[UK-CONTEST] Train of thought leading up to ... 144MHz CW

[John Lemay]

David

 

You've mis-quoted the 144 CW Marconi results from last year, those figures
are for the 6 hour section. And remember, the exchange includes a locator so
80 odd contacts in 6 hours is OK. It's still fresh in my mind. Why? Because
I came a very close second place.

 

Will I take part this year? You bet I will !

 

John G4ZTR

 

 

  _____  

From: UK-Contest [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
David
Sent: 10 October 2012 18:24
To: UK-Contest at contesting. com
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Train of thought leading up to ... 144MHz CW

 

Tim

Let us put it this way.

On 2m we made the most QSOs and came 2nd. Windmill CG making 336 QSOs to
VARC 382 and VARC get 10% less points than Windmill. On 70cm we came 11th
yet Newquay in 4th place made less QSOs. On 6m we came 9th but in QSO terms
we would be 4th. On 70MHz we were 9th and in QSO terms 9th.

The same happened last year. The conclusion is that the current scoring
system counts against us by about 25%. That is a huge handicap to overcome.
Put simply VARC cannot win this contest. If we cannot win it then we will
use that huge effort for entering other contests we have a fair chance of
winning.

As for 2m CW contest (144MHz CW Marconi on 3-4 November), it is a point per
Km contest - enough said? Last year that highest QSO total was 82, i.e. 3.41
QSOs per hour - I can work 4 QSOs in a minute in a big HF contest and top CW
ops can do better than that. I can use my time more profitably. On the other
hand if we could all agree a one hour window for a maximum effort then I
would come on for that.

73 David G3YYD

-----Original Message-----
From: UK-Contest [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Hugill
Sent: 10 October 2012 12:25
To: uk-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Train of thought leading up to ... 144MHz CW

David,

Your team came 2nd on 144MHz in NFD and you're quitting ?
Better than last year's 4th too - well done.
We realise that you'll suffer from lowish pts-per-QSO on 4m & 6m compared to
groups in GM/GI/GW.
But if you built the right systems for 70/23cms, you could be really
competitive on those bands, higher bands which don't do much for the more
remote groups.
Then you get lucky with some Es on 6m and your group could really be in a
winning position, without having to go to the trouble of travelling any
distance to achieve that.

Anyway, back to my question - who's up for the 2m CW contest next month ?

73
Tim G4FJK



______________________________________

Steve

Think hard, the majority of stations worked are in UK. The point scoring
system is based on distance. You are in the centre of all those Gs and guess
what points per QSO is much much lower than someone on the edge of that
group.  We therefore work a lot more QSOs but get a lot less points per QSO.
The scoring system is working against someone located in the centre of
activity. QED we cannot win this contest from our current location.

Moving location is not an option so moving contest is unless a different
scoring system is used. A pint per QSO times square multiplier would produce
from VARC perspective a fairer system.

73 David G3YYD




_______________________________________________
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

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 7569 (20121010) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 7569 (20121010) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 7569 (20121010) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com