Radioamatersko takmičenje CQWW je bez dileme najveći i najprestižniji događaj u našem hobiju. Kroz decenije se takmičenje razvijalo i raslo, ali upravo zbog te veličine i značaja, važno je da ne prestanemo da razmišljamo o njegovom unapređenju.

Kroz ovo otvoreno pismo želim da iznesem nekoliko ključnih predloga, utemeljenih na praktičnim zapažanjima, logici i podacima iz zvaničnih rezultata, koji bi, po mom mišljenju, doprineli zdravijem, pravednijem i širem učešću u CQWW contestu.

1. Dužina trajanja takmičenja – zdravstveni i takmičarski aspekti

Takmičenje trenutno traje 48 sati bez ikakvog ograničenja za učesnike. Ovo pravilo je zastarelo, štetno i kontraproduktivno iz više razloga:

• Zdravstveni rizici: Rad tokom 48 sati bez spavanja, u visokom intenzitetu, pod stalnim pritiskom i maksimalnom koncentracijom, predstavlja ozbiljan medicinski rizik. Kombinacija mentalnog, intelektualnog i fizičkog napora može imati ozbiljne posledice – naročito po starije takmičare, kojih je najviše.
• Narušena ravnopravnost: Samo mali broj pojedinaca može izdržati ovakav tempo. Takmičenje se pretvara u test fizičke izdržljivosti, a ne vještine i tehničke pripreme, što bi trebalo da bude suština radioamaterskog sporta.
• Zloupotrebe: Zbog prevelikog napora, dio takmičara pribjegava nelegalnoj pomoći - uključujući rotaciju operatora, remote podršku i slično, što dodatno narušava integritet takmičenja.

Predlog: Uvesti vremensko ograničenje – npr. maksimalno 36 sati aktivnog rada unutar 48h trajanja takmičenja, uz slobodan izbor termina.

Rezultat? Više ozbiljnih učesnika, ravnopravnije takmičenje, manji broj prekršaja i veća motivacija u zajednici.

2. Sistem bodovanja – nepravedna geografska neravnoteža

Trenutni način bodovanja podrazumijeva:

• 3 poena za DX vezu (između kontinenata)
• 2 poena za veze izmedju Kariba u Sjeverne Amerike
• 1 poen za veze na istom kontinentu

Ova pravila dovode do ogromne prednosti za stanice koje se nalaze na lokacijama sa lakim pristupom drugim kontinentima (npr. Afrika). Operatori iz Evrope, Azije, Sjeverne Amerike, ili južnog dijela Južne Amerike – i pored više veza i boljih rezultata– praktično nemaju šansu za realnu konkurenciju.

Prije predloga, hajde da vidimo neke od najboljih rezultata i da napravimo poredjenje, radi dobijanja realne slike o stvarnoj vrijednosti i težini nekih rezultata, koje sistem bodovanja favorizuje. Znamo da je DX veza (veza sa drugim kontinentom) 3 poena, a svoj kontinent se boduje jedan poen. Uzmimo svjetski rekord u CQWW CW, SOAB HPU, koji je postavljen prošle godine, i uporedimo ga sa drugim najboljim rezultatima, napravljenih iz Kariba i Evrope, a koji imaju drugačije, trenutno vrlo nepravično bodovanje. Ovo je oficijalna tabela i oficijalni rezultati:

CQWW CW – SOABHPU kategorija

Oficijelni rezultati:

Stanice iz Afrike (D4DX, D4C) gotovo sve veze boduju 3 poena. Karipske stanice (ZF1A, TI7W) dobijaju 2 poena za veze sa Sjevernom Amerikom. Evropske stanice, kao što je CR6K, dobijaju samo 1 poen za većinu svojih veza.

Ako ovih 5 rezultata preračunamo na način da ih jednako bodujemo, sa tri poena po svakoj vezi, rezultat i redoslijed je sledeći:

Preračunato sa jednakim bodovanjem (sve veze = 3 poena):

Zaključak: Najbolje stvarne performanse imaju ZF1A, TI7W i CR6K – ali ih sistem ne prepoznaje jer su „na pogrešnom mjestu“. Brojevi jasno pokazuju da rezultat ne zavisi prvenstveno od vještine, već od lokacije. Jednako bodovanje za sve veze bi izjednačilo šanse i motivisalo velik broj takmičara da grade svoje stanice.

