| |
1) What principle
defined the selected contests? |
| |
|
| |
We decided to use the two major international
contests CQWW and WPX. We added WAEDC recognizing the popularity
and excellent administration by DARC. ARRL DX was included
for the same reason (one from Europe another one from USA).
In addition to those four contests we included IARU (the main
competition under which the WRTC is conducted) and the Sweepstakes
and NA Sprint in response to suggestions from USA contest
community. We understand that some others could be included,
but this is a first step. |
| |
|
| |
We knew that the maximum number of rating
points per contest of 500 (CQWW, WPX), 450 (IARU, SPRINT and
SS), 400 (ARRL and WAEDC) would cause a lot of discussion,
but the WRTC 2006 committee must select the factors we judge
most adequate. At the same time we should develop a way to
evaluate the effects of these factors for future competitions. |
| |
|
| |
2) Why the limit of the eight
highest scores from the 33+ possible contests? |
| |
|
| |
Even for the most active contesters it
is difficult to make a large number of competitive entries
over a three-year period. It is not easy to combine, job,
family and hobby responsibilities. The flexibility to choose
eight scores from the 33+ minimizes the impact of other rules
and selection criteria. i.e., points per contest, weighting
factors, limitation on MO scores, region definitions, etc. |
| |
|
| |
3) Why a totally open process? |
| |
|
| |
A selection process doesn’t need
to be open to be HONEST. We are completely confident that
the previous WRTCs developed different honest ways to select
the best contesters in the world for the event. Being in all
WRTCs and sharing thoughts with all participants we felt that
the contest community would prefer to have an open process.
We understand that an open process also results in some unwanted
consequences. |
| |
- More complex selection process.
|
| |
- More questions to be answered.
|
| |
- A higher level of criticism.
|
| |
- Listing applicants with their scores might discourage
some people from applying, resulting in a lower number of
applicants.
|
| |
- More work to be done by the committee.
|
| |
|
| |
4) Why limit the number of MO
scores? |
| |
|
| |
One of the main concerns about MO scores
was that an operator could receive more points than would
be merited by his or her contribution to the team score. Also
we felt that no limit on MO scores would be a penalty for
SO. We therefore limited the number of MO scores to 50% of
the total scores. For applicants to the M/N M/S category we
will not limit the number of MO scores. |
| |
|
| |
5) How were weighting factors
determined? |
| |
|
| |
Our consensus was: |
| |
-
SOAB demands the highest level of ability
from the operator.
|
| |
-
The MO category is important to maintaining
a high level of contest activity and should not be discounted
too deeply.
|
| |
-
The weighting factor for MO should
decrease according to the usual number of operators. So
we decided on 0,8 MS, 0,75 M/2 and 0,6 MM.
|
| |
-
SOSB received a weighting factor of
0,8 due to reduced demand on the operator.
|
| |
-
LP scores received a further weighting
factor of 0,9 and were included recognizing the high level
of competition for the leaders in this category.
|
| |
-
The reduction factor cannot be completely
fair to everyone but at least will be equal for every
applicant.
|
| |
-
For Assisted we have 0,9 factor but
all Assisted in the same basket independently if they
are SOSB, SOAB, or LP
|
| |
|
| |
We perfectly understand that every one
of us could have a different way to evaluate that but the
WRTC 2006 has the responsibility to provide and define a clear
and open process to be used equally for all applicants. |
| |
|
| |
6) Why the stepped reduction
of points based on finishing place? |
| |
|
| |
It would be much simpler to simply prorate
the final points against the first-place score. The problem
is that DXpeditions or rare countries produce disproportionately
high scores. Compare scores in the following examples: |
| |
|
| |
D4, CT3, CN, 3V to with ZS or any other resident African score |
| |
HC8, 9Y, PJ, P40 to LU or PY |
| |
KH2 or VK9 to VK or ZL |
| |
A6, 9K, or 5B to JA |
| |
|
| |
So we came up with a process to gradually
reduce the number of points according to the place of finish
in order to remove these distortions. |
| |
|
| |
7) Why the division of areas
into WRTC 2006 Regions? |
| |
|
| |
There are some high ham populations in
large continents or countries with an enormous difference
in propagation. The most common examples are USA, Europe and
Asia. It is true that this difference in propagation is present
on a worldwide basis, but it is impossible to adapt the rules
for all situations. We recognize that this is also happening
in S. America, Africa and Oceania, but the contest activity
has a much lower density there. This is the general method
of allocating representation used by the Olympic games, Soccer,
Basketball, and other international sports. |
| |
|
| |
8) Why the score comparison
by region? |
| |
|
| |
In order to recognize the importance
of Dx-peditions and at the same time minimize the impact of
them compared to scores from residents we decided to use the
following philosophy: |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
In our judgment this system is not perfect but is reasonable. |
| |
|
| |
