Hi Bill,
Great letter with some good comments. I have a few comments pertaining
to your idea for eliminating (or reducing) captive roving with something
like a 25% rule.
First off, a rover should never NOT try to work someone who is calling
them. That is unsportsmanlike, but, unfortunately it does happen for
numerous reasons. Most of the reasons are not good in my opinion.
Limiting a rover to have 25% of his or her contacts with one station
will kill me big time. In September, we send out a few of our group to rove
into the Hinterlands in the North woods of Maine. Once they get past the
immediate adjacent grids, there is no one for them to work besides us! They
can work someone on Mt. Washington, and maybe one or two others like W2SZ.
So we would not have a chance to work anyone else if we tried very hard and
spent way too much time at each site. As an example, the rover guys tried to
work W2SZ from FN45 on the microwaves and could not even hear them on 1296
and above. (Mountains always seem to be in the way. Most shots shoot thru
valleys. It is rugged in Western Maine with inaccessable 4500 ft mountains
all over the place) If you can't even hear W2SZ, who else will you work?
Time per site is limited to about 30 minutes. So they may work others for
about 10 to 15 minutes spread among about 10 bands Anymore time means that a
grid at the end gets dropped for lack of time. These guys have a heck of a
time driving on dirt logging roads and smallish tarred roads. One memorable
time, they hit a washout on a paper company land dirt road and the entire
windshield fell out. To get to the 7 remote grids takes all weekend. Last
September they had to skip the last grids which would have been the easiest!
They ran out of time and missed the close in grids.
If we do not send anyone out in those grids, we are like the proverbial
atheist at his funeral.....All dressed up and no place to go! Our contest
station only works stations in one direction ( 219 degrees +- 5 degrees)
without the Northern Rover and we end up with a terrible score with few
grids that does not reflect what the microwave bands can do with good
equipment. If you want a comparison, imagine that you are set up in Western
or Southern Virginia and you have your antennas fixed in one direction with
no rotator. I know this is a special case here, but it is the way things are
out here in the boonies. KM0T has a similar problem to some extent. I sure
would love to be able to work other rovers and home stations in different
directions. The plain truth is that there are none up here in any of these
grids. Heck, there are darn few 144 MHz stations in any of these grids let
alone 3, 5 and 10 GHz! A bunch of grids are under water as well.
I should also add that the rover guys in the North Woods get really
psyched to make those 520 km 10 GHz paths. The fact that they can't work
much else from FN66 on 10 GHz does not dampen their spirits one bit. They
agonized over the gear. They tweaked it all winter. The reward is hearing
that weak and wispy 10 GHz CW signal peaking up out of the noise while you
are swatting black flies buzzing thru the cigar smoke that is supposed to
keep the critters at bay. You know the drill.
I feel that if we build up a rovermobile to activate these unpopulated
grids, we should be able to work them more or less unfettered. We will work
others who call, but the pileups are underwhelming. Shot noise is more like
it. Heck no one is preventing anyone else from sending out a rover to
anyplace. Why should I or anyone else put all that effort into building up a
special rover and then be forced into using it in a manner that ruins any
chance of getting any significant benefit from it. I know what I would do
if that were the case: I would not send anyone or anything out. It just
seems to me like any captive rover rule is unenforceable and unworkable for
just the type of reason I have outlined.
I think satellite rovers make plenty of sense in areas that have non
existent activity. Sam Harris was promoting it in his VHF column in the
early 60s. There was zero activity on the higher bands then in the Golden
Corridor of NY NJ PA aand CT. (Just like Northern Maine today) The roving
adds excitement for all concerned. The alternative is sitting in front of
the microwave radio twiddling the thumbs and listening to noise. I am
waiting for a Southern VHF station somewhere near the Gulf of Mexico to try
the same thing. Lets see....flattish land..... great tropo on microwaves as
a rule....June is a near optimum time for tropo there. They could work many
more grids than I can work here. I believe that is the next step for
building more activity on the microwaves and VHF in general. Once folks see
what can be done, it breeds more activity. I checked the Hepburn Index
today, Feb 24th, and the only spot in the country that has any tropo is the
Texas-Louisiana- Mexico shoreline over to Florida. The rest of the country
is out of luck. What a place to live! All we need is some activity there to
show everyone else how it should be done. I think huge scores are possible
there.
