Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Bill Turner wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "K=D8HB"
wrote:
Let's go beyond the SO1R/SO2R question and look
at the bigger picture.
OK
I think it's time to revise the basic structure of
contest competition.
Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small
fortune to be competitive, and I think that is hurting
contesting itself.
That depends on what you mean by "competitive" and "a small fortune".
I don't agree with the basic premise, Jim. The operator
is a lot more
important than the equipment.
To a point, yes. But the guy with 100 W and a dipole at 40 feet isn't
going to win CQWW or even SS no matter how good he is. He's not even
going to make Top Ten.
That doesn't mean he can't do well, just that winning is a different
game.
For some hams, "competitive" means winning outright, or at
least making the Top Ten. For others, "competitive" means
winning their section, or maybe division, or maybe getting
into the top ten of same.
And for others it's simply doing better than last year.
And if they keep it up, they will eventually become the top
dogs.
But there comes a point where doing better becomes equipment
limited.
In similar fashion, cost is relative. A $5000 station is small
change to some and beyond others' wildest dreams. Same for
many other spending levels.
Just a few years back, having a dedicated computer in the
shack was a major expense. Not any more!
I believe there are two general groups of contesters:
1. People who like the head-to-head competition on a
personal level and
are not motivated by having large amounts of expensive
hardware. These
people focus on operating skill, knowledge and strategy instead of eq=
uipment.
-and-
2. People who will do anything legal to maximize their score,
including
spending huge amounts of money on rigs, antennas and any other hardwa=
re which gives them an advantage.
I disagree strongly!
I think there are many more basic groups, from the casual types
just putting in a few hours and maybe picking up a new state
or country, to the all-out multi-multis, to the middle-of-the-
pack folks, to the special-interest ones (like the QRP types
with incredible antenna farms).
On top of this is the fact that the superstations require
operating skill, knowledge and strategy just like the 100 W
and dipole folks.
Both groups have good points and neither is superior to the
other.
Agreed!
In fact the superstations need the little guys in order to make super
scores. And the little guys need the superstations.
What
is wrong with contesting today is both groups are combined into one w=
hen
it comes to competing, and that is hurting contesting.
Well, there's division by power level, by multiop vs. single, and
packet spotting.
I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:
1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware,
i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting,
and perhaps some others,
-and-
2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.
Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power
level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would
remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.
The trouble is where the lines are drawn.
What does "one radio" mean? Is a second receiver allowed? How
about if the second receiver is built into the rig?
One antenna per band could work a hardship on even some modest
stations. At my previous location I had an inverted V for 80/40
that could be made to work on 20. Also had a 20 meter vertical
with elevated radials. 100 W homebrew transceiver. Hardly a
superstation but I did pretty well.
On 20 the vertical was usually better, but sometimes the
inverted
V would do the trick. "One antenna per band" would eliminate
that.
The whole concept is way way way to complicated. Also
unenforceable.
Will the contest committee send out Hamcops to ensure
compliance?
Who enforces the present rules? Power level, packet spotting, etc.?
The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has
acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its
present form.
I don't see it that way at all. I think we need an "iron" class for a
very different reason.
One thing that makes a contest fun (for me) is the competition.
It's radiosport, pure and simple. I think the message that needs
to be emphasized more is that you don't need a superstation to
have a good time.
No you don't.
But it takes more than the average station to win.
I know too many hams with "100W and dipole" stations who think
contesting with such a setup isn't practical.
100 watts and a dipole is only about 90 percent of contesters!
And they don't win.
And compared to
the results of superstations, they're right. But if they could
see how they did against similar setups, we might get more of
them - which is a good thing all around.
My experience is that contests have two different aspects.
Operator
skill and power. This is assuming that the operator has a receiver of
adequate performance. If you have to get rid of one parameter, go with
operator skill.
"Power" is actually signal strength. I'd rather have really good
antennas and QRP than high power and poor antennas.
73 de Jim, N2EY