9) Why upgrade the standard
Team setup? |
| |
|
| |
Brazil is quite far from the high-density
contest populations. Aiming to minimize such a disadvantage
we decided to add a 2-element mono-band antenna for 40 meters
and to try to have an equivalent linear for every team. We
must also to take into consideration that July 2006 is at
the lowest point of the present solar cycle. |
| |
|
| |
We know that this simple change will have some consequences: |
| |
- Additional equipment to be sponsored by the WRTC 2006
|
| |
|
| |
- Higher and stronger towers needed to support the additional
antenna
|
| |
- Possible increase in interference between bands.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
10) Why have more flexible interaction
between operator A and B? |
| |
|
| |
We would like to allow a totally flexible
M/S operation for the teams. In our perception this should
be the most adequate system for the future WRTCs. Unfortunately
it is a too large a step in a short period of time. For example,
it would require two towers to avoid too much interference
between bands. Bearing in mind that this is going to be the
way of the future, we decided to go one step further in permitting
a higher degree of participation by the 2nd operator in the
setup. Thus the 2nd operator can do everything except to key
radio B. Radio B should be used only for reception or eventually
to replace the radio A in case of failure. Since the referee
will hear only the audio for radio A, we don’t want
station B to have a voice or CW keyer. This does not mean
that the 2nd operator is not allowed to support the 1st operator
by using the CW or voice keyer from station A. The table attached
in the rules should be sufficiently clear to permit the competitors
to develop a hardware and software strategy. The challenge
for the competitors is not only operating but also to find
the best way to extract the maximum return from the software
and hardware used in the competition. That is the game! |
| |
|
| |
11) WRTC
2006 Rules: |
| |
|
| |
The rules for WRTC 2006 follow those
for WRTC 2002, but there is a strong desire to have exactly
the same rules as the IARU contest. It has been suggested
that due to the fact that we are permitting the use of three
different software packages (WriteLog, CT, and TR) the creation
of Cabrillo format files is more reliable by using the IARU
rules to avoid problems. We are studying this suggestion and
in due time we will release a final version of the rules. |
| |
|
| |
12) Why the Young Teams (YT)? |
| |
|
| |
One of the major concerns of the Ham
Radio community is how to maintain and increase the motivation
of the young generation to participate in our hobby. This
aspect is being discussed in all our meetings and is still
a big challenge for all of us. The “competition”
in all sports and hobbies is one of choosing the weapons to
keep the attention of the young generation. As we all know
ham radio is competing against the Internet, sports, other
hobbies, unfortunately drugs, etc. The idea to offer a real
chance to the youngster to compete in the WRTC 2006 came simultaneously
from several friends, but I should say that our friend W6OAT
(Rusty) made very strong arguments during our meeting in Dubai
(A61AJ) to do everything possible to have some YT in the next
WRTC 2006. So, we opened three positions to be occupied by
YT. They will apply for this specific category and their scores
will be compared only to other applicants in this category
but during the WRTC 2006 they will compete on equal terms
with the “old guys”. |
| |
|
| |
13) Why the M/N M/S category? |
| |
|
| |
A considerable number of visitors in
the WRTC would like to have the chance to participate in the
event as visitors, but simultaneously do something that they
really love – Contesting. At the same time we would
like to stimulate the Brazilians hams to develop and to upgrade
their stations. The WRTC 2006 is a unique opportunity for
us Brazilians to share and learn techniques from the best
contesters in the world. The M/N M/S is a category specially
created to increase the integration of contesters from different
parts of the world, but that share the same spirit. |
| |
|
| |
14) Why the Sponsored Teams? |
| |
|
| |
The budget for WRTC events is quite high
and difficult to cover within our own resources and possibilities.
We created a Fundraising Committee and several ideas were
proposed. Most of those ideas we are implementing with very
good results. We do have some private companies helping and
supporting the event, so why not search for hams that could
eventually bring some sponsors, as well? So the idea is to
have contesters looking for companies or persons who could
be interested in sponsoring a team for the WRTC 2006. Immediately
after the selection of the standard teams we will open an
Internet auction for the Sponsored Team category. |
| |
|
| |
Note: Our decision
for a totally open process, orient us to study all suggestions
and to answer all questions. Our commitment is to have nobody
without a response.
So don’t worry about contacting us in case of any doubts.
It is our obligation to try to clear up all matters related
with our WRTC 2006.
We perfectly understand that in the end, it is also our duty,
to make the final decision, knowing that we are not able to
please everyone.
Be sure we are doing our best, perhaps some times not sufficiently
to attend all expectations.
|