Someone suggested at some point to determine contest categories
according to the number of people per group, rather than number of bands
employed. (I think it was W2EV) You would count the "satellite" rover
stations as part of that group. Then, small groups would not have to compete
with the large groups. I could care less about groups anyway. I just want to
have fun and get my stuff working great. Working lotsa grids is my
benchmark. It is a goal I have set for myself. Working our own guys with
simple gear over short distances on microwaves does not wind my clock. Who
needs that. Yes, it will raise your score, but it is not a challenge, and it
is about as much fun as spilling diesel fuel into the salad bowl. We don't
bother unless we need the grid. Yes, sometimes we haven't worked our own
grid.
Thanks for all your comments. It is good to hear from all parts of the
country. It points up the difficulty of setting equitable rules that
accomodate the greater number of participants. Whatever is agreed upon, I
will be in there having fun!
73
Dave K1WHS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Seabreeze" <w3iy@adelphia.net>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Cc: <vhf-contest-proposal@arrl.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:16 AM
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Proposed VHF Rule Changes
> My 3 cents...de W3IY/R
>
> I think it's great that some people want to make VHF contests
> better, and encourage more activity and participation. I think
> the best way to do this is for QST to promote more exposure
> of VHF activity and operating to the general readership, and
> for all of us to provide more PR and get the word out that
> VHF & above is really lots of fun and educational. We need
> more articles and "how-to" information to be made available
> to prospective new-comers. We need articles on affordable
> antennas and transverters. We need guys to show new hams
> that VHF doesn't have to be so expensive. We need, above all,
> more positive attitudes, and operators who like to make QSOs,
> and not just win-win-win, and whine-whine-whine. Just because
> some guys have worked all the grids, and won all the awards,
> they need to realize that they are still needed to provide activity,
> and show others how to have fun on the bands. We need to
> reach out and help to give others the oppurtunity to work us, and
> share the enjoyment of this great aspect of amateur radio.
>
> Regarding the proposed rule changes...
> It really ain't that broke, so let's not try to fix it so much.
>
> I would like to see something to end grid circling and captive
> roving, because I think these activities are self-serving, and
> definitely do not send a positive message to others. Any
> rover activity which does not contribute to the general activity
> and fun in a contest for all stations within range is just plain
> bad. Perhaps something like limiting rovers working rovers to
> 25% of the total QSOs would work. Or maybe requiring a
> minimum distance of 10 miles for rover-to-rover QSOs.
> Similiarly, limiting rovers working only one other station
> (multi-op) could be cured by requiring rovers to show that
> no more than 25% of their QSOs are with only one station
> would work. This one would probably require that the suspect
> rover turn in his log, or else risk having his QSOs disqualified.
>
> My other recommendations are less verbose...
> 1. Don't limit the June VHF contest to only the low bands...BAD
> IDEA all the way around...This is really counter-productive. If
> there is concern about the band-limited guys...then give out
> more awards for the top low band participants. This would
> give them something to shoot for, even if they only have 1 band.
>
> 2. Leave the UHF contest in place. It's still loads of fun, and
> activity isn't all that bad. It's really a fun contest for the uwavers.
>
> 3. Don't reduce the points for rover QSOs...this is a great way
> to kill off even more rovers.
>
> 4. Distance scoring...not a bad idea, but not really all that
> necessary. We all like to work DX anyways, and still get
> a big thrill out of it, points or no points.
>
> 5. Adding 2.3GHz & up to the 10G & up contest...I'm not
> qualified to comment, because I'm usually too burned out from
> the previous weekend VHF contests to get involved. I think
> it would be well received, and it might even get my tired butt
> out on the road a little. It would be nice to space these contests
> out a little more from the existing ones.
>
> Thanks for being open-minded, and trying to make things
> better. We really appreciate it. But please remember, the
> existing rules aren't that bad, and we've been having a ball for
> lots of years now, the way things are.
>
> GL & best 73,
> Bill W3IY/R
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|