Ovo su bila poredjenja u SOAB kategoriji.

Evo poredjenje u Single OP Single band kategoriji, na 40M, gdje je slika još upečatljivija.
Uporedio sam World rekord i sledeća dva najbolja rezultata svih vremena, sa rezultatima S52AW, i 4O3A, a koji su na listi tek 45 i 77 rezultat, po trenutno važećem načinu bodovanja:

Poređenje – Single OP, Single Band (40m)

Oficijelni rezultati:

Preračunato sa 3 poena po vezi:

I ovdje je jasno: realna vrijednost rezultata iz Evrope je drastično potcijenjena. Uz ravnopravan sistem bodovanja, S52AW i 4O3A bi bili konkurentni u samom vrhu.

3. Predlog za novu kategoriju: SO2B – Single Operator, Two Bands

Sledeći važan segment koji direktno utiče na masovnost i ozbiljnost učešća je struktura takmičarskih kategorija.

Trenutno imamo mnogo kategorija, što je dobro, ali postoji prostor za značajno poboljšanje. Posebno bih istakao potrebu za uvođenjem nove kategorije: Single OP – Two Bands (SO2B), o kojoj poslednje dvije godine intenzivno razgovaram sa contest zajednicom.

Zašto SO2B?

Da počnemo od početka.

SOAB kategorija je sigurno najzahtjevnija, i najveći broj nas bi volio da se takmičimo u njoj.

• Da bi stanica bila konkurentna u SOAB, mora imati ozbiljnu infrastrukturu: plac velike površine na pogodnoj lokaciji, sa kućom i infrastrukturom
• Velike stubove, ozbiljne antene za svih 6 opsega, sav hardver za 6 opsega (160–10m).

• Automatizaciju i kompleksan tehnički system

Takve stanice su izuzetno skupe, teško ostvarive, malobrojne i često se takmiče same sa sobom, dok je većina operatora demotivisana, jer se sa prosječno opremljenom stanicom, rezultatima ne može ni približiti najvećim.

Takodje svi znamo odgovor na pitanje, da, ako bi jedan veliki broj dobrih operatora imao tehničke i materijalne mogućnosti i mogao sebi priuštiti takvu stanicu, da bi oni koji danas dominiraju bili i najbolji?

Predlažem kategoriju: SO2B – Single Op, Two Bands, ili jedan operator, dva banda po izboru

Uvodjenjem kategorije SO2B, otklonile bi se prepreke u smislu značajnog smanjenja investicije i ozbiljna SO2B stanica bila bi mnogima dostupnija. Finansijski, i tehnički-prostorno.

Otvorila bi se mogućnost da ogromna većina može da priušti SO2B setup za dva opsega, i da se takmiči u punom kapacitetu.

Odluka o tome koja dva opsega će da radi, je odluka takmičara. Južna amerika, Afrika, i Okeanija bi dobile mogućnost da budu potpuno kompetetivne na dva viša banda. Evropa u Sjeverna amerika kombinaciju viših i nižih bandova, u zavisnosti od propagacija. To bi dodatno otvorilo mnogo novih mogućnosti i značajno doprinjelo broju ozbiljnih takmičara u ovoj kategoriji.

Takodje, SO2B bi zadržao sve one atraktivne elemente SOAB rada, kao što su SO2R i 2BSIQ tehnike. Važno je napomenuti da bi SO2B bila jedna kategorija, bez obzira na to koja dva banda je takmičar odabrao. Time bi se dobili i na atraktivnosti, čak i mnogo više nego što je to SOAB kategorija.

