Comments about TC - as received at
the early stages of formulation of rules
AA8U
I am really impressed with all the hard
work you have put in. My printer is working on it now for detailed study. Nice
web page,,,,so fast too.
I like the name and most of the
details....but, always a but...I like single op single band....and want to use
packet too! Please make it so.
K3BU: Thanks! We will summarize and consider all comments for possible
final decision. We tend to keep single op A and O categories packet free, at
least until TC grows and there are many stations asking for it. For now we
shouldn't spread it out too thin, too many categories.
WA7BNM
October is already crowded with contests,
some extremely popular. Here's a list of contests scheduled for the 2nd weekend
in October: ....
The Pennsylvania QSO Party is a major
state QSO party in the U.S.
K3BU: OK, so far no suggestions for better date, we will see how things
develop. April might the best date, although Fall is attractive for N
Hemisphere, time in the summer to rearm, WX is guaranteed no snow or ice. Could
be good warm up for CQ WW.
K5IUA
Unfortunately I do not agree with the
concept of using the first three as a multiplier. The use of a four digit grid
square number will result in some big numbers, but one has to remember that
these numbers would apply only to this contest. The scores alone could not be
compared to other contests to see which is the "better" contest.
K3BU: We are not setting up our scoring system to compare with other
contests, just looking for practicality. Too many multipliers (like WPX) tend to
devaluate the value of multipliers and use of more tactics, rather than just
"run 'em" - perpetual CQing.
KH7R
I commend you on the Tesla Radio club
proposed draft rules for a contest that evens the playing field for all
participants. Operating from the middle of the Pacific has been a major
disadvantage for us and any attempt to take away the advantage that others have
enjoyed over the years is welcome news.
This is what we would like to see in any
new contest.
Scoring MUST be distance based to even
the playing field. Low band contacts should be worth more points than high band
contacts.
Grid fields used as multipliers i.e. DM,
PL etc., not grid squares.
Grid squares used as an exchange
24 hour contest period in the fall
sometime
assume the use of packet in all
categories
NO HQ stations as multipliers
We feel that such a contest would
incorporate the best of all the contests and be more accommodating to the mass
contesting community worldwide.
K3BU: Distance based scoring for HF and high QSO rate contest gets too
complicated. With our scoring scheme, there would be some advantages for heavily
populated areas on low bands, but then remote locations would have advantage on
high bands. Sorry no packet for single op, packet means assistance by someone
else and that belongs to multi op, or separate Single OP Assisted, like we have
P. Packet messed up DXing, lets keep contesting sane.
AA8U
Serial number should stay!
I also suspect you will have problems
with the part requiring all participants to send in logs, or only counting
verifiable contacts. I even have some concern with that one. Who wants to put in
a full effort only to find a great share of the points are lost because the many
casual participants didn't send you a log.
The difference between claimed and
published score might make one look bad. I think of all the things you put down,
that one will be the biggest problem. I know lots of contesters that don't send
in logs unless they think they will place in the top of their call area or such.
All those qso points would be lost. Not a good deal.
If you need verification, the maybe
having all stations get bonus points for exchanging QTC info would be a good
way. QTCs also make after the fact log doctoring more difficult. Besides, QTCs
are great fun!
I hope you can find a weekend that works
and that this starts the new century in a big way. You have my support.
Hey, I may even sponsor a trophy/plaque
for Single Band Assisted (combined cw/ssb of course)
I don't see any possibility of a
certificate for highest score in my W8 call area. Only reward, besides having
fun, is to be 1st place USA. I really think you need to re-think this one.
K3BU: You got them, serial numbers are in. Requiring logs, we are looking
perhaps a bit ahead. In the beginning there will be grace period and some
obviously good contacts with no logs would be counted. But there is no excuse
for those who read the rules, are serious about the contest, not to send the
logs. If they don't, all who worked them will suffer equally. QTC are for
contests that stretch and have low participation, they fill in the "holes" in
activity. Certifcates will be issued depending on density, we might go by
squares, or groups of them, or call areas. Maybe even electronic ones, just
download it and print it. Instant service.
