eHam Logo

 Home Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 My Profile

 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews

Contest Lists

Other Lists

 Mailing List FAQs

Site Information
 About This Site Team

Contesting Online Survey

Survey Question Current Survey Question

Recently the RDXC committee reclassified P3F to high power from low power without publicly providing strong evidence that any infraction had occurred. They concluded was that the contestant was running HP on 80/40m but not full-time, just 10 minutes here and there without any convincing evidence. It appears they used the RBN as their source of information. Should the RXDC contest have to publicly provide convincing evidence before reclassifying a station from LP to HP?

Recent Surveys

Randy, K5ZD, wrote a sidebar titled " Convergence and Change" in the 2015 CQWW CW printed results in CQ magazine. He wrote that the "convergence of personal computers, Internet access, DX clusters, and CW Skimmer have changed the nature of CW contesting". He goes to say that it is "more difficult to police the line between the single operator working alone and those who are using the assistance of DX spotting." In light of this convergence and change is it time to recombine SO and SOA into a single category?

What's your primary Software for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF ! )

Are you ready the this year's winter contest season

What ways have you found to be effective to attract newcomers to our hobby?

What is your linear?

View All Survey Questions

Have a good idea for a Contesting Online Survey question?
Enter your idea!

Thanks for voting! Your vote has been included in the results below.

The current 42 hour format of the CQ 160 Contests do not allow all areas of the world two full darkness periods. Also, there is no operating time limit which requires serious contestants to CQ at very low response rates during daylight hours making the contest both boring and tiring. If the contest format could be changed, which of the following options do you prefer?
  Posted: Mar 09, 2001   (667 votes, 41 comments) by W4ZV

Survey Results
Leave it as is (42 hours no time limit) 10% (64)
24 hours (no time limit) 7% (45)
48 hours (no time limit) 13% (85)
24 hours (15 hours max operating time) 12% (80)
48 hours (30 hours max operating time) 59% (393)

Survey Comments
CQ 160m contest
Let's leave it as it is!
1) Adding 2-3 hours of dark-path openings to Europe on a third night would certainly skew the scores vs. previous years. Working 30 hours over a 48 hour period would be a lot different than working 30 hours over a 42-hour period since we would be adding 2-3 hours of dark-path openings to Europe in the northeast USA.
2) It's now a "fun" contest without being a "killer" contest -- there's even some time left for the family in the weekend. I like that.
3) The CW weekend also happens to be "Superbowl" weekend. I understand this draws a little interest in the USA and around the world too perhaps, and these festivities competing might tend to further reduce activity Sunday afternoon/evening. QSO rates already are soooo slow the second night.
4) U.S. scores aren't comparable with European scores; West Coast scores aren't comparable with East Coast scores, etc. The geographic disparities won't be solved by lengthening the contest. Stations in each area are just competing with others in their area, and they have the same hours of darkness as those stations already.
73/Jon AA1K/Delaware

Posted by Anonymous on March 21, 2001

30 Hours Makes Sense
I like the 30 hour limit. This makes very good sense. And the limit should be for both multi and single-ops. The worst part about the 160 contest for us doing it multi-op is having to make sure someone is on the air all day long. Really takes a lot of the fun out of the contest, but we are too competitive to not be on the air. I also believe some of the larger clubs use the daylight hours to rally their membership to work only club members, which to me is really a low thing to do.

Posted by W4AN on March 14, 2001

The one major negative to this contest is
the useless beating of the tall grass in the daylight hours. This is especially true for those not in a metro area.
I agree with Rob, K2WI that a little more than 30 hours would be better than 30 hours,
but 30 hours would be considerably better
than what we now have. 48/33 for me.
Great to read all of the thoughtful
comments. 73 Gene N2AA

Posted by N2AA on March 14, 2001

Past Record Compatibility
New the new log checking procedures, or technology, or number of entrants, etc., make the compatibility of present and old scores quite unreal.
A new rule as the proposed ipothesis of 48/30 doesn't add much to the above consideration.
As well as in Formula 1 races, or other technological competitions, we can't compare speed and records of 30 years ago with present ones. Circuits, engines, tyres and cars are different likewise some of the rules.
Old contest records are real records (deserving full merit and credit) but assuming to compare very old contest scores with recent ones neglecting what happened is a bit pretencious.
The old records doesn't deserve to be obscured by new ones, all the winning scores belong, in practice, to that specific year only.
To summarize, a comparison between absolute max scores is finall quite .... relative.

