toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I was thinking in terms of ALWAYS pairing 23cms with others to guarantee entries for each and make a second higher band attractive from a competitive point of view.
Then we could have an end of year 23cm league table award, combining all the results plus an end of year "low activity bands" table award
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Martyn Vincent <ukv@...>
Hi John, Roger et al
Thanks for comments. If you look near the end of my previous
email, I did suggest alternative pairings, for the reason you (and
also John 'XDY himself) give . . .
"Perhaps different pairings
- eg 23/9cm, 13/6cm, 3cm/12mm ?"
This couples the more used bands
with the less (wonder why ??) used
bands, and puts 10 & 24 GHz bands
together, with the possibility of Roving on either or both of
these bands, which is reasonably practical, given the revised
timings introduced this year.
I like your idea John of 'weighting' scores on the less-used band
(ie 9cm, 6cm and 12mm) as an incentive, but that would require
combining two (or more) bands scores, which I'm not so sure about.
On balance, I think it would be safer at this stage to score each
Perhaps a trial overall "Microwave Championship" of ALL bands
(23cm to light, with 'weighting') in 2015, with a free ticket to
the World Tiddleywinks Olympics for the winner ?
Anyway, is there general support for a) reducing the number of
contests overall, and b) for only having 2 bands per session ?
73 Martyn G3UKV
On 17/12/2013 09:55, g4bao wrote:
I have to agree with roger about putting 3.4
and 5.7 together. There will be little take up. My idea if
you Really want 2 band contests is to combine 23cms with a
low activity band but double the points for the low
activity band QSOs.
On 16 Dec 2013 21:45, <g8cub@...
It is a fair idea, but not great. I think if
you put 3.4 & 5.7G together you would get
How about keeping 1.3, 2.3, 3.4G together.
Have 5 cumulatives, 2x 5.7 + 10G, 2x 10 + 24G,
& 1 x 5.7, 10, 24G - or is that getting