K4BEV
As a lifelong (well, at least since I was
5 years old) fan of Tesla, and a relatively new contester (just into my second
year), I consider this as a rare (so far) opportunity to operate in a contest
from it's inception until I can't operate anymore. Thank you.
The contest sounds like it will work, but
I have one question. Why are QSOs with stations that do not submit a log 0
points? A true unique would justify this, but if the same station shows up in
several logs, with the same (or very similar) exchange, why not allow the point?
There is no way to determine whether a guy is going to submit a log when you're
working him - or would the regulars just skip calls that they aren't familiar
with?
K3BU: Glad to pull out some Tesla fans. We hope to spread the word and
publicize this Genius. Again, we will probably consider grace period on no logs
until we get up to speed.
VE3ZT:
I took to liberty of posting your
original TESLA Cup post to the canada-contest@gps.andor.net Reflector.
Serial numbers are good. Seems like an
"interesting" exchange, a nice change from some of the usual "brain dead
exchanges" in a lot of the contests and qso parties.
You will get lots of comments on the
above (no logs - no points), I think I know why you are doing it, though. Let's
wait and see what the consensus is. It's good that you are leaving a lot of this
open-ended for discussion and possible revisions.
Excellent stuff! I like it.
K3PP:
Nice work on the draft rules! The contest
sounds interesting and I would definitely participate. I see two big problems
with the draft, however.
First, the October weekend is the
Pennsylvania QSO Party, a BIG contest and one of my favorites. (2nd - no log -
no points)
The grid mult may need some tweaking.
Either the first two or all four might be a better choice. I'd prefer the first
two as the
mult, but use all four in the exchange.
Otherwise, I like the concept. Count me in on it!
K3BU: Dates are still open and
subject to finalizing. I think two char. grids is not enough, and four would be
too much, but we will see. If we make changes later, they should be in the
direction of increasing the scores for records sake. We might go for 4 if it
looks better.
Let's keep in mind, we are shooting
for world premier event, the mother of all contests that would give serious
contester means of fighting it out and give them close to equal chance at
scoring according to ability who works most QSOs in widest area in particular
category. Definitely not another QSO party or begging for QSOs contest. There is
plenty of those. What we are missing is contest when one can have decent chance
from his home station to make it into top ten.
Will (DJ7AA ?)
Don't we have enough contests running??
73 Wil
K3BU: Probably yes, but none like
this one. If you like to try to measure yourself against others with fairly fair
scoring, this is it. Otherwise choose whichever you like.
AA4NN:
I'm just back from 'http://members.aol.com/K3BU/TeslaCup.htm'
and really like your proposed rules. No log submission, no points. This will
really tighten down on valid Qs, an idea whose time has come. It happens in
contests now, and the only reason the Q is valid is because the call shows up in
other logs. So, I agree, no log, no points. Sorry, guys, this is a serious
contest.
I like the 3-character grid exchange, as
well. Covers dense areas as well as sparse areas. Thats a pretty good chunk of
the world. Very meaningful for propagation purposes. Serial number? Sheesh, who
cares, with the no-log, no-point rule, what good would a serial number do as far
as software trying to verify the contact? Keep it if you want, but my preference
would be to put it in the bit bucket.
This is serious, I will sponsor the
Single OP, CW, ALL BAND plaque. I sponsor a plaque in the Stew Perry and I would
really like to be a part of the Tesla award program.
K3BU: Phew! And I thought nobody
likes it the way it is, started to feel down. Thanks Joe, your comments and
support very much appreciated, especially coming from serious contester like
you! We will see what others will say about serial number. We can always drop
them, when contest gets too hot and they are in the way, it can only make things
faster and better. Thanks for the trophy!
N6NZ: (via eHam.net)
1. Grid "stripe" multipliers for HF is an
idea that has been rattling around in my head for a while, too, so interesting
to see someone else come up with same. I don't think it "levels the playing
field" geographically, though, as you hope. Too much difference in population
density around the globe to ever solve that one.
2. 3 pts for CW and 2 points for phone
won't even up the value. Cal QSO Party counts 3 for CW and 2 for phone, and the
top stations work about 80% phone and 20% CW. 2:1 ratio probably closer to
"balance", if that is what you are after.
