To the MSC VHF-UHF Contest and Awards Subcommittee:
On behalf of the members of the Rochester VHF Group, we would like to reply
to the Contest Proposals that have been presented in this email. As Chairman
of the RVHFG, the oldest VHF Group in North America, I feel honored to
represent the members of our club.
The RVHFG has consistently been a force in VHF+ Contesting since the
beginning of ARRL-Sponsored Club Competition. For many years, the friendly
rivalry between the Mt. Airy VHF Group (Packrats) and Rochester VHF Group
was a driving force in increasing activity in our 2 regions. At our peak, we
fielded more than 200 stations on the air during the January VHF
Sweepstakes. Many of our stations are regulars in the Top-10 to this day,
and represent HUNDREDS of QSOs above 50MHz. The RVHFG has regular tune-up
clinics, sponsors various construction projects (recently 5 and 10GHz
transverters) and tries very hard to ensure that the Western NY region is
well-represented in the world above 50MHz. Our efforts towards this show,
as our membership has been slowly on the climb for the past few years. This
is reverse of the general trend nationally amongst many clubs - not just VHF
Clubs.
Since this announcement, during our weekly 2m net, Club Newsletter (RVHFG
Journal) and via email, we have asked for the opinions of the Rochester VHF
Group membership and their thoughts about these proposals. I will be
summarizing the consensus to each point as it has been addressed by our
membership.
SUMMARY: The Rochester VHF Group thinks many of these proposals are deeply
flawed. We do NOT support the majority of the recommendations as stated in
this email. The exceptions are:
1) Distance Scoring Component: Many of our members feel this may be very
positive, however will require some further discussion on just HOW to
implement this.
2) New Categories, Other Changes: No opinion was expressed.
3) EME Contest: These proposals are perfectly valid, and should serve to
increase participation overall.
Should these proposals be implemented, they can only serve to limit
experimentation and decrease the value of an ARRL Contest Award. Devaluing
something is not, in our opinion, the proper way to induce others into
active participation. Raising the bar, instead of lowering it, should be the
true test of fair competition.
All comments will be inline with the original Text as received via email.
Respectfully,
Mark Hoffman, K2AXX
Chairman, The Rochester VHF Group
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@direcway.com]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 2:16 PM
To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Subject: [VHFcontesting] ARRL VHF+ contest proposals: input invited
January VHF SS and June/September VHF QSO Parties
=================================================================
(1) Change Rover Rules
[RVHFG REPLY]
No significant reason to revert to the old rover rules is evident, based on
the evidence presented in your argument. Scores are large, because the
effort of the individual rover is to make as many contacts as possible. That
is reflected in the score. Elimination of these scores from Club Competition
is a HUGE disincentive to operate.
[RVHFG REPLY]
=================================================================
After considerable discussion about the impact of the present rover rules
and comments from both rovers and non-rovers, we have recommended reverting
to the rover scoring rules originally established in 1991. The text of the
original rule is "The final score consists of the total number of QSO points
from all bands times the total number of multipliers from all grid squares
in which they operated." This change would encourage rovers to go to rarer
and more distant grids instead of staying closer to metropolitan areas.
Because rover scores can be so large under the original rover scoring rules,
they can distort the club competition scores. To solve this major problem
with the original rules, we propose that rover station scores should not be
counted towards club competition scores. Rovers would continue to
contribute substantially to increasing the scores of club members by
providing numerous QSO points and activating new grids.
Finally, we believe it is time to be more definitive and state unequivocally
that grid circling and captive roving are highly undesirable practices and
that no rover station should engage in them. We recognize that due to the
great disparities in population and geography, hard and fast analytical
tests for these activities may not be possible but both these practices are
well understood.
Grid circling has been observed quite clearly under both the original and
present rover rules two or more rovers congregate at the intersection of
four grid squares and then circle each other around that corner making short
distance QSOs with each other. Operating practices that look like grid
circling are easy to detect and will result in review of the log by the
contest managers.
The term "captive rover" refers to stations whose primary activity is to
increase the score of one fixed station either single operator or
multi-operator, and who never, or seldom, work anyone else in the contest.
These may or may not be people who are part of the same team or group.
Again, this is easy to detect during the log checking process and will
attract the attention of the contest manager.
==================================================================
(2) QSO Point Changes
[RVHFG REPLY}
This point scoring method received some support within the RVHFG. However,
unanimously, all were NOT in favor of restricting Rover QSOs. They should be
counted exactly the same as any other fixed station. The thinking is, that
if the rover DOES what they should, and visits distant grids, this proposal
automatically PENALIZES both the rover AND the fixed station. This is
reverse from the assertion you make below.
This proposal (MINUS the Rover Penalty - DO NOT misconstrue this) does
receive support of the RVHFG.
[RVHFG REPLY]
==================================================================
The current rules provide for increasing QSO points as contacts are made on
higher bands plus additional multipliers on each band for each new grid. We
propose to change the values for QSO points for all three contests.
Regardless of band you would receive two points for QSOs with your own grid
and any adjacent grid, and three points for each QSO beyond that. QSOs with
rover stations would count one QSO point each, regardless of distance.
This change would reward those who can make more distant QSOs, and it would
make a volume of short range microwave QSOs somewhat less critical to the
final score although microwave grid multipliers would still be crucial to an
all band entry. It would also tend to make QSOs with casual participants
and newcomers more appealing than constantly running from band to band.
==================================================================
(3) June VHF QSO Party 50-1296 MHz only
[RVHFG REPLY]
This is the single most discussed point in the consensus we have received.
Overwhelmingly, this proposal is the most unreasonable. There should be NO
contest sponsored by the ARRL that LIMITS the numbers of bands one station
should operate during a contest period.
This proposal receives NO support from the RVHFG.
[RVHFG REPLY]
==================================================================
It seemed to us that at least one of the "big three" VHF+ contests ought to
emphasize the VHF bands. We thus recommend that the June VHF QSO Party be
limited to 50-1296 MHz only. June is often the time for sporadic E openings
on 6 meters - as was the case in 2003. We would discontinue the Limited
Multi category in the June VHF QSO Party only.
==================================================================
(4, 5) New categories in Jan/June/Sept + Other Changes
[RVHFG REPLY]
There was no opinion expressed by the RVHFG on this matter.
[RVHFG REPLY]
==================================================================
Getting started in VHF+ contesting can be a bit daunting, and we wanted to
find ways to attract the many people who have purchased multi-band
transceivers that include VHF bands like the IC-706 and others.
We recommend the establishment of a new Limited Single Operator category
designed with the newcomer in mind - 50-144-432 MHz only, with low power
operation only. For those who are "real estate challenged" because of
antenna restrictions or topography, we also recommend a new 6-hour QRP
Hilltopper category. This latter category should also be appealing to
QRPers with radios like the FT817, one of the more rapidly growing segments
in Amateur Radio.
5) Other recommended changes (Jan/Jun/Sept)
a) Simplify the limit for low power operation to 150w for 50-144-222-432
MHz.
b) Allow DX-to-DX contacts for QSO point and multiplier credit, but the DX
station must make at least one QSO
with W/VE on each band for which QSOs are submitted.
c) Eliminate the rules that allow Multi-Operator stations to work their own
operators on 2.3G and up.
d) Offer plaques for the January and September contests, in addition to
June. Work to find individual, club or corporate sponsors. Otherwise offer
plaques to national and regional leaders at cost.
e) Make sure the rules indicate certificates are awarded for low power
entries in January, and for top DX entries.
f) Resume promoting suggested times and frequencies for "activity hours" on
each band.
===================================================================
(6) 10GHz and up contest expansion
[RVHFG REPLY]
The RVHFG opinion is that this is NO form of compromise whatsoever. The
August UHF Contest should remain, and the 10GHz contest should remain 10GHz
and Above. Tropospheric propagation enhancements occur mostly during the
summer months. Having a contest squarely set to take advantage of these
anomalies only makes sense. In addition, antenna work is often done in the
summer months. As contests are merely gauges of station performance, this
offers yet another means of validating or disproving any work that has been
accomplished. This is true of ANY VHF+ Contest, not exclusively August.
For those stations who operate portable during the 10GHz+ event, the effort
of bringing equipment for 10GHz and Up is significant enough. Adding 3 more
lower bands to the fray only complicates the effort. Much of the 10GHz and
above equipment is explicitly portable, however in order to make an
effective signal on 2304, it often requires much larger antennas than the
typical 2' dish on 10GHz.
The RVHFG questions the definition of "critical mass of support and
entries", and requests a formal definition from the ARRL before recommending
this level of action.
This proposal does NOT receive the support of the RVHFG.
[RVHFG REPLY]
=====================================================================
We recommend expanding the format of the successful 10G and Up microwave
contest and expand it to cover from 2.3 GHz and up. The August UHF
Contest would be discontinued after 2004. It never reached a critical mass
of support and entries.
1) Add one more weekend in April or May to the existing two-weekend
cumulative contest.
2) Include 2.3G, 3.4G and 5.7G bands.
3) Have four basic categories - 2.4/3.4/5.7G, 10G only, 10G and up, and all
band (2.4G and up). Each major category would include portable and
home-based categories.
4) Perhaps call them the X-band contests to increase interest.
=====================================================================
(6) EME Contest
[RVHFG REPLY]
The RVHFG fully supports this initiative.
[RVHFG REPLY]
=====================================================================
1) The Contest department should work to establish the dates for the EME
contest weekends as early as possible,
and include them with the contest calendar as the yearly summary is
released.
2) Change the multiplier to include US states and Canadian provinces instead
of call areas. The report remains the signal report.
3) Drop the requirement that stations operating outside of their traditional
call area sign with a portable designation.
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|