Hi Kevin
Thanks for trying to get this group focused into a direction that could
yield some results. I would like to include some basic information.
I think a lot of us old timers remember the reluctance of the ARRL to make
rule changes based on some e-mails or letters without a SUPPORTED
consensus. Prior to 2005/6, the ARRL CAC was the group to contact and
hopefully would work toward a consensus to be presented to the MSC which in
turn went to the BOD.
Since then things have changed. The VHF community now has its own advisory
committee called the VUAC. It is similar to the CAC but is only concerned
with VHF & up contesting. This allows contesting issues to be considered by
other VHF contesters and not by someone that has no idea what is going on
first hand. The VUAC was created by the ARRL BOD and answers to the Program
& Services Committee (PSC).
The ARRL has placed a VUAC member in each of the ARRL sections to solicit
input from the hams living in the division. The VUAC has a chairperson to
gather the information from the other committee members and submit it to the
PSC at different intervals during the year. These reports can be found by
searching the ARRL site to see what issues are being considered or acted on.
I know that my VUAC representative is on this list and reads the threads
concerning the distance scoring and several other issues that I am not
concerned with. There are probably several other VUAC members on this list
and they can be be identified by going to
http://www.arrl.org/contests/vuac.html
I assume you can also contact the ARRL in some way and they will forward
your communication through to the proper person/s that should get it.
Obviously, the more people that contact the ARRL the quicker the distance
scoring rule change study can be impliment.
I am in favor of distance scoring and would like to see the issue studied by
the VUAC to determine if it could enhance the future VHF and up contest.
Ron W4WA
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 9:47 AM, kevin kaufhold <kkaufhold@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> For everyone's information, the ARRL did use distance scoring in the August
> UHF for one year in 1982. I believe it was referred to as RANGE. Look it up
> in the old QST's! When the VUCC started in 1983, the UHF contest moved to
> the 1 x 2 grid squares as the multiplier. Between 1978 when the UHF started
> and 1981, a 1 x 1 grid square was used. At the time, various versions of
> grid squares were considered to be an effort towards distance scoring,
> certainly an improvement over using states as a multiplier.
>
> As an experiment, using a 6 digit grid locator has a lot of appeal,
> especially if we start off in the August UHF. We have very few Joe 706's
> active in August, so the disruption to that contest would be minimal, I
> think. And, there was little problem when K9JK pushed 6 digits for the
> Spring Sprints. August has a lot of very experienced microwave enthusiasts
> who are quite used to 6 digits. And the UHF is small enough (in terms of
> logs) that it a distance scoring experiment would be managable. We could
> also put a max limit on a distance multiplier, to give some consideration to
> EME without overly skewing the results.
>
> Distance scoring might also provide something of a disincentive to pack
> roving operations. To max points, they would have to increase power levels
> and run farther apart. I am sure they are capable of doing that, but they
> then would at least be encouraged to have "real" contacts rather than QSO's
> literally within a few feet of each other.
>
> A parallel type of contest using both grids and distance as a scoring
> method would also be interesting to do for a few years to see which one the
> VHF community really likes. That might lead to more complexity however, so
> I do not know if a parallel track would be worthwhile.
>
> I know the League's resources are stretched. Either logging programs would
> have to be modified for 6 digits, or the League would have to expand their
> scoring techniques from the 10G to encompass distance scoring in August (or
> other contest).
>
> If people are really serious about this (rather than just chatting on the
> reflector), then I suggest an informal committee or delegation of some sort
> be developed off reflector to study this more seriously. What say you?
>
>
>
> Kevin
> W9GKA
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|