3. N6TR and N5KO are the absolute guru's
of computerized log checking with years of experience in various contests. I
have heard them say that you can "synthesize" missing logs after the submitted
percentage reaches a critical mass. Many casual operator logs are 100% present
in the logs of the hard-core. You might consider how to make use of that
redundancy in the log checking system.
K3BU: 1. Much better and easier to
digest than any other scheme. Some stations will have advantages on low bands
(high density), some on high bands (remote areas), but none of this 3 pointers
for next door continental QSO. 2. Difference here is that we have separate parts
CW and phone not at the same time. 3. We are after those who are serious
contesters, they will read the rules, enter the contest and send the logs
(eventually). In the beginning we will have grace period for accepting no log
QSOs. As news and popularity of TC spreads around, we will have no problem with
logs. Everybody else will be on the same boat. We are looking for computer
gurus to help with log processing and above concerns.
K5TR: (via eHam.net)
Why not just operate one of the existing
grid square contests? WWL - http://www.okdxc.cz/WWL.HTM or TOEC - http://www.qsl.net/toec/grid.htm
For more of my thoughts on this see these posts to CQ-Contest: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/9908/0310.html
and http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/9908/0380.html
K3BU: When you compare rules,
categories and scoring system, it is like why do you not drive VW Bug instead of
Cadillac or Rolls Royce? I was hoping that Czech contest would turn out like TC,
they asked for my comments, but then ignored them all and went ahead with what
you see. It is not just another Grid Square contest, It is Tesla Cup - World
Championship Contest where scoring system allows for fair comparison of stations
and operator skills. Time will tell, people will vote with their logs. Just like
any other contest, this one will either flourish or fade away.
AA8U:
Yuri, you definately have your head on
square and are a man of vision. The concept of making certificates available
on-line is a good one! Gee, if
I deserve one and want it fast to fill
that blank spot on my shack wall I can print my own. Terrific idea. That would
help keep costs down for the
event and solve the wait for years
problem so many other events seem to have. This also would allow you to add a
couple categories, I hope sooner than later....SOA-Single Band for one....
I see there is a proposed trophy for
single operator single band 160, currently not sponsored. I wish to sponsor this
award.
K3BU: Thanks for sponsoring the
trophy, you got it! Yes, those having color printers can have certificates on
line in color. Unclaimed ones will be mailed.
K1KY:
Looks like the making of an exciting
contest!
1. I echo the comments about conflicts
with other contests, especially State QSO Parties -- in particular, the PA QSO .
The April dates should be much better. 4th weekend in October and 2nd Weekend of
November might be a good alternative.
2. As for no points for non-submitted
logs, how about giving credit for the transmitted portion and not the received
portion? I can see where log checking would be much easier with only submitted
logs and would be most fair to everyone. Either way, this would not be an issue
regarding my decision to operate.
3. I haven't seen any comments regarding
off-times. Although I'm still fairly young in comparison, these long contests
tend to reduce the "fun" factor. How about consideration to more time off, maybe
3 or 4 hours and 1-3 or 4 breaks per CW/SSB portion? This can make strategy a
bigger issue.
4. On the exchange issue, I would like to
see something even more structured, like in the NA Sprints, which involve the
receiving stations' callsign. I can go either way with regard to serial number,
but would lean toward not having serial numbers in lieu of more structure to the
exchange.
5. If you do require serial numbers, I
suggest having multi-ops and multi/singles start their sequential numbering from
1 on each band operated.
Example:
>CQ TEST K1KY
} K3BU
> K3BU <exchange info>
} K1KY TU (or TC?) <exchange info>
> TU (or TC) K1KY
Making the callsign a required component
should reduce logging/dupe errors. Think of the TU or TC as promoting
international courtesy, replacing the senseless RS(t) report and providing a
prelude to the exchange. Encourage/Require callsign at the end of a qso for the
running station .. no QRZ's or whatever. I like the idea of the first 3 in the
grid square for mults, and would not be opposed to 4. "2 is too few!"
6. How about a Guest category with no
packet?