Ključne karakteristike:

• Takmičar bira dva opsega po izboru (npr. 20m + 40m, ili 10m + 15m)
• Sve veze moraju biti na ta dva opsega
• Tehnike poput SO2R i 2BSIQ su dozvoljene
• Nema podkategorija po kombinaciji opsega – svi se takmiče zajedno

Uvođenjem kategorije SO2B:

• Niža tehnička i infrastrukturna barijera za ulazak – mnogo jednostavnije i pristupačnije
• Mogućnost konkurencije bez ogromne stanice
• Fleksibilnost u strategiji – operator bira opsege prema svojoj lokaciji i propagacijama
• Povećanje broja takmičara – više ozbiljnih stanica, jer su investicija i potreban proctor i hardver značajno manji

SO2B bi zadržala sve atraktivne elemente SOAB kategorije – SO2R, 2BSIQ – ali bi takmičenje učinila dostupnijim, zanimljivijim i kompetitivnijim za veći broj operatora.

Zaključak

Moj “dream CQWW” bi uključivao sledeće promjene:

• 36 sati aktivnog rada unutar 48h trajanja takmičenja
• Jednako bodovanje svih veza – 3 poena za svaku
• Nova kategorija SO2B – Single Operator Two Bands
• Live score tokom takmičenja

Ove promjene bi:

• Učinile takmičenje zdravijim
• Učinile takmičenje poštenijim
• Povećale broj ozbiljnih takmičara
• Uklonile geografske privilegije
• Vratile entuzijazam, posebno kod mlađih generacija

Pozivam CQWW komitet da ozbiljno razmotri ove predloge i otvori prostor za modernizaciju pravila. Naš hobi ima ogroman potencijal – hajde da ga zajedno učinimo dostupnijim, zdravijim i uzbudljivijim za sve.

73, Ranko 4O3A

Subscribe to our latest newsletter...

The CQWW Contest is undoubtedly the largest and most prestigious event in our hobby. Over the decades, the contest has grown and evolved, but precisely because of its size and significance, it is important that we continue to reflect on how to improve it.

Through this open letter, I would like to present several key proposals, based on practical observations, logic, and official contest data, which I believe would contribute to a healthier, fairer, and more inclusive CQWW contest.

1. Contest Duration – Health and Competitive Aspects

The contest currently lasts 48 hours, with no time restriction for participants. This rule is outdated, harmful, and counterproductive for several reasons:

• Health risks: Operating for 48 hours without sleep, under high intensity and constant pressure, with maximum concentration, poses a serious medical risk. The combination of mental, intellectual, and physical effort can have serious consequences – especially for older operators, who make up the majority of the contest community.
• Unequal playing field: Only a small number of individuals can endure such a pace. The contest becomes a test of physical endurance rather than skill and technical preparation, which should be the true essence of radio sport.
• Abuse and unfair practices: Due to excessive fatigue, some participants are using unauthorized assistance – including operator rotation, remote support, and similar means – which further undermines the integrity of the contest.

Proposal: Introduce a time limitation – for example, a maximum of 36 hours of active operating within the 48-hour contest period, with a flexible operating window.

Outcome? More serious participants, a fairer competition, fewer violations, and greater motivation within the community.

2. Scoring System – Unfair Geographical Imbalance

The current scoring system is structured as follows:

• 3 points for DX contacts (between continents)
• 2 points for contacts between the Caribbean and North America
• 1 point for contacts within the same continent

This system gives a massive advantage to stations located in areas with easy access to other continents (e.g., Africa). Operators from Europe, Asia, North America, or the southern part of South America — even with more QSOs and better performance — often have no realistic chance to compete at the top.

Before presenting a proposal, let’s review some top results and compare them to get a clearer picture of the actual value and difficulty behind certain scores, which are currently favored by the existing scoring rules.

Let’s take the world record in CQWW CW, SOAB HPU from last year and compare it with the other top scores achieved from the Caribbean and Europe, which are currently disadvantaged by the point structure.

CQWW CW – SOABHPU Category

Official results:

Stations from Africa (D4DX, D4C) receive 3 points for virtually all their contacts. Caribbean stations (ZF1A, TI7W) earn 2 points for contacts with North America. European stations like CR6K receive only 1 point for most of their contacts.

