CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions
From: Oliver Dröse <droese@necg.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 22:05:25 +0200
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
What about going back to spark transmissions or AM when talking about phone? Wasn't SSB such an huge advantage over AM some decades ago? What about code readers?  Computer generated & read RTTY instead of huuuge teleprinter machines? I wonder if there were similar discussions back then ...

Technology is advancing, guys. Nothing you can do about it. Yes, I'm using the FTx modes, too, although I prefer CW & SSB, absolutely. But ignoring it won't bring you any further. And, believe it or not, the FTx modes themselves are not the problem. The users are! Using it fully automated has indeed nothing to do with amateur radio anymore and should not be given any credit at all. Period. But it's almost impossible to track ...

Anyway, if you really insist on showing how great you are using non-FTx modes, why not apply for DXCC-CW or SSB then? The FTx guys won't influence your standings there. ;-)

73, Olli - DH8BQA

Contest, DX & radio projects: https://www.dh8bqa.de/


Am 16.08.2019 um 16:21 schrieb robert:
GM Ria

        A few comments:

        I have no information and did not comment on "conspiracies about it

        being a money thing "

        Your achievements are very nice.  Did you use Low Power?

        Were FT8 part of this ?  During the 6 months of my using FT8

        about 1 1/2 years ago I could not believe the number of YB's and other

        rare DX that were easily worked on 40 meters. Is it really fair for so many

        other many hams trying for a decent number of DXCC countries for

        years to all of a sudden see others with high country totals using FT8

        after just a couple years ?

            FT8 certainly has it's place in ham radio, but the ARRL DXCC program

        needs a serious new look when it comes mixing up FT8 with CW,

        SSB, and RTTY.

                73 BoB WA1FCN

On 8/15/2019 8:32 AM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
It took me 13 years to get 327 DXCC, challenge 1900+ and 9 band DXCC including 160. I did my first DXCC in one year from a mobile station with a 6 foot whip.

I did most of it on CW.

I really don’t see how FT8 made it any easier.

The reason it takes so little time now is because of the DX cluster and all of the data aggregation tools.

The game changes, and if anything FT8 has made it harder for those of us who can just get in/out of a CW/SSB pileup because we developed that skill. But it has made DX possible for those who live in apartments and other heavily restricted places.

At the League we discuss this and the consensus generally is that FT8 is popular and brings in new operators. It’s a good thing. Separating them would tell ops who operate this mode that they are somehow not real hams or real DXers which is not a message to be sending. Especially since the average age of DXers is trending higher.

The conspiracies about it being a money thing really aren’t valid. If anything processing the increased volume of QSLs and LoTW server load costs the League money, so it’s definitely not a money maker.

73
Ria
N2RJ



On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:08 AM robert <wa1fcn@charter.net <mailto:wa1fcn@charter.net>> wrote:

         GM Matts/Yuri

             I agree with you about the ARRL's DXCC credit system.

             A mistake for sure.  As a life long low power operator it has

             taken me 54 years to reach 40 meter DXCC of 280. By allowing

             FT8 credits mixed  in with every thing I foresee in the near
    future,

             many achieving  this in 10 years  or less of effort.   At
    the
    next sun spot

             cycle peak high DXCC totals on 10,  12, and 15 will be
    meaningless. I

             know of  hams who no longer take part in DXCC for just
    this reason.

             FT8 credit for DXCC is fine, but keep it separated from
    single
    band/mixed

             mode totals.