7. I assume from reading that single-ops
will not be allowed to operate "two radios" as we all know it. Although I like
operating "two radio - singleop" I think this really helps to level the playing
field and should increase the "fun" factor while reducing some task overload. Or
while you are at it, take the plunge and make a separate "Single-op Two
radio/transmitter/limited to one transmitted signal at a time" into another
category as many have suggested in the past.
K3BU: Thanks for in depth comments
Tom. 1. Looks like we will end up with one (initially?) in April. 4th weekend in
Oct? CQ WW?
2. Good idea to credit 1 point for
"flaky" unconfirmed QSOs. Should we also allow multiplier count for "half" cfm
QSO?
3. More off time is interesting,
compromise between "I wanna operate more" and "I wanna play more strategy". I
kind of think that 2 hrs is about right, but lets se what majority (of serious)
contesters thinks.
4. Don't want to complicate exchange
too much. We are talking fast contest in relatively short time, no dragging
times expected.
5. Included, to prevent starting at
1000 :-), Multi-Single should number sequentially, it complicates temptations to
run more transmitters simultaneously, plus gives picture how they doing overall.
6. Maybe later when we mushroom, in
the beginning we don't want to spread too thin, have categories with no takers.
Always room for expansion.
7. Single op unassisted can use as
many transmitters, transceivers as heshe can handle, just one signal at the
time. No simultaneous CQing and working mults, even on single band. (Or would it
make it more interesting and push the technology envelope?)
AA8U:
suggestion...as you revise the rules, set
the text color to red or yellow, for the parts that have been changed and post
the revision date also on the web page so I don't have to read it all to find
out what has changed since I last looked....hi - terrific job you are doing
Yuri!
K3BU: Done, I was thinking that we
might need it. Thanks!
DF4SA:
there is an idea wandering thru my head,
how about adding a bit of the sprint fun and add a rule stating that whenever
someone holding a frequency hands out a serial number which is a multiple of 100
(or maybe 200), has to leave his QRG to the calling station.....
Generally I like the rules! Had some
difficulties understanding why you dont want to use distance-based scoring,
because I still think a 10000km QSO should be worth more than a 500km QSO. On
the other hand I understand that it might be too much bias in favor of those who
sit half-DX away from highly populated areas (like for Western EU every easy USA
QSO is still around 4000km). Anyway I am not 100% happy with it but cannot think
of some other (uncomplicated) method....
The other point that came up on the
reflector is giving additional bonus to low band QSOs. I would be in favor of
this, even if it is just a small bonus mult, like 1.5, so please dont close the
file on this one.
K3BU: sprint style QSY rule might
be fun, but I think is a bit out of place for this type of contest. How would
one try to nail that multiplier? Moving target? Low band bonus is interesting,
we are keeping it active.
AA8U:
Were I the one to write this part of the
rules I would limit Single Op stations to 20 of 24 hours with off times to be a
minimum of one half hour. For me, I would take most of this off time in one shot
to be fresher for the next event/mode.
I2WIJ:
best congrats for the tremedous amount fo
work done so far!
I would recommend a new category: D.
SINGLE OPERATOR DUO BAND (any two band) - operating ONE BAND could be OK but,
since propagation conditions are involved, there is the possibility of a lot of
dead hours, while with two band these could be much limited, enhancing the
presence of stations on the bands and consequently increasing the participation.
AA8U:
"Contacts with stations that do not send
logs are worth one point. Multiplier credit can be claimed only for (verified)
complete error free QSOs."
I also think that for the first couple
events you should state up front your desire to get logs from everyone but that
until the contest gets established you will score it without this requirement.
i.e. not striping points or multipliers away just because you can't verify them.
After you see how much percentage of logs
get turned in you will know if this requirement is indeed practical. I believe
many will not enter due to the logs received for verification clause. When you
say you will be lenient in the first events, that is not clear enough and can
lead people to think your decisions will be arbitrary and inconsistant. It would
be better to make clear your intentions up front.
I still want to see bonus QSO points for
low band contacts.
Low power should be up to 150 watts, not
100.
