Hello Tom and Group,
Judging from the reflectors, you have had a lot of feedback already on the
proposed changes in VHF+ contest rules and awards. I agree with most of what
has been said already but would like to add another comment, just so you can
add up the numbers of pros and cons, if nothing else. This is from an old
timer's perspective. I have been an active HF contester for 50+ years (W4YHD,
W4RX, even placed first in the US in CQWWCW twice in my younