Submittal Forms
Current Contests
Recent Contests

ARRL 222 MHz and Up Distance Contest   2017   Aug 5   Claimed Score

Click on a call below for a list of all the contests for which that call sign is listed as an operator. Click on the [email] link to send an e-mail to the contester who posted the claimed score.

Call: K1TEO
Operator(s): K1TEO
Station: K1TEO

Class: Single Op HP
QTH: CT
Operating Time (hrs): 11
Location: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT, VE2

Summary:   Compare Scores
BandQSOs
222:57
432:73
903:29
1.2:32
2.3:16
3.4:12
5.7:5
10G:5
24G:
Total:229Total Score148,103

 

Club: North East Weak Signal Group

Comments:     [email]     2017-08-09 06:51:10
My intention was to do a full time effort, but Murphy intervened Sunday morning with a broken rotor largely shutting me down. In the end mine was a largely Saturday effort with about 85% of my QSO's then. Condx were poor on Saturday and seemed better (closer to normal) during my limited Sunday operations. I am glad this contest continues as I enjoy the lower key operating vs a regular VHF contest and the chance to spend more time trying to work difficult microwave QSO's. Activity was not as good as I would like and condx below normal (the beacons were way down on all bands) but it was still great to get on and operate 222 and up! Tnx to the rovers for making things fun. I worked VE3CRU, KF2MR, KJ1K, WA2AAU, W2RMA, WB2SIH, NN3Q and N2XRE that I can remember. Good job guys! What was also nice is that most of these guys had microwave bands, which is different than the full fledged VHF contests where more and more rovers do not. A few observations: -My score is likely not accurate. I was using the N1MM logging program for the first time. As often happens, I log a station on the wrong band and go back to change it. I did this a number of times and manually made the correction and thought I did it right. Unfortunately - though I set up the eligible bands as only 222 and up - these QSO's ended up being on 80 and 160 meters! Hopefully I changed it correctly in the Cabrillo file but it's likely the distance scoring was not accurate. I did not go back to recalculate all of my QSO's to see what multiples it used for these QSO's figuring the ARRL will score it anyway. - After a couple of years now of the use of chat pages, texts etc, I can say that this was the first contest where it seemed a large percentage of the QSO's were arranged vs found randomly on the air. I did work a fair number of my QSO's on CQ's or S&Ping but many stations I easily worked were never heard on the air randomly. I have really enjoyed the excitement over the years of calling CQ and hearing a rare station come back etc. This isn't a knock on the new rules or approach to successfully operating a VHF/UHF contest currently, but it is a major change from former operating methods. - Distance scoring was interesting. In the past if I worked a local they counted as a QSO point just like any other contact and helped the scoring even if not a new grid. In this contest locals are heavily devalued as they added little to the score. On the other hand working a 3.4 QSO over a significant distance has a very large impact. I think it will be interesting to see how this would eventually impact rover plans. If I am a rover I would now be less interested in roving in high activity areas and rare grids than in the past. Now a possible strategy is to find the furthest good location where you can work back to the higher activity areas. -I congratulate and appreciate all the work that went into rethinking and implementing the new rules. I believe we all had a chance to provide input and I don't think I took the time to do so. Thinking about it and experiencing it now I think the band factors might be a bit off. Admittedly my observations are biased to what happens here in the Northeast but I would think something like: 222 - 1.5 432 - 1 903 -4 1.2 - 3 2.3 - 6 3.4 - 8 5.7 - 10 10 g - 9 might make more sense from what I observe about activity levels and difficulty to make a contact. 22 for example is the easiest of the included bands but has less activity than 432. But I consistently make about +/- 70 - 75% (even a little more this time)as many contacts on 222 as 432. And it is a lot harder to work a 1.2G QSO than a 222 QSO so having them equal makes less sense to me. And finally I find it easier to make a 5G QSO than a 10G QSO though there is more activity on 10G than 5G. Just my 2 cents and not criticism (especially since I didn't take the opportunity to provide input ahead of time). Tnx for the Q's and for the work done to keep this contest going. Now to take my arrays apart and go fix that pesky rotor. 73, Jeff K1TEO