-RX rigs, using only
>one of the transmit sections, to swap frequencies instantaneously.
>Guess what, we had a few complaints that this was unfair!
>
>There have also been complaints that it is unfair to use an
>FT1000D because, with a small modification, you can search
>on different bands whereas on the MP which has a common
>front end, both receivers have to be on the same band.
>
>Next we had complaints from several groups who wanted to use
>two MPs, using only the main RX section of each. I argued against
>this, because it is against my simple "count the receivers" rule,
>giving the temptation to use three, or even four, receive sections.
>We would have no way of confirming this, even in NFD where
>there are inspections. On the other hand I could see that especially
>in the Open Section of SSB FD, where you have multiple
>antennas and multipliers, two rigs on the table gives more flexibility
>than a single box containing two RXs.
>
>After a great deal of discussion within the Committee and at the
>HF Convention, the HFCC changed the rules in 1999 to allow any
>two radios, so long as the second RX in rigs such as the MP was
>disabled. We then got reports that some groups had interpreted
>the "single transmitter" rule as "single transmitter at any one moment
>in time" which definitely was unfair. It seemed that opening the thing
>up, in response to input from several groups, had led to some
>pushing the envelope too far. After long (and acrimonious) discussion
>we decided that the rules needed to be tightened up again.
>
>What we have now is a distinction between Open and Restricted
>sections, applying to both NFD and SSB FD. Since you have
>multiple antennas in the Open section, the flexibility is allowed to
>have two rigs on the table but you can only use one receiver
>in each.  We trust that no-one breaks this rule. Maybe this is unfair.
>In the Restricted section, you can have just one rig on the table.
>Simple and easy to understand. The reality is that some groups in
>this section have been using FT1000 since at least the mid-90s
>and we didn't feel we could suddenly ban use of the second
>receiver. Even if we did ban the second receiver, it would only
>be a matter of time before we had complaints that someone was
>flaunting this rule.
>
>What I think we have learned from this long and painful process
>is that there is no set of rules which are proof against concerns
>about fairness, while trying to make sure no-one can bend the
>rules and gain an unfair advantage. As in most contests, you
>have to look at the rules and decide which section to enter and which
>equipment to use but I'm in no doubt that operator ability and choice
>of antennas is more important than choice of rigs. Maybe that
>is unfair.
>
>This year in the Restricted section of NFD three of the top ten
>groups used single-RX radios (TS930 TS940 IC756). The leading
>group in the Open section used an FT1000MP but noted on their
>cover sheet "second receiver never used!"
>
>I'd better say that the above remarks, and my irritation at the
>tone of your email, are my own and are not intended to
>represent the view of the HF Contests Committee. I can speculate,
>however, that rsorting to snide remarks about RSGB volunteers
>makes it less likely that you'll get the outcome you're looking for.
>
>Dave G4BUO
>_______________________________________________
>UK-Contest mailing list
>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest