Lots of cuts and snips here from George's post.
At 02:12 PM 4/10/2003 -0500, George Fremin III wrote:
>When I look at the current ARRL VHF contests one thing that sticks out
>for me is that these contests are all the same. They have the same
>basic scoring structure, they run the same lenght of time etc.
>
>The only thing that makes that diffrent is that they occur during
>difffrent times of the year and as such they do each have a slightly
>diffrent flavor due to some diffrences in seasonal propagation.
>
>When I think about the HF contests that I operate one of the things
>that I like is that they each offer something diffrent - they are not
>all the same. The ARRL November SS is very diffrent from the NA QSO Party
>even though both of them are geared to working the USA and Canada.
>
>So - expanding on this a bit - maybe it is time to make changes to
>one or more of the ARRL VHF contests and/or add a few more VHF/UHF contests
>that have diffrent rules and/or catagories than the current big three contests
>provide.
>
>Several things that come to mind.
>
> - Make all contacts count one point regardless of band.
> There would still be plenty of incentive to get on all the bands
> in order to get more multipliers.
>
> - Use some form of distance scoring.
I've been a proponent of a contest with a distance scoring scheme for some time
and I think it could be a big hit in the September contest. I won't bore
everyone with my distance scoring diatribe again but I do think it is worth
considering - it would add a slightly different flavor to the vhf+ contests
that are all basically all the same.
> How about an all band VHF/UHF contest that is only 4 hours long.
I REALLY like this idea (!) or how about 6 or 8 hours long to give the rovers
time to move around a little bit. Instead of having the individual spring
sprints I would suggest having an All Band Spring Sprint for 8 hours on a
Saturday afternoon and evening (4pm - 12mn?) in mid to late April or early May
(better chance of sporadic-E /tropo condx and wx). I have found that even
though the present spring sprints are fun and they encourage activity on the
vhf+ bands at different times they can get somewhat slow after the first hour
or two. An all band sprint could really be fast paced. Maybe throw in an
additional "well thought out category or two" (as K1DY suggests). The Fall
Sprints could continue as they are presently - my only suggestion for the fall
sprints would be to space them further from the September ARRL VHF QSO Party (I
think last year the 2m sprint was the day after the September contest). If
there would be enough interest in this concept I wonder if the present sponsors
would consider the change and if a publication such as CQVHF or NCJ would agree
to publish the scores?
> - Have a contest that is limited to the low bands.
That already exists with the CQ VHF contest that is limited to 6 and 2 meters.
> - Some new catagories.
There seems to be some interest in one or two new "well thought out
categories".
> - Something to encourge FM only guys to get on the radio too.
Yes, but how? We need to convince these folks that those HF + 6m, 2m, 70cm
transceivers will actually work on SSB (and CW) on the bands above HF. I have
recently volunteered to write a vhf-uhf contesting article (maybe 2 or 3 a
year) for a local publication (AUTOCALL) that will be targeted at the non-vhf+
contester, non-contester and the HT/FM only crowd. I hope to provide enough
info and enthusiasm to get some of those folks to participate in this year's
June VHF QSO Party and other vhf+ contests. Any advise, hints and ideas for
the article will be appreciated.
>I am sure there are many more ideas.
There have been multiple posts that have indicated the contest results should
stay in QST - I agree. I also like the web based results with the ability to
do multiple sorts and an expanded write-up and soapbox with pics. I suggest
printing an abridged write-up in QST with ALL the scores and top ten boxes but
keep the expanded web based results as well. QST will still save a page or two
of space (for who knows what) and we get to see the scores in both places.
This isn't just a controversy on the vhf+ reflectors but was a very hot topic
with the HF contesting crowd and on those reflectors as well. I hope in time,
with lots of emails, letters and discussions from ARRL members that ARRL will
change their position on contest results in QST - if that is what we want then
we need to start an email campaign to ARRL to tell them that - it won't happen
by itself.
73,
Ed K3DNE
|