                     74 BoB WA1FCN

    On 8/15/2019 1:30 AM, Mats Strandberg wrote:
    > I tend to agree with Yury.
    >
    > CY9 was much more balanced between modes, than the 3D2 (or least
    that was
    > my perception).
    >
    > It might be so that at the time of John’s (GD) participation in
    KP5 and
    > KP1, that there was no ambition to maximize the revenue through
    donations
    > (before, during and after the expedition). I don’t question that.
    >
    > However, since FT8 appeared as an equal mode for DXCC (along
    with CW,SSB
    > and RTTY), it definitely has changed some expeditions into becoming
    > automated QSO/QSL-creating machines...
    >
    > John, during KP1/KP5, the FT modes were not available, so
    comparison might
    > not be fully relevant.
    >
    > It is maybe good that FT8 will bring new “DXers” to the table,
    but the
    > appearance of this dull mode... has forever changed the feeling
    of “being
    > on the other side of the expedition”, and most likely also, being an
    > operator of that expedition as well.
    >
    > I question myself, what is the pleasure of being that rare DX,
    giving out
    > the ATNOs and the new band points, when the reality is that NO
    operator
    > skills are required from me to make those “contacts” happen!
    >
    > Before, good DX-expeditions we’re separated by less good ones,
    because of
    > operator skills. How wonderful was it not to listen to great
    operators,
    > handling thousand of callers, to maximize the number of contacts
    and happy
    > DXers on the other side?
    >
    > Those days were interesting and a memory of our past. The new
    FT8 euphoria
    > has forever changed the perception of DX-big, thanks to ARRL’s
    greed for
    > award revenue ;(
    >
    > And, what we now see is the result of the wrong decision to
    equalize FTx,
    > JT and other artificial modes, with RTTY, SSB and CW, and accept
    them for
    > DXCC Mixed.
    >
    > The correct way would have been to create FT/JT DXCC separate
    from Classic
    > DXCC...
    >
    > DXCC as we all knew it, has been hurt tremendously by ARRL
    unthoughtful
    > decision to accept FT/JT in Mixed!
    >
    > 73 de RM2D (Mats)
    >
    > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 05:14, John Crovelli <w2gd@hotmail.com
    <mailto:w2gd@hotmail.com>> wrote:
    >
    >> I want to take a moment to dispel the notion suggested by Yuri that
    >> DXpedition operating strategy is all about financial
    considerations.  It
    >> simply isn't for well planned operations.
    >>
    >> It is the intent of virtually every DXpedition to provide an
    opportunity
    >> for those running 100 watts or more to work an ATNO.
    DXpeditions teams are
    >> constantly considering ways to reach the broadest possible
    audience while
    >> on site.
    >>
    >> The implication that operating strategy and mode selection is
    all about
    >> post operation donations (to cover costs) is just not true.
    Well organized
    >> teams have these issues resolved well in advance.
    >>
    >> I've been on some large DXpeditions (KP5 and KP1 - both were
    top ten
    >> world).  Our operating teams NEVER set goals based upon
    donations, and in
    >> fact, this issue was never even discussed since no one felt it
    to be
    >> important.  Again, financing issues were resolved well before
    we ever
    >> departed for the islands.
    >>
    >> We did however (on a daily basis) take stock of propagation,
    probably of
    >> openings, and how we were providing global coverage ... to
    prevent missing
    >> opportunities to those regions traditionally most difficult.
    As a tool,
    >> FT8 can be useful.
    >>
    >> FT8 modes are providing options not previously available and
    for the most
    >> part now replaces RTTY activity.   It is my expectation CW and
    SSB will
    >> always be the main modes for DXpeditions.
    >>
    >> John, W2GD aka P40W/P44W
    >>
    >> ________________________________
    >> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
    <mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>> on behalf of Yuri <
    >> ve3dz@rigexpert.net <mailto:ve3dz@rigexpert.net>>
    >> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:57 PM
    >> To: 'Jeff Clarke' <ku8e@ku8e.com <mailto:ku8e@ku8e.com>>;
    cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> <
    >> cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>>
    >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
    >>
    >>>>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are
    putting FT8
    >> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this
    isn't the
    >> future of ham radio.
    >>
    >> I might not be politically correct, but why not to mention that
    one of the
    >> all of the DXpeditions' goals is to try to maximize the overall
    QSO count
    >> in order to get more donation? That's what hiding behind "best
    kept secret"
    >> (that everybody knows) of F/H mode in FT8 in my opinion.
    >> I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it's a fact.
    >> Multi-channel streams need to be prohibited, otherwise it looks
    like
    >> hypocrisy.
    >> I still remember how the rules for M/S in the ARRL Contests
    were changed
    >> under the pressure after PJ4G(?) team managed to have 2
    stations on the
    >> same band (even not at the same time).
    >>
    >> Yuri VE3DZ
    >>
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
    <mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>] On Behalf Of
    >> Jeff Clarke
    >> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 10:51 AM
    >> To: cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
    >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
    >>
    >> Didn't someone create a FT8 contest reflector? It would be nice
    to take
    >> all these comments over there. Seems like FT8 is monopolizing
    the contest
    >> reflector just like it is on the air.
    >>
    >> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are
    putting FT8
    >> first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this
    isn't the
    >> future of ham radio.
    >>
    >> BTW I do operate some FT8 because I'm working on a the digital
    DXCC.
    >> (because there is hardly any RTTY activity outside of contests)
    Now that
    >> I've reached 100 countries I'm starting to get bored with it.
    >>
    >> Jeff
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> CQ-Contest mailing list
    >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
    >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> CQ-Contest mailing list
    >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
    >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
    >>
    > _______________________________________________
    > CQ-Contest mailing list
    > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
    > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
    _______________________________________________
    CQ-Contest mailing list
    CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
    http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest


---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>