"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
ink.net...


[snip]

Why do I contest? To improve my score by improving my station and myself.

Its as simple as that.

Have a good day

PS; I worked a bunch of sporadic skip yesterday on six meters in the June
VHF contest.....with 8 watts and a 3 ele yagi at 20'.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Dan/W4NTI



I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very strange
thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician operators. On
the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where are all
the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't" pass the
code (as some would have us believe)?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Winning is beating the Yankee Clippers. Try operating at that "level"
for the ultimate contesting experience.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

You got that right. Keep an eye on W4AN. The new call for the SECC (South
East Contest Club). NQ4I is another super station to watch for. Also SECC.

Uh-oh! This is news to me. A real three-way brawl amongst the
Unlimiteds would inject some new fire into the game for certain. But
you better be able to pull up around 250 Meg aggregate to get into it.


Dan/W4NTI

Dee Flint wrote:

I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very strange
thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician operators. On
the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where are all
the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't" pass the
code (as some would have us believe)?

It's Techs being Techs again, they're too busy "advancing the state of
the art" to be bothered with learning the code and contesting.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

w3rv

wrote:

too busy "advancing the state of
the art" to be bothered with learning the code and contesting.

Oddly enough, much of the advancement in ham rigs has
come about because of contesting.

For example, one of the first uses of computers in ham
radio was their use in logkeeping. I think one of the
university stations gets credit for that, using the
U's mainframe to dupe and print out their SS logs
circa 1968.

The improvements in receiver sections to have better
dynamic range, phase noise, and filtering is, IMHO,
largely driven by the contest/DX folks. And primarily
the big guns, who would plunk down big bucks for a
top-of-the-line rig if it gave them an advantage.

Then, of course, the technology that first appeared in
the top-of-the-line rigs worked its way into less expensive
ones. So we all benefit.

(makes me wonder if Hans has his IC-7800 yet...)

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:

"Winner" has all sorts of definitions. Winning your section is
one level, winning your division another, etc. Just setting
a personal best score is winning.

Winning is beating the Yankee Clippers. Try operating at
that "level" for the ultimate contesting experience.

Olympians of radiosport, that's all.

I've run marathons and done contesting. Did pretty well in both,
but not like those guys - or the ones who run 26.22 miles at
under 5 minutes per mile.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
"Bill Turner" wrote

Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small fortune to be competitive..........

I don't think money is what makes you competitive.

Depends on what's competitive, the op, the station or both. A
competitive op doesn't have spend a dime on a station. Which is where
some of the hotshot multi-op guys come from. One of ours lives in
Manhatten for instance, zero chance for having a home station no matter
how much money he might be willing to spend.

It's an important factor, though. Always has been. Part of the
game in most contests.

I agree with that. One can take a $200 station or even a $1,000 station
into the contests and have some fun with it but it won't be a
competitive station by a long shot *if* the frame of reference is a
decent score in the DX contests. A decent score in SS at the section
level with a budget station is another story altogether.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

wrote

I also disagree because when you get right down
to it it's functionally the same as using the spots.

No, it's not functionally equivalent. If you use cluster spots, then you are
using information the some OTHER RADIOMAN at a DIFFERENT STATION provided. If
you have your own robo-hound searching FROM YOUR STATION then you acquired the
information of the air without assistance from outside sources.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote

And they are?

IC775 IC765

I'll take a dipole at 90 feet over a TA-33 at 40 feet...

For what application? A dipole at 30-40 feet is a primo antenna for SS,
probably better than either you mentioned. ("Pick the fight you can win.")

What's the replacement value of the tower and everything on it?
Not hamfest value - replacement value.

"Replacement value" is what I'd have to spend to replace it. Usually that's
equal to "hamfest value".

And then there's the price of the real estate to put it all on.

Everybody needs to live somewhere. The prices of my homes are not a factor
which contributes or detracts from my contest scores.

Take SS - the ham in a rare section has a built-in advantage
over the ham in a nonrare one.

I hear real estate is very reasonably priced in VY0-land.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote:
wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
"Bill Turner" wrote

Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small fortune to be competitive..........

I don't think money is what makes you competitive.

Depends on what's competitive, the op, the station or both. A
competitive op doesn't have spend a dime on a station. Which is where
some of the hotshot multi-op guys come from. One of ours lives in
Manhatten for instance, zero chance for having a home station
no matter how much money he might be willing to spend.

Have skills will travel.

It's an important factor, though. Always has been. Part of the
game in most contests.

I agree with that. One can take a $200 station or even a $1,000 station
into the contests and have some fun with it but it won't be a
competitive station by a long shot *if* the frame of reference is a
decent score in the DX contests. A decent score in SS at the
section
level with a budget station is another story altogether.

"Pick the fights you can win", as a wise man once wrote.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Bill Turner wrote:


On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "KØHB"
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.

Who do ya want - a impatient knob twiddler with a FTDX 9000 and an
antenna farm of (insert your favorite antenna here), or a good capable
contester with say a dipole and an IC-746.


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.

All other things being equal.

Way too many people seem to think that you plunk down the money, and
you are an instant contester.




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 equipment.

-and-

2. People who will do anything legal to maximize their score,
including
spending huge amounts of money on rigs, antennas and any other hardware 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 when
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.?

Good question. The answer is it is a gentleman's agreement, and you
trust the person to abide by the rules. So you make the rules as
rock-bottom simple as possible. Rules like no receiving while
transmitting, are simply not enforceable. Ideas such as monoband
antennas are going to knock a lot of people right out of the contest -
unless of course they decide to cheat, as is the one receiver idea.

Finally, the idea of separating the contesters by limited and unlimited
classes is incredibly counterproductive. So these small number of
superoperaters are just going to work among themselves and then sign
off, I suppose.

Whenever I hear rules change suggestions, I ask how this is going to
affect the person suggesting the changes. Funny how it is always to give
this person a big advantage, even when they claim they are just trying
to level the playing field.

This is just a punitive plan toward the big stations.

One time I listened to one of the high-powered, high scoring stations
noting how *they* should get extra points for listening to all those low
power stations with the weak signals!


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.

Define average? I've got an IC-745 and used a ladder line fed dipole
(96 feet long @50 feet high) to work the NEQP from Pennsylvania. Used a
MFJ-949E tuner on it.

Total outlay was around 350 dollars, and this has got to be a below
average station setup if there ever was one, especially by these
"contest standards".

But I put in a big booming signal to New England, and was definitely
limited by my own skills, (still working on 'em) and not my below
average station setup. Got a certificate one year.

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.

Sometimes. Depends on the class and their skills.

People have a tendency to operate with the stations that they have,
save for portable operations. Sounds like a "Well Duh!" statement, but
it is what most of us have to offer.


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.

How about high power AND good antennas? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -