One idea I was thinking about. In some of the big HF contests there are
unofficial overlays. Other groups make a super set of the rules and people
can compete in those categories.
For instance, the ARRL rules stay as they are. Another group starts to
support the "No Digital Modes" Overlay and then people can apply that. Or
whatever. Competition is the same, but people can cut out parts they don't
like. Maybe that ends up fragmenting the contests more but a) we're not
going to see FT8/FT4 go away for a while (I'm okay with this) and b) this
may actually end up driving more people to be on SSB/CW, which in turn coud
pull more people onto SSB/CW.
Sean WA1TE
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 4:59 PM Dave Miller <ve7hr@ve7hr.ca> wrote:
> Nomex suit on
> I think the simple solution is to make FT8 contacts worth 0.001 pts per
> QSO.
> Keep 6M in contest as when it opens it one of few wasy to get mults when
> you live on BC
> Solves all problem.
> Nomex suit off
> Dave
> VE7HR
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:44 AM Paul Kiesel via VHFcontesting <
> vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
>
> > I've finally come to the realization that digital is here to stay. I
> hate
> > that not so many SSB and CW contacts can be made now during the contests.
> > It's not that they are superior to FT8, but that operating in the contest
> > is a hell of a lot less fun without them.
> >
> > In recent years' June contests, I've competed in the Single Op/High Power
> > category against all others in the same category. But, I've operated
> solely
> > on 50 MHz because it's a challenge to beatothers who run many or all of
> the
> > higher bands. It used to bother me a lot that I could beat others both in
> > number of QSOs and number of multipliers and still not win because of the
> > points advantages given for use of bands 222 MHz and above. Now, I
> welcome
> > this challenge, even though I know I will not win in the category. But,
> the
> > guys running all the high bands during the contest know they are
> competing
> > against me. This makes operating on the higher bands an advantageous
> > opportunity to my competition. The result of this is that they will make
> as
> > many contacts as they can on all available bands while being careful to
> not
> > neglect 50 MHz. Planning and coordination are important for them.
> >
> > This is not the first time that people have suggested eliminating 50 MHz
> > from the June contest. I don't think dumping six meters is going to solve
> > anything, but make things worse. Rather, havingall VHF and higher bands
> as
> > relevant in the contest is the way to go.
> > What bothers me more than the reduced use of SSB and CW in the contests
> is
> > the fact that the digital modes are restricted to audio bandwidth zones.
> > This could be considered an efficient use of spectrum, but actually the
> > conditions during a contest or band opening in that narrow a zone are
> > nothing less than horrid. All one needs is one strong station in the
> other
> > FT8 sequence to ruin any possibility to compete or decode weak DX. And
> this
> > problem is not going to go away by trying to enforce which stations call
> on
> > even and which call on odd.
> >
> > It may be time to think about rearranging the rules, but eliminating 50
> > MHz from the June contest would be a bad mistake. It would be better to
> > consider either limiting the number of contacts that can be made using a
> > single mode or by maybe having a suite of frequencies wherein FT8 QSOs
> > could be made. As an example 50.310 to 50.320.
> >
> > The June contest is unique and should be kept the way it is as much as
> > possible. You shouldn't remove a band from the contest because people are
> > choosing to use it!
> > 73, Paul K7CW
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019, 2:46:24 PM UTC, JamesDuffey <
> > jamesduffey@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Chris - Thanks for your comments on the impact of FT8 on the January
> > contest.
> >
> > To your first point, I don’t think that the increase in 6M activity is
> due
> > entirely to casual ops using digital modes (FT8) instead of SSB and CW.
> For
> > one thing, this year there was a significant increase, about 19% in the
> > number of logs submitted in the contest over 2018 while the total number
> of
> > QSOs in the contest only grew by about 3%; essentially remaining the
> same.
> > If the digital mode ops are all casual they do a much better job of
> > submitting logs than do the casual SSB ops.
> >
> > The actual number, as well as the fraction of QSOs on all bands 144MHz
> and
> > above decreased significantly over 2018. This strongly suggests that the
> > increase in digital (FT8) activity came at the expense of QSOs on the
> > higher bands.
> >
> > I think that the increase in activity in the January Contest is good and
> > welcome. I think that the decrease in the activity on the higher bands is
> > not good. To me, it appears that both of these effects are due to the
> > digital modes, in particular FT8. Interestingly enough, there does seem
> to
> > be a significant number of FT8 ops, who once they saw how straight
> forward
> > it was to make digital QSOs, also tried MSK144, thereby increasing that
> > activity as well.
> >
> > I am not sure what the answer is, but I fear that all the VHF contests
> > will become dominated by 6M, not just the June contest when Es is in.
> > Perhaps it is time to rethink the contesting paradigm. - Duffey KK6MC
> >
> >
> > James Duffey KK6MC
> > Cedar Crest NM
> >
> > > I have been wondering for a while where the FT8 VHF contest ops are
> > > coming from and if perhaps some of the community's concern is
> overblown.
> > > I see two possibilities:
> > >
> > > * Casual ops who have that HF+6 radio and get on to play around for a
> > > couple hours, get some new grids towards VUCC, etc. In the past, these
> > > people would have done the same thing but on SSB. I have a feeling her
> > and
> > > there's a lot of them. They are not serious contesters and were never
> > > going to be people you could work through the bands with.
> > >
> > > * More serious contesters who are wanting to try something new and are
> > > focusing much of their time on making digital contacts. I feel like
> > > there are relatively few of these people due to their likely time and
> > > money investment in having gear for other bands.
> > >
> > > The first group wasn't going to have 2m, 70cm, and up beams and amps at
> > > home. Not having digital modes available means we are losing points
> and
> > > some mults by not being able to work this group, but I don't have any
> > > concerns that I am missing higher band contacts due to the move from
> SSB
> > > to FT8 here.
> > >
> > > The second group is the one to be concerned with. I haven't been here
> > > long enough to know what the answer is, so hopefully someone else does.
> > >
> > > Personally, my roving plan for at least future June contests is to have
> > > two ops. One op will essentially be a mult station, dedicated to
> > > watching 6m on SSB and FT8 during openings (and also watching for when
> > > those openings occur). The other op will be the points station and
> > > handle all the other bands.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Chris Lumens - KG6CIH
> > > Hike * MTB * XC Ski * Haskell
> > > Research - Experimentation - Testing - More Testing
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> 72 de Dave
> VE7HR
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|