My name is Buck Calabro, KC2HIZ. I am a fairly new ham, contester and rover.
I have no place to put antennas at home, so my station is mobile. I started
out with an HT and now have an Icom IC-706mkIIG in the car with a Hamstick and
dual band Comet vertical for 2m/70cm. It would seem that this discussion is
about people like me, rather than the well established stations. Here is a
reaction from someone who seems to fit the profile of the person you want to
participate in VHF+ contests.
>Our recommendations had several basic goals. Changes to the
>contest rules and awards programs should:
> 1) encourage more people to work more other people
> 2) encourage QSOs made over longer distances
> 3) encourage more people to join in and participate
>January VHF SS and June/September VHF QSO Parties
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>1) Change Rover Rules
>
>"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.
Now this is an interesting item. I stay pretty close to metro areas because
that's where the hams are. With a little station and puny antennas, there are
precious few stations I can work from the outback. There's a really
interesting tradeoff between traveling to a new grid and staying put to work
people where I am now. Points vs. multipliers. This will bear more weight as
I add beams to the rover setup, because the longer it takes me to drive, set up
and tear down, the less time I have to operate. If roving turns into a mad
dash to visit as many grids as possible (for those multipliers) then am I
encouraged to work as many people as possible? This is a tough call to make
and I'm glad I don't have to make it! If there were some way to see statistics
of rover behaviour before and after the original rules change, perhaps that
would improve the quality of the debate.
>Because rover scores can be so large
>under the original rover scoring rules,
>they can distort the club competition scores.
I don't understand this. Can't every club help equip their members as rovers?
And wouldn't that be a good thing? More people on the air and more QSOs?
>2) QSO Point changes
>
>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.
Oh, no! You want to make a contact with me worth less than a contact with a
fixed station? That is incredibly discouraging. Why on earth would a fixed
station want to give me a 3-1 advantage for each and every QSO? For a new
grid? That works for the first rover in, but the rest of us are sort of
undesirable after that one. Discouraging QSOs with a rover can't possibly help
any of the 3 goals.
>3) June VHF QSO Party 50-1296 MHz only
>
>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.
Oh no! You want to take the best month for microwaves away? How does removing
bands help any of the three goals? If you absolutely have to do this, do it in
January, but I'm completely against it.
>4) New categories in Jan/Jun/Sept
>
>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.
I didn't think it was daunting at all, and I did my first contest with a 2m HT.
With this change, there is a certain temptation to drop my weak upper bands
and stay with the easy-to-use 3 band category. I don't think I will personally
succumb, because I rather like the other bands, and building radios by hand is
Very Cool Indeed. The rules permit me to actually operate 5 bands and only
submit my log for the 706 bands, right? So I could compete in what ever
category maximises my position in the standings regardless of the actual
capabilities of my station? That sounds like it's the letter of the law, but
not the spirit...
>New Microwave contest based on 10 GHz
>Cumulative - UHF contest dropped
>--------------------------------------
>
>We recommend expanding the format of the successful 10G and Up
>microwave contest and expand it to cover from 2.3 GHz and up.
Why? This is the one place the pioneers get to shine! It might help bring out
more microwavers, given the different categories, so maybe I'll be able to get
in on this one sooner rather than later. But I have to tell you that having a
10G+ contest is motivation for me to build a 10G transverter sooner rather than
later.
> The August UHF Contest would be discontinued after 2004. It
>never reached a critical mass of support and entries.
Oh no! How does killing a contest help any of the three goals?
>Awards
>----------
With these changes I don't think I'll live long enough to garner any awards.
Addressing some of the ideas floated on the VHF contesting reflector, I am
adamantly against any idea that restricts the number of times I can cross a
grid line. One of the better ways to make contacts is to drive along the grid
line and work a fixed station from both sides of the line, giving him two
grids. Otherwise, why would he bother working a weak station like me? And
every single contest takes me out of my home grid out into some other grids and
back into my home grid. It would Well And Truly Stink if I were unable to work
stations from my home grid on my way back home each day. If we really believe
that grid circling is such a bad thing, then make a separate category for them.
Let them rack up a million points and try to beat each other. Don't let them
add to club scores. I am against limiting the number of times I can work from
a particular grid.
For me the beginner, it's an issue of time. I can drive to Canada and operate
as a rover from there at 3am local, but who will be awake to work me? The
point is that I need to be in a grid where I can work people with my small
station AND there are people to be worked. For instance, I catch quite a few
people on their way to or from church on Sunday by calling CQ on 2m FM at those
times. If I'm in a 'rare' grid at that time, I can't work those people. This
reduces the number of QSOs I make, defeating goals 1 and 3. A grid isn't any
good at the wrong time of day, and some grids are good multiple times a day,
with a different batch of operators each time.
Mainly, I just don't understand the furor about grid circling/captive rovers.
If someone has enough time, money and ingenuity to convince a pack of rovers to
operate with them, God bless 'em. That strategy is clearly open to everybody.
Same thing goes for the 'captive' rovers. If your club can convince a pack of
rovers to go out, more power to it. In either case you are sending more people
into the field, making more contacts on more bands than without them. If the
League has documented proof that a particular rover (or fixed station!) refused
to work another station, then that rover's log should be disallowed.
Otherwise, if one of these 'naughty' stations answers calls from others,
despite mainly working themselves, then they are legitimate and should be
allowed to compete. They are out making noise and answering calls. That's as
good a definition of goals 1 and 2 as I can come up with.
Regarding a DX category, I'm all for it. I'm all for DX-DX contacts as well,
and I don't care if they work W/VE. Who knows? I might be roving in a place
where I can hear at least one side of that QSO and be able to piggyback. The
more the merrier. Goals 1,2 and 3.
Regarding making 222 worth more points than 50/144/440 in a limited single op
scenario, I'm all for it. Goals 1 & 3.
As a beginner, I am adamantly against anything that discourages my puny
short-range station from making an entry. There is nothing here that will
encourage a station like mine to go out, make noise and submit a log. In fact
making the points distance based will it tough for me to figure my score with
my paper log but I can live with that because I transcribe my paper log into
RoverLog so I can submit a Cabrillo email to the robot.
If you really want more participation, I propose making each and every station
call CQ on 146.55 at the top of the hour. In fact, force the format of the
call to something like 'CQ contest from KC2HIZ rover FN32 listening until 5
after the hour.' That's a lot of noise and it's bound to get someone new into
the fray. Goals 1 and 3.
Another thought (just to show that I'm not just a naysayer): To increase long
distance contacts, make contacts with rovers 'in the next ring' worth more
points. You'll reward the rover who's built and deployed a strong station and
you'll reward the patience of the fixed station who worked me, er, I mean the
rover. Goal 2.
I hate to be the one to say it, but this is a lot of debate over _points_.
There's no cash prize involved here, and most of us don't even get to see our
name in print anymore. For me, it's about getting better each round, and the
points are a way for me to measure my progress. Some day, ten years or so from
now, I may be competitive (as in top 10) but for now, it's about measuring my
own progress. This might be naive on my part, but I suspect a lot of
contesters feel the same way. Fiddling the points calculation just makes it
harder to figure out where I am on that ladder.
Thanks for your time and for letting me share my thoughts. It is deeply
appreciated.
73 de KC2HIZ/r FN32at
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|