[UK-CONTEST] RSGB 2nd 1.8 Mhz Results

Tue Dec 28 13:11:56 PST 2010

I suspect the rule differential between the two events is intentional and a result of some research and trend analysis. Historically the 2nd 1.8 in 
November has always been the busiest due to normally being a week before CQWW CW. Whereas the 1st is at the end of the contest season. It usually 
coincides with the PA contest which brings an increase in Dutch stations but mainland Eu stations are often only looking for PAs. It is always 
interesting at the start because you can't do any standard pre-contest warm up QSOs in case any PAs stations call you! I guess those trying to reserve 
the prime SSB slots would also find the same situation.

I really don't have a problem with the new rules as a trial. The CW event has been around (traditional, established etc) for a long time and I am sure 
most of the top group will battle it out in the first couple of hours. I guess there will be a core of SSB-mainly entrants who will just run SSB, but 
if they don't give up their frequency slot and move down the band to CW they just won't amass a creditable score.

I think the power thing is a red herring. A station running 30dBWish into a dipole at 80ft down the CW end ain't gonna worry to move up the band! As 
regards spread and splatter, a lot will depend on the type of antenna (H v V) and how carefully, if at all, the tx audio is setup. Over processing and 
the irritating use of "studio" mics will probably be the major problem.

After all this my guess is that most post-contest comments will echo the current theme and that the event will revert to its original format!

Chris G3SJJ

On 28/12/2010 19:11, Andy Cook, G4PIQ wrote:
> Thanks Dave - I should read more carefully, but I think the core discussion
> points are still largely valid.
>
> Andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave Sharred
> Sent: 28 December 2010 17:50
> To: 'Andy Cook, G4PIQ'; 'uk-contest'
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] RSGB 2nd 1.8 Mhz Results
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>