Posted by i4jmy on March 13, 2001

I am not sure that moving contest from 42 to 48 will change something because there is not to much activity. We already in EU don't have so good rate second night so adding 6 hours will not help us. In other hand if we allow 30 or 36 hours to work during 42 hours we will split activity all over the world in there best times so number of qso will go down. My vote is for 24 hours.

Posted by 9A3GW on March 13, 2001

48 no limit
I agree with Riki 4X4NJ.

Miro OM5RW

Posted by Anonymous on March 13, 2001

I like the 48/30 format for all the reasons given by others.


Posted by Anonymous on March 13, 2001

42 out of 48, yeah!
Whilst I voted for 48 & no limit, I agree with the comment posted above that keeping 42 hours op time is a good idea for continuity of records. Otherwise, a CQ WW contest should be like any other CQ WW test in this regard.

73, VR2BrettGraham

Posted by Anonymous on March 12, 2001

CQ WW 160 Contest
This contest is so popular in the current format, leave it alone.
There are other contests with different formats, not near as
active, either in US or with DX...Sometimes it isn't a bad thing
to let it be...Regards to all...Steve W3BGN

Posted by W3BGN on March 12, 2001

Past Record Compatibility
Strongly in favor of 48 hours duration for equal opportunity world-wide for two sunrises/sunsets.
Suggest 42 out of 48 hour format to maintain compatibility with past records.
(Also, stations near Arctic regions may have > 30 hours of darkness/propagation.)
Substitute grid squares or serial numbers in for the DX exchange.
I'd prefer grid squares as mults on 160, (but that would make comparing past scores meaningless).

Posted by Anonymous on March 12, 2001

I haven't sent in an entry for this contest since it was dumbed down by removing the serial number exchange, and that was many years ago. The present exchange is daft. Bring back serial numbers, or if you want to change the scoring as well, move to grid squares.

Posted by G4BUO on March 12, 2001

Now good!
I really like this current format. It is good for us in Europe. Contest starts early enough and the best thing in CQ160m is that it ends early enough: you don't need to take a day off from work on Monday and you can spend some time with you family on Sunday.
If contest will be in the 48/30hr format 0000z-2400z (Sat-Sun), I think that some of the contesters will "pass it".

Posted by OH1NOA on March 12, 2001

W4ZV survey
I favor the 48/30 format. The only down-side I can see is for guest ops who travel back and forth to the operating site. If the contest runs 0000Z to 0000Z, it's an extra trip. Probably won't affect very many of us.
73, Jim N9JF, sometimes-op at K4VX/0....

Posted by Anonymous on March 11, 2001

CQ 160 Contests
I really like the 48/30 concept. When I evaluate the most productive times overall, and allowing for some off time, it turns out to be around 30 hours operating time from my previous experiences. Who needs those daylight hours of 1 or 2 Q per hour rates anyway ? Many have suggested changing to the grid square format to make distance more of a focus. While it has merit, particularly for those who are geographically disadvantaged, most of what you end up working is probably not considered DX due to the unique propagation compared to the HF bands. And, we all try to work as much DX as possible with the extra points afforded. There is something to be said, however, for eliminating the canned 599/59. I have mixed feelings about S/N's because logs are already checked. Maybe more accuracy but more work for the log checkers ? Having different 160 contests with different formats, I think, makes it all the more interesting. 73, Jim, K1PX

Posted by Anonymous on March 11, 2001

I would favor a comprimize of 30 to 36 hrs. with a 15 hour on air time. My reason is simple; Age, There was a day when I operated all contests, however I do not go into any now, due to the duration time. If the operating period were shorter I would be active. The younger group does not understand this position right now, however I imagine there are more than a few in my position that do. Jack Matthews W4OWJ

Posted by Anonymous on March 11, 2001

CQ 160
I think that 48/30 format is the best compomise format for this "special" contest.I hope to contact you next year with this new formula.
73 de IV3TAN

Posted by iv3tan on March 11, 2001

CQWW 160 contest exchange
I have voted for the 48/30 hours option.
I also think the current contest exchange also needs changing, the repetition of country is pointless as it is already known from the callsign.
(We had an issue this year of several Russian stations giving a country of ER (European Russia) but the logging software was classing them as UA. ER is the country code for Moldova and their callsigns were definitely not Moldovan. Which do you log - what they give or what it should be?)

