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.

On what band do you feel you need to make the most improvement? Comments please...
  Posted: Sep 30, 2001   (542 votes, 10 comments) by N2MG

Survey Results
160m 37% (203)
80m 28% (153)
40m 16% (88)
20m 8% (42)
15m 3% (17)
10m 4% (20)
Other, none... 4% (19)

Survey Comments
bands in need
This is a great question.

1st, you can't win from down here unless it is the top of the cycle. Second, it takes some really good hardware.

From down here there are two trouble makers:

1) 20M When the NE can run here all day single-skip to Europe, it means bad news for us DubyaFours. Unless 10 & 15 are open at the same time. Not sure there is anything you can do about it though.

2) 80M My friend W8JI tells me we could compete with the NE on this band with enough stuff. Unfortunately, a 4-square doesn't seem to be enough. Maybe some day I'll have a real station [tm]. :)



Posted by W4AN on October 15, 2001

With no antennas for 160m thats pretty much a no brainer. While not having a 160m antenna hasn't affected my score so far time may be running out!

Posted by N1SV on October 10, 2001

That's, "Needs Help All Bands"

I currently have no antennas up. I guess that says it all.

However, one aspect that seems to be missing in the responses - if you just look at my operating (where I could use improvement as well) I need more experience with 80-20 propagation, especially long and skew path openings. Probably 160 as well, but that band is less important to me until I grasp the others. :)

Posted by N2MG on October 10, 2001

160-10 needs work.
Guess I'm on the "fringe", but need big help on 160-10. The VHF+ stuff plays really well. 160 plays OK when I have it installed (tear down beverages for the spring/summer). Need to put up a tribander, and some wires on 40/80 to at least be heard (let alone competitive!). Got a stinky GP on 75m now.

Posted by K2AXX on October 5, 2001

my worst antenna situation is on 10/15m . I only have a wire-doublet which works very good at 40 and 20m, quite OK on 80m and also good on 160m as a top-loaded vertical against ground. 15 and 10m are my weakest bands. I consider putting up a 10m HB9CV, but a beam for 15m would be too big for our garden :(

Posted by DJ1YFK on October 4, 2001

Band improvements
I voted for 160m, although it could just as well have been 80m. I use dipoles on both bands, but have a (large) Carolina Windom for 160, which is going up before the contest season. It will only be at 40 feet, but should be an improvement. It would be useful to have an aerial with some directional gain for contesting, but that will have to wait for a while.

Posted by g4iiy on October 1, 2001

re: 80 is hard.
A good vertical goes a long way on 80 meters.

Posted by N8VW on October 1, 2001

Band improvements
From an internationial contest perspective 80 meters needs the most work, but from a domestic perspective, 10 meters is my poorest band.

Posted by wa3ses on October 1, 2001

all of them...
A lot to improve on my antennas consisting of a 3 elt. 3-bander + wires, all at some 15 m high.

Posted by on5mf on October 1, 2001

80 is hard
I miss a lot of easy multipliers on 80 because I'm not loud enough there. It's not a QSO band, but missing those mults puts me well down in the pack overall. Everything else works pretty well.

Posted by k2ua on September 30, 2001

To post a comment, you must be logged in.

If you are not a member, become one now!