Rescored (all contacts = 3 points):

Conclusion: The best actual performances were by ZF1A, TI7W, and CR6K — but the system fails to recognize them because they are in the “wrong” location. These numbers clearly show that results depend less on operator skill and more on geography. Equal scoring for all contacts would create a level playing field and motivate more stations to develop their setups.

These were comparisons in the SOAB category.

Let’s now look at a Single Operator, Single Band (40m) comparison, where the discrepancy is even more striking.

I compared the world record and the next two best all-time scores with the results of S52AW and 4O3A, which — under current scoring — rank only 45th and 77th, respectively.

Comparison – Single OP, Single Band (40m)

Official results:

Rescored with 3 points per contact:

Again, the data is clear: The real value of European scores is drastically underestimated. With equal scoring, S52AW and 4O3A would be top contenders.

3. Proposal for a New Category: SO2B – Single Operator, Two Bands

Another critical factor affecting participation and competitiveness is the contest category structure.
While we already have a wide range of categories — which is positive — there is room for meaningful improvement.

For the past two years, I’ve been actively discussing with the contesting community the idea of introducing a new category: Single Operator – Two Bands (SO2B).

Why SO2B?

Let’s start from the beginning.

SOAB is the most demanding and prestigious category, and many of us aspire to compete in it. However:

• A competitive SOAB station requires serious infrastructure: a large property on a suitable location, with a house and all infrastructure.
• Tall towers, serious antennas for all 6 bands, and full hardware for 160–10m.
• Automation and a complex technical system.

These setups are expensive, difficult to build, rare — and often big guns end up competing only among themselves. Meanwhile, the majority of operators are discouraged, as it’s almost impossible to be competitive without a "superstation."

And we all know the answer to this question: If many great operators had the technical and financial resources to build such stations, would those who currently dominate still be the best?

Introducing SO2B – Single Op, Two Bands (of your choice)

With the SO2B category, many barriers would be removed:

• Significant reduction in investment, size and complexity of station
• A way more accessible for a wider group of operators
• Each participant chooses any two bands they prefer

South America, Africa, and Oceania would be highly competitive on the higher bands. Europe and North America could combine high and low bands depending on propagation.

This would open up many new opportunities and significantly increase the number of serious participants in this category. Just roughly, in ex YU I am sure that at least 30 serious participants will fight for title, with equal chance. We could have few hundreds of very competitive and serious participants in SO2B, with equal playing field and chance to win. Sounds like impossible? But it is not.

SO2B would retain all the exciting technical aspects of SOAB operation — such as SO2R and 2BSIQ techniques.

Importantly, SO2B would be a single, unified category, regardless of which two bands are chosen — making it even more attractive, and perhaps more exciting than SOAB itself.

Key Features:

• Operator selects any two bands (e.g., 20m + 40m or 10m + 15m)
• All contacts must be on those two bands
• Techniques such as SO2R and 2BSIQ are allowed
• No subcategories by band combinations — everyone competes together

Benefits of SO2B:

• Lower technical and infrastructure barriers — more accessible and affordable
• Competitive opportunities without big stations
• Strategic flexibility — operators choose bands based on location and propagation
• Increased participation — many more serious entries with modest investment

SO2B keeps the challenge of SOAB but makes the competition more inclusive and dynamic for a wider operator base.

Conclusion

My “dream CQWW” would include the following changes:

• 36 hours of operating time within the 48-hour contest window
• Equal scoring for all contacts — 3 points per QSO
• A new category: SO2B – Single Operator, Two Bands
• Live score tracking during the contest

These changes would:

• Make the contest healthier
• Make it fairer
• Attract more serious participants
• Eliminate unfair geographical advantages
• Reignite enthusiasm, especially among younger generations

I invite the CQWW Committee to seriously consider these proposals and open the door to rule modernization. Our hobby has massive potential — let’s make it more accessible, healthier, and exciting for everyone.

73,
Ranko – 4O3A

The towers are available and custom made per order. Due to the volatile situation on the market we can not provide fixed pricing and have to form prices for each order separately.