Do you think you will be able to get CQ,
CQ Contest, QST, or NCJ to also publish the announcements and results. This
would boost participation and interest. I want to see more exchange of ideas on
the CQ Contest reflector.
EI5DI:
Congratulations on a fine effort in
getting things started. Here's a suggestions that I hope you'll consider.
Multiplier - first 2 characters only of
Locator Square ID. Reason: Even with 2-character (large square) mults, there
will be the potential for a large number of multipliers, per band, in comparison
to the average number of QSOs per band.
With 3 character mults, there will
potentially be 10 times more multipliers.
In my experience, when the number of
multipliers is a high percentage of the number of QSOs, multipliers are devalued
and the final score becomes largely dependent on QSO totals.
CT1BOH:
I have followed carefully your efforts and read the
draft rules. If you want my very modest opinion a contest in order to be popular
needs the casual operator to participate. The casual participant will operate
if there is a lot of DX and the exchange is simple
to understand. With an exchange like FN22 HA 001I doubt the Tesla Cup will ever
be even a minor contest. The casual
participant will be scared away and when that
happens there will be just a few people endlessly
calling TEST with few takers...
K5NA:
My first impression is there are too many variables in the exchange. I
don't mind having an exchange that challenges the
other station to make an accurate copy of
it. But you are proposing the contest be run in a time of year when the low
bands are still very noisy. A more complicated exchange
will discourage low band operating from the
southern areas.
The complicated exchange will add a bigger differential in success on 160
from the NE to the other parts of the USA. Thus
adding to the east coast advantage. I know
there will be a big difference as I have operated in both
places. I would suggest grid squares or serial
numbers, but not both. Good luck with it.
LZ2CJ:
My comments on Tesla Cup:
1.Exchange - I think it is too complicated Keep it
- FN22 001 - thus you have different exchange for every contact.
2. Date - Second weekend of October
3. Do not apply penalties for wrong copied
exchanges. Point system is OK as suggested.
4. Multipliers - Multiplier coming from working a
station which has not sent a log, must be valid and counted, too.
5.Categories - Too complicated. A. is OK / O. is OK
/ P. I think should be removed. Simply follow the CQWW categories and add LOW
Power for M-S and M- M . Guest operators should be allowed to operate in regular
categories of SOSB or SOAB.
6 LOGS. You CAN NOT force anyone to send you a log
Yuri. This is completely a decision of the given person! Paper logs should be
allowed, too. In many countries Internet is still a good dream for great part
of amateurs.
K2KW:
1) You cannot assume that serious, let alone casual
entrants will know their grid square. In the rules, you need to have a link to a
Grid Square conversion program. Here is one possible site: http://www.amsat.org/amsat/toys/gridconv.html
2) If you are going to eliminate QSOs when no logs
are received, at a minimum you need to get most of the major contest software
writers to accommodate your contest. If there is no contest software, I think
you will severely limit your participation (especially after the no-log grace
period).
3) If a major entrant submits a paper log, will you
accept it? In general, how are you going to treat paper logs? Will you convert
them to electronic form for scoring?
4) Even the king of contests, the CQ WW Contest
only receives logs from about 10-15% of the valid callsigns that are active in
the contest (and I think about 50%?? of the logs received are electronic logs).
Personally I have no interest in entering a contest where 90% of my contacts are
eliminated because there are no logs!
5) What constitutes a valid SENT exchange? What if
I send the wrong exchange every once in a while, will anyone be penalized? For
example, I operate at K6KM, and K6ZM stations, I know when I get tired, I
sometimes mix up the calls. The station may correctly copy the exchange, but it
was incorrectly sent by the other station. I use this as an example, but it
happens often by many people.
6) If you want this to be a serious contest, you
should read through the CQ WW rules to add similar wording that will cut down on
the amount of cheating. The CQ WW has about the best rules out there (Yeah, I
know many will disagree), but their rules do cut out a lot of areas where people
will cheat.
Thanks for
comments, keep thinking and keep them ideas coming!
(We prefer
comments how to make it better, rather than why it wouldn't work :-)
Yuri,
K3BU e-mail
![[Company Logo Image]](images/teslapt.jpg)