Posted by Anonymous on March 11, 2001

160 Meter Contest
I also like the limit of 30 hours to eliminate the "daytime drones" milking casual contacts for the night shift contesters. 73, K8GG

Posted by Anonymous on March 11, 2001

I am very much in favor of the 48/XX plan. The daytime drudgery would not be missed. That has been the downside of this contest, even in the multiop category. It would be good to give some other parts of the world a shot at more propagation. I would make the period longer than 30, maybe 36. 30 would require a lot of people to shut down while there was still propagation. Often the hour after sunrise is more productive than the sunrise-2 hour.

Although the majority of total contacts are made the first night, sometimes the number of DX contacts is higher the second night due to propagation.

This survey is about the contest duration, not the exchange

73, Rob K2WI of K2TOP crew

Posted by Anonymous on March 11, 2001

Grid Squares for points
Guys, I would not get your hopes up about making too many changes at once! Changing QSO points based on Grid Squares as in the Stew Perry totally changes the character of the CQ 160 and essentially duplicates the Stew in a 48-hour format. I'm happy K4JRB (and hopefully the CQ WW 160 Committee) is open to change but I doubt they want to totally change the character the of the most popular Topband contest! Just my humble opinion. 73, Bill W4ZV

Posted by W4ZV on March 11, 2001

CQ 160 Contest
I agree that 48 hours would be more fair worldwide. However, I don't see the need to limit operating hours. It's a good chance to check out equipment during daylight hours if needed and make repairs while there is still some light to work on antennas. I favor using grid squares for distance and states for multipliers instead of countries. And I see no need for everyone to send 599.
Al, K7CA

Posted by Anonymous on March 11, 2001

cq160m contest hours
48/30 sound just the ticket for me.
Grid square idea is great idea for keeping the interest and to some extent rewarding out of area qso,s
Daytime bore is a real offput.
Been in the contest for over 20yrs and always find the waste of time in daylight a real slog.
Change is needed.

Posted by Anonymous on March 11, 2001

CQ WW 160 revision
1. Start at 0000Z. 48/30 for all classes.
2. Exchange = 4 digit Grid Square & state/province/country.
3. Scoring based on distance between Grid Square centers.
4. Multipliers are state/province, country.


Milt, N5IA

Posted by Anonymous on March 11, 2001

exchange & hours
Exchange needs to be one item... I favor the 4 digit grid square
IF it will be used in score calculations. A qso with a new
multiplier within 1000 miles is fine, but the ones 8000 miles
away oughta be worth the work it took to make the qso.
Perhaps keep the same multiplier format, and make the point
value of the qso one point per 1000KM instead of continent
based. Definately will equalize the scores a LOT. I also favor
48 hours - either 30/48 or 48/48
robin, wa6cdr/n6ll/n5ia/xz0a/xz1n

Posted by Anonymous on March 11, 2001

160M Contest
Lets scuttle the "599" exchang. How about a serial
number or first name.

Posted by Anonymous on March 10, 2001

Contest exchange
Get rid of the RS(T) exchange. Its a canned 59(9) anyway. Use 4 digit grid square. Mult's=grid squares.

Posted by N7KA on March 10, 2001

160M Contest
I think the 48/30 idea is real good. I would also like to see a change in the scoring that would emphasize a combination of grid squares and distance rather than countries. The would make the contest much more broadly competitive than it is now.

Posted by Anonymous on March 10, 2001

A great idea that's easy to be applied and that enhances fun and presses a bit more for brain use (strategy). It wouldn't be wrong to introduce the same rule also on those contest (nearly all) where the second day rates are already so small that fun is turned into a pain.

