eHam Logo

Community
 Home
 eHam.net Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 Speakout
 Strays
 Survey
 My Profile

Resources
 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews



Contest Lists
 3830
 CQ-Contest
 CT-User
 NA-User
 SD-User
 TRLog
 VHFcontesting
 WriteLog

Other Lists
 Amps
 AntennaWare
 Propagation
 RFI
 RTTY
 TenTec
 TopBand
 TowerTalk
 Yaesu

 Mailing List FAQs


Site Information
 About This Site
 Contesting.com 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?
2016-05-28


What's your primary Software for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF ! )
2015-07-17


Are you ready the this year's winter contest season
2015-07-05


What ways have you found to be effective to attract newcomers to our hobby?
2015-04-28


What is your linear?
2015-02-09


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.

How do you feel about the introduction of a Multi-Two category in CQWW?
  Posted: Sep 05, 2002   (883 votes, 11 comments) by KM3T

Survey Results
I think it's great, and I plan to enter it at some point. 45% (399)
I think it's great, but I don't think I will enter this category. 22% (198)
I don't think it is a good idea. 11% (95)
I don't have a strong opinion about it. 22% (191)

Survey Comments
Gonna try it
We're going to try a 3-man, no-packet multi-two for WW phone at K2UA. Yes, I said phone...

Posted by N2MG on October 24, 2002

M2
It will be nice to cover two bands close to FOT (frequency of optimal transmission) with young runners while OT are looking for mults on the other bands within 8 changes allowed!

Check http://rkp.ice.hr/9a1p WWYC preparations.

73 de Mario, S56A, N1YU

Posted by s5m on October 9, 2002

Don't change WW-M/S !
With all due respect to those who are suggesting to changing the M/S category to
1-signal in CQWWDX,..... I say " No WAY!"

M/S in CQWW is like no other category in any
contest.
-You can do it with one station and a No-Tune Amp or two stations or three.

-CQWWDX M/S is one of the best categories to
train and improve hams who want to be contesters. You can do well with "newbies" helping in the present M/S category.

SOAB ops presently have three challenging categories: (plus Single Band, LP and QRP.)
SOAB with 1-signal and no packet/assist
SOA with 1-signal
M/S with 2-signals

K1AR, by himself, entered as M/M years ago since there was not a category that would support 2 signals other than M/M.

Nearly every SO2R station is capable of 2-signals as a result of all the filters that
have been bought and coax stubs that have been tuned.

If M/S is changed to 1-signal, then "SO-2Sig"
will become a M2 entry.

Category choice also comes down to manpower. Small M/M groups might slide back and try M2 a few times. The larger M/S groups will try M2.

Changing M/S will reduce the number of QSOs made in total during the event. If M/S stations can not call anyone else while running, there will be fewer callers and less QSOs. Will the M/S-1signal stations have to CQ all the time ?

As it is, the addition of M2 will cause many more CQ-ers this year with the additional 100 to 200 M2 stations calling CQ on their 2nd station !

Where will they fit EVERYONE since they will
be CQ-ing ! And you thought that other hams were complained before ......Oh Boy!

The CQWW committee would adversely disrupt the World's Greatest Contest by changing M/S.
And hopefully M2 won't destroy it first.

Charlie - N1RR

Posted by N1RR on October 9, 2002

Morse Code - A Passion
Have used and enjoyed morse since 1954 - I
have a morse key collection of about 30 keys/
paddles/keyers. I can use a straight key as well as paddles and even use one mobile. For
contests I vary from paddles to memory keyer
to straight key. Used to be expert on semi-automatic bug but lost the touch when I switched to the automatic paddles. I have an
Eico tube keyer in my collection.

Posted by VE4YU on October 5, 2002

YES (but)
Adding M/2 is a really nice move by CQWW organizers.
Hope now they will make another great one - to make M/S
a real SINGLE TX Category. Such a move will make things
well defined and fun for all participants IMHO.

See ya all in CQWW SSB from LZ9W.
73's de Wally LZ2CJ(LZ8T)

Posted by LZ2CJ on October 2, 2002

CQWW Multi-Two Catagory (Good/Bad)
It is nice to see this catagory but I do not like the 8 band-change per station per hour rule.
I think that M2 stations should stay on the band they are on for 10 minutes.
I see the potential now for M2 entrants to use 4 stations: 2 run and 2 mult.
It seems like a double multi-single now and some stations that WANT to enter in the
M2 catagory do not have the capability to be competitive without the extra mult station(s).

I agree with K5TR's comments above.

And for those who are chasing CQWW DX Contest awards/certificates.......it takes
2+ years as it is now to get the awards for your operating achievement and in many
cases you dont get them unless you keep asking for them. It has been this way
since I started contesting back in 1987. Some really dont care about the awards...
but some do! Now there will be even more awards to get out to the deserving which
could mean that you wait 4-5 years for it.

Posted by NX5M on September 20, 2002

CQWW M2
I simply LOVE this idea... we will be using this at VP5B and also at home ( K4ISV). The best contest has now been improved. Thanks and salutes to the contest committee.

Posted by k4isv on September 20, 2002

I like it
I like the idea of adding M/2 to CQWW.

I still like the old/current CQ M/S - I hope they keep it. It is so much more interesting than ARRL's M/S where the guys not on the run radio have mostly nothing to do.

Posted by N2MG on September 8, 2002

I think it is ok - but I guess I dont care.
It seems to me now that there is a real
two transmitter catagory the old two transmitter
catagory (multi-single) could be made into
a real single transmitter catagory.

Posted by k5tr on September 6, 2002

Maybe
I like the idea, sort of. I DO like M/2.

BUT, M/S in CQWW *IS* M/2, although with specialized rules for using the 2nd TX. So we end up with another Multi Category. And I think we already have enough categories!!

But I'll probably enter it eventually anyways.
Ted KR1/KT1V

Posted by kr1g on September 5, 2002

Yes!
I wish all contests had M/2 categories. Especially IARU!

Posted by KL9A on September 5, 2002

To post a comment, you must be logged in.

If you are not a member, become one now!