Rings

Weak points of standard solutions

The current market offers rings for rotary towers by multiple manufacturers. The solutions are mostly similar, offering small bearings within the ring that have to withstand the entirety of the force. During the exploitation of such rings over the past 10 years we noticed several major flaws:
1. The small bearings within the ring are prone to corrosion.
2. The small bearings within the ring get destroyed by strong forces caused by winds. This is due to the tower transferring all the force to one, sometimes two bearing. These will inevitably break because of their small dimensions.
3. Once installed the ring cannot be removed from the tower for service. It has to be pulled to the top of the tower and reinstalled in the same manner. This makes the service very difficult and expensive.

Second generation of open frame rings (OFR)

The second generation of open frame rings were developed as a solution to the problems laid out above. The flaws of the small bearing balls described under points 1 and 2 are solved by being replaced with large disks made from hard polymers. Besides not rusting at least two disks take on the tower wind force. They are over sized in dimensions and strength to remain undamaged over long periods of time.

Easy service

When the ring service need arises don’t worry – it’s very simple. The OFR ring is easily lowed to the ground because it consists of two halves and three additional parts with rotating disks are separately mounted to the sides of the tower.
The OFR ring can also be serviced by simply replacing a part because it’s very easy to disassemble and replace.

 

Better low temperature and winter conditions

The second generation OFR rings perform very well under lower temperatures and ice. The standard rings that have water and oil inside them that will freeze and block the ring making it impossible to turn under such conditions.
Our second generation OFR rings use polymers uses an open design so the ice is accessible and easily shattered and removed.
Optionally, heaters for defrosting can be installed as a feature.

Rotary base

The Motor

Our rotary base comes with a preinstalled motor. You can choose between a single-phase and a three-phase motor.
The motor is separate from the base, making it easy to install and service.

Disconnecting the Engine Box from the Tower

You can unlock the tower to freely rotate with the wind by removing a single bolt from the rotating mechanism. This significantly reduces the risk of antenna damage.
This is a key feature for antenna survival during strong gusts of wind. An unlocked tower offers much lower wind resistance, and the ability to rotate further reduces the strain on your antenna system.
As an example, at the 4O3A station, after installing antennas on a tower equipped with this feature, antenna damage was reduced by 80%!

Serviceability and Innovation

The rotary base is engineered with a focus on maintenance and usability — allowing for easy bearing replacement, lubrication, and inspection.
Included with the tower are auxiliary bolts that lock and stabilize the structure, after which the load-bearing section containing the bearings can be effortlessly removed as a separate unit.

This is a major innovation compared to standard tower designs on the market, where bearing service is extremely complicated and labor-intensive.
Once again, 4O3A proves its constant commitment to innovation, delivering the most advanced and practical engineering solution available today.

Moreover, the base is fully disassemblable, making it significantly easier to transport and handle — another thoughtful detail that sets 4O3A apart as a leader in intelligent tower design.

 

Custom design

In most cases the towers are custom designed by the customer specification. We produce towers of all dimensions.
Prices are generated by request.

Tower sections

Towers are usually designed with 3m or 6m long sections, with standard width of 50cm, 65cm, 80cm or 100cm. Any other dimensions can be produced on order, and any specific request can be realized.

Height of installed towers worldwide is from 20m to 80m, and it can be taller.

We are producing Self supporting towers as well.

All towers are produced from steel, protected with hot zinc coating.

One section, length 300 cm:

 

Complete Tower

Tower set, 36m high, Rhon 55

• height 36m
• twelve 3m long segments
• two rings
• rotary base with motor

 

Some of our towers

• Tower 2 at 4O3A, 36m, rotary
• Rotary tower at ES5TV, 72m high with 8 x 5L15
• MPL tower at 4O3A, 36m, rotary
• Self-supporting tower at 4O3A carrying 2L80, 48m high

Tower 2 at 4O3A, 36m, rotary

Rotary tower at ES5TV, 72m with 8x5L15

MPL tower at 4O3A, 36m, rotary

Self-supporting tower at 4O3A carrying 2L80, 48m high

Contact us for the configuration and price at . Delivering worldwide.