Posted by i4jmy on March 10, 2001

160m contest
I like the idea of a full 48 hour contest. I agree that parts of the world are disadvantaged by the timing of the contest. I didn't vote for the 30 hour time limit, because I don't have a problem with people calling CQ in the middle of the's their choice. At the same time, I wouldn't oppose a 30 hour limit either. Whilst many ackowledge the fact that the first few hours of darkness on the first night yield the greatest results, I've also had the best contacts in the last few hours of the contest. Obviously I'm not a hard core contester, just someone who enjoys being on 160m, and a contest is a great means of pulling more ops out of the woodwork LOL!
Bridget, KS4YT

Posted by Anonymous on March 10, 2001

CQ 160 Contests
We are talking about CQWW 160 DX Contest
with emphasis on DX -

Anything that encourages and be equal
opportunity for DX to operate is needed.

Otherwise, we will have basically a
US/VE 160 Sweeps contest.

I favor the full 48 hours with maximum
30 operating for all classes

It is the chance to work a VK, ZL, ZS,etc
in this contest that really excites a guest op
regards Steve K2CDJ ex-KA2CDJ

Posted by Anonymous on March 10, 2001

CQWW 160m hours
48/30 makes a lot of sense. Limited hours should apply to all sections (i.e. not just SO). It remains the 160m contest as far as I'm concerned - well done Bill for organising this survey. 73 Chris G3SVL

Posted by Anonymous on March 10, 2001

CQ WW 160 Changes
The 48/30 idea would make a great contest even better.

Herb, KV4FZ

Posted by KV4FZ on March 10, 2001

Comparable records
I favor the 48 hour duration 30 hour operating format since it allows two different chances at propagation/QRN which can change dramatically from one night to the other on Topband. This option allows all stations worldwide an eqivalent amont of darkness (latitude differences excluded) and removes the drudgery of CQ-ing during daylight hours for those competing for top scores. My only reservation was the comparability of records, but in looking at this year's CQ 160 CW claimed scores, I see only one USA station operated more than 30 hours...thus the records should remain fairly comparable with previous years.

73, Bill W4ZV

Posted by Anonymous on March 10, 2001

Will Bob get a copy of this survey?

Posted by Anonymous on March 10, 2001

CQ 160m Contests
30 hours out of 48 would let everyone have a good shot at these contests, and reduce those endless, pointless daytime CQs.

Also, let's have a sensible exchange from stations outside North America. Almost anything would be better than the ridiculous repetition of the (already known) country. I would vote for serial number.

Posted by G3SQX on March 10, 2001

The need for a 48 hour period is not only to give everybody the same number of sunrises and sunsets. In addition, it assures that everybody (at least in the Northern hemisphere) gets approximately the same number of darkness hours! 73, Riki, 4X4NJ

Posted by Anonymous on March 10, 2001

To allow all areas of the world to have equal
opportunity, 24 or 48 hours is necessary. To give stations in low pop density areas a a second shot if one night gives lousy propagation 48 hours is necessary.

Posted by Anonymous on March 10, 2001

W4ZV Survey
I agree with the previous post. Most contacts are made the first night. Leave
it as is.

Posted by Anonymous on March 9, 2001

As a participant for many years with numerous top 10 finishes, I know longer operate this contest because of the 42 hour format. 70% of the qso's are made in the first night, after that the contest is pure drudgery, even more so during the daylight operations.

Posted by Anonymous on March 9, 2001

I would not want to see any limitation of operating time (particularly a 48/15 format). Quite simply limited hours would turn 160WW into a "European QSO Party" with single operators spending their time working the "easy" stuff to optimize the score rather than spend time listening for real DX.

Posted by Anonymous on March 9, 2001

Personally, I really like the short, intense contest formats. However, for 160 where conditions can change so dramatically in just a short time, the 48/30 format is probably a better choice to allow for differing condition in different parts of the world.

I guess I'd vote for 48/30 now that I consider the options more closely.

Posted by Anonymous on March 9, 2001

To post a comment, you must be logged in.

If you are not a member, become one now!