Donations are accepted. We appreciate the help!
Click here for RSS feeds or use the email signup form below to be notified about new radio-sport.net news updates
"If there were a distance based scoring that would allow the West Coast to compete more fairly," wrote Chuck Ternes N6OJ.
That was echoed by a number of other contesters who live west of the Appalachians and to the south of Virginia, making the simple argument that the East Coast and New England enjoy a distinct advantage in ARRL DX by the focus on European low band multipliers.
"I know ops who do not even try in these contests because they know the East Coast has a huge, insurmountable, advantage," wrote Rick Palio WU6W.
"Its about time," wrote Mike Kasrich AJ9C. "I suspect the only complaints will be from those on the east coast. One can only hope for a miracle and this spreads to CQWW."
"If ARRL was to use distance as a system to gives points per QSO, then the playing field would level out to where the guys farther south, and in the midwest would actually have a chance in being competitive," wrote Mark Luhrmann W4SVO, often an operator at NQ4I.
Also endorsing the distance based scoring system was one contester from New Zealand, who says it might help spur more activity overall in ARRL DX.
"There is no real incentive for East Coast W/VE to turn their antennas away from EU," wrote Ken ZL1AIH.
"So long as an EU QSO is worth the same 3 points as e.g. VK6, then the ARRL DX Contest will never attract the same participation as the CQ WW and CQ WPX."
That also won some backing in Europe as well.
"Yes it will be more fair the distance scoring, because its much more difficult to work USA stations from Greece instead of Germany, Finland or UK," wrote George Vlachopolous SV1RP.
On the flip side, there were a number of contesters who also wrote radio-sport.net, advocating that the ARRL DX test scoring regime should not be tinkered with.
"Let it alone," said Glenn Kurzenknabe K3SWZ.
"What is at issue here is whether the CAC should willingly and with full knowledge of the impacts - recommend a rule change which specifically is aimed at MARGINALIZING contesters in the Northeastern corridor of the USA and Maritime Canada," said Jeff Briggs K1ZM/VY2ZM, who has been outspoken publicly and privately in his opposition to any distance based scoring change.
"Distance scoring...bad idea, already incorporated in Stew Perry 160 meter contest," said John Thompson K3MD.
One email to radio-sport.net had a middle ground idea - instead of Stew Perry type distance based scoring regime, simply make more multipliers available to stations that often make contacts with the West Coast of the United States.
"Here's my modest proposal for one rule change that would help," wrote Alan Eshelman K6SRZ to radio-sport.net:
"Count each Japanese, Australian, and New Zealand call district as unique multipliers and, for good measure, treat each Hawaiian island as a multiplier."
But even among those who objected to the idea of changing the system, there was the admission that ARRL DX just doesn't stoke the fires of contesters around the world the way that CQ WPX and CQ WW are able to do.
"Let’s face it, ARRL DX is a bit of a bore," wrote Pete Chamalian W1RM.
"It doesn’t generate nearly the world-wide activity that other contests do and that’s the fun. It’s great if you are going to the Caribbean but not so much fun if you are in HS or 9V1," he added.
Others say the ARRL should be looking at even more radical ways to boost ARRL DX.
"Having operated in the ARRL DX CW contest from VQ9, the obvious suggestion that I can make is that DX needs to be able to work DX," said Rick Davenport KI1G, who has operated as VQ9RD.
"Some parts of the world have a relatively small window in which propagation to the US is available on any band let alone all six bands. If you want to keep DX stations engaged, they need to be able to make QSO's for the duration of the contest, not just when they have a stateside opening."
And that's the rub that the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee is again confronting - how do you change the rules of a contest to spur more participation?
"After all, everyone knows that there is nothing “fair” about contesting apart from obeying the rules," wrote Jerry Spring VE6TL.
"Station density, propagation patterns, and even the starting time of the contest, all greatly “stack the deck” in certain ways. This is not news."
And that's certainly true of ARRL DX as well.
Send your opinions to radio-sport.net
"For whatever it is worth - I think the ARRL should retain its 48-hour "Iron-man" category but institute a separate time- limited class and see what its impact on participation is," wrote Pete Smith N4ZR.
"If it attracts more entrants, then that tells you something very useful."
But for others, the Iron Man aspect just doesn't hold as much as appeal as they grow older.
The question was a hot topic among contesters at the Knoxville Hamfest in Tennessee last weekend, with some endorsing the idea of a 36 hour time limit for Single Ops, like the WPX contest.
"it was thought that shorter operational periods would require better strategy and would be a major plus to those who have a tough time pulling 48 hours these days," wrote Julius Fazekas N2WN.
For Bill Brown K0UK, the simple answer is to have an "Iron-man" or "Extreme" category for those who want to go the full 48 hour distance, and then something scaled back for others.
"I know this is a very unpopular idea to some," Brown wrote radio-sport.net. "Many DX contesters find it hard for many reason such as health, family and business obligations to stay in the chair for extended periods of time."
But there were some who worried that if you reduce the time limit, then you might also cut down on the number of stations that participate.
"I feel that the ARRL DX contest should remain at 48 hours for the single op unassisted category," said Fred Lass K2TR.
"I feel that reduction of the time limit will reduce the activity on 80 and 160 meters, especially for foreign stations, which will make those bands unproductive and/or boring for US/VE entrants."
"The introduction of a time limit is not necessarily bad but I would much prefer to see it as an optional category rather than mandatory," wrote Pete Chamalian W1RM.
"For the young op able to go for 40+ hours, that’s great but for us more senior ops who can’t handle that much sleep deprivation, let’s have a category they can participate in.
"As for single operator why not have a 12hr., 24hr., 36hr and 48hr class," wrote Johnnie Popwell W4TSP.
"I am for anything to help get more people involved and to make the playing field level for all."
