...they are operating in the same contest as I am. ARRL rover rules have unwittingly created a CWAC (Contest Within A Contest). In today's ARRL contests (not the Fall Sprints, by the way) Rovers are
-- And neither do I. They should not, however, be recognized for amassing stupid-huge scores for operating in ways that are contrary to the objective of the contest they've submitted their logs to. T
-- How about an extremely simple rule that has existing precedent in other ARRL events (see below)? "Rover-to-Rover QSO's do not count for contest credit." That would certainly encourage rovers to cr
-- Because "Unlimited Rover" rules encourage behavior that is contrary to the objective of VHF contesting as defined by the rules of the ARRL's present slate of VHF contests. However, in the "August
-- You've been known to operate from all around San Francisco: CM96 Fremont Peak, CM97 Mt. Hamilton, CM86 Santa Cruz and CM87 Skyline near Palo Alto on ABCD. I would think that you would instead, inc
Despite my previous statement, I have to agree with Eric and Tom. Restricting R2R QSO's isn't in the sport's best interests. Onward. Ev, W2EV _______________________________________________ VHFcontes
That is not allowed: 1.2.Individuals and stations are limited to one entry per contest. -Ev _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com htt
I have roved, and haven't for a long time. Excellence is no longer rewarded for contributing to the art of communication as much as it is in precise driving skill. I prefer communication. Those that
Bravo, CQ for keepin' it fun and easy! -= Ev, W2EV =- _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listi
Maybe too late for this weekend's January VHF Sweepstakes, but... Want to do a terrain analysis, find the "next highest point" in an area, perform a 360-degree azimuth terrain analysis or even a line
-- This is called a CWAC (Contest, Within A Contest). It works! I've done it during the Sprints and for the CQWW VHF Contest and had a great time. It is a concept that should be expanded upon, in my
Joe... I read your posting with intense interest...from the perspective of "why do people participate in Amateur radio events". Succinctly, it is for two reasons: (A) Because it's fun and (B) there i
No...this is *not* Rover bashing. I *love* them...and have been one (and probably will be one again in the future). This is about the rules and what they do to everyone involved. It is a dispassionat
-- As someone who "test flew" rover rules before the ARRL implemented any, I can say with certainty that this is 50% of the solution. The other 50% is to normalize the score-calculation method to tha
-- I agree, Joe. So...how to properly categorize? The most influencing parameters of a VHF contest operation are (in no particular order): 1. ERP (not RF output) 2. Operator-Operating time (man-hours
This is an example of a strategy that would need to change with this simple fix in place. Ev, W2EV _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.
With the "simple fix" in place, you will have new strategies to explore. Knowing that one cannot reactivate a previously activated grid will cause those who want to do well to adopt practices that al
Under no circumstances is placing a limit on contestant-to-contestant QSO's in the best interest of a VHF contest. Participants should be *encouraged* to make contacts, not required to limit them. Ag
It is with a healthy dose of admiration for your efforts that I comment on the points that you bring up, Greg. Said simply...you follow the strategies that you do, because of how the rules are presen
No. There was always an "incentive" quotient at play. The 30/50 thing is too difficult for most people to abide by. Why are you resistant to the above proposal? It's simple to implement and abide by.