[UK-CONTEST] RSGB 2nd 1.8 Mhz Results

[Dave Sharred]

The title hasn't helped on this either (linking the 2nd 1.8MHz results to
new rules!!)

I think Andy has interpreted this to refer to the 2nd event in November; I
referred specifically to the 1st 1.8MHz event in February, as the nearest
event.

I see that the 1st 1.8MHz has the new rules; and the 2nd 1.8MHz retains the
original rules. Is this intentional ?

If so, Andy's comments about an SSB even so close to Club calls would be
invalid !

73

Dave G3NKC 

-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Andy Cook, G4PIQ
Sent: 28 December 2010 17:08
To: 'uk-contest'
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] RSGB 2nd 1.8 Mhz Results

I try not to be a stick-in-the-mud with new contest ideas since there is a
default reaction in much of our community that change is a bad thing. In my
opinion, change is often for the good, but in this case I'm sorry but I'm
not sure the detail has been thought through well. 

Firstly - I am supportive of ideas to increase the QSO totals and keep
interest up, however, the first question may be - is this contest broken (or
any more broken than it has been for 20 or more years)? Justin, G4TSH made
238 QSOs with just an Inv-V @ 80ft this year. I suspect that's one of the
top scores ever. I know when I was a more regular entrant in the late '80s
and early '90s that anything over 200 QSOs was a good score. 

Then I ask - why introduce another SSB contest to 160m (and make it so close
to Club Calls). Although I do my fair share of 'big-gun' contesting, until
my recent house move, I've spent 10 years when operating from home using a
barefoot rig and a piece of wire at 20ft. As Lee says - barefoot 160m SSB +
a lousy antenna is not a great combination to encourage newcomers. 

Thirdly - the whole 1843-1850 saga needs to be fixed. If we want to
introduce SSB, make the split at 1850 or higher (to avoid QRM to the other
parallel contests running). I'm not sure I can face all the whining
accusations of 'you're running illegal power' that will ensue in any case'
even if only running 32W above 1850. 

Forthly - to make this a process of evolution - I suggest retaining a CW
only section.

73,

Andy, G4PIQ

-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Lee Volante
Sent: 28 December 2010 15:26
To: uk-contest
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] RSGB 2nd 1.8 Mhz Results


Hi all,

I will also crawl out from behind my rock add my voice of disapproval for
this rule change, with some additional concerns on top of those already
mentioned.

It seems unprecedented in RSGB contests in recent memory that a privileged 4
or so stations will be able to use up to 400 watts from 1842 to 1850
simultaneously, and any other SSB contesters operating at the same time will
need to be 11 dB weaker.  If we see entrants camped out for an hour or more
before AFS SSB or 80m CC phone sessions where there are 60+ "running slots"
available, what happens if you reduce
that to 4?   What's the betting any of these guys will have a 0 in
their callsign?   Is this the strategy - decide how bad 32w SSB is
compared with those running 400w just below you, or go back to CW?

Getting onto one of these frequencies mid-contest when the other station
vacates will be interesting.  Perhaps we would constantly needing to listen
on the other VFO waiting for 5 seconds of silence, so they can jump in to
the QRO zone?  I can't see it working well, or is biased against those with
2 receivers, or would be more through luck than judgement.  And even
barefoot stations would benefit from being able to run 100w here and be
several dB louder, so it's not just the amplifier owning folks to consider
here.

Has anyone tried working non-domestic SSB QSOs on 160m with 32w with
antennas 20 to 30 feet high on a weekend where there will be relatively few
'big guns' to help out?  I have and it's not much fun. This is a 'DX'
contest - DXCC needs to be wored as much as UK postcode districts.  The
concurrent Dutch PACC contesters can use 400w up to 1.88 MHz.  Many some or
all of the UK QRO frequencies will be full already. Will any UK operators
ask the PAs to move up 10 kHz?  So I guess everyone will work PA with ease
anyway...

Of course, forcing a mixed mode contest tries to ensure that these people
will rotate between CW and SSB, giving someone else a chance at the SSB QRO
slots.  But this is alienating the good number of people who would prefer a
CW only contest.  Both for domestic and DX QSOs on 160m, any extra power
that can be mustered / allowed will have great benefits.  Whilst the rules
of course demand full compliance to the licence, the changed rules will add
temptation and frustration to those above 1850.  And on 160m, with a greater
differential of antenna efficency than 80m, spotting transgressors will be
far more difficult than it is at 80m.  What do we hear - a poor antenna and
100 watts (or
400+), or a good antenna at 30 watts?

Mixed mode events do exist on 160m for IARU HFChampionship, RDXC, EUHFC
amongst others, including the concurrent PACC, although single mode entries
are also allowed. Big DX contests e.g. CQWW, CQ160 do see what appears to be
relatively strong UK signals above 1850.  But this is the first (or first
for a long while) that the RSGBCC is organising where power levels will need
to be changed depending on operating frequency within the same band, where
we could see many UK stations.

Mark G4MEM said: "specifically the intent is to introduce a SSB only and
Mixed Mode category."  But the rules do seem to say it's mixed mode only,
"All entries are mixed-mode, that is, CW and SSB", but also mention awarding
single certificates for the highest CW and SSB only logs as some form of
appeasement. It seems muddled.  Or is the SSB only section a future intent?

So:

1) If the SSB QRO frequency space is so small relative to the expected
number of entrants, why include it at all?  Why not start at 1850+ and
keep 32w for all on SSB to be fair?   It's natural to expect that many
contesters would not find a freq in the 8 kHz to allow them to legally run
more than 32w for the entire session. If it's claimed the QRO portion is
"necessary" to make EU or DX QSOs, it is biased against those will not be
able to run there.

2) Why not have CW, SSB, and Mixed Mode sections?  Many SSB-only ops or
newer ops would be similarly ired by a mixed mode only, as much as those
that enjoy the existing event do not favour SSB.  I'm pretty sure I enter
more mixed mode contests than anyone else in the UK, and try to champion the
newer licensee and those with simpler stations. I'm planning to give this
event a very wide berth despite being a casual entrant over many years, and
will recommend that to others. I've never been inspired enough to operate
the whole duration.

3) Can the sections be clarified.

If the weight of a relative few voices can save the 21/28 MHz for another
year (which still surprises me), surely changes can be made here too?  Speak
up, folks, we should only need a few more comments?

73,

Lee G0MTN
_______________________________________________
UK-Contest mailing list
UK-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3343 - Release Date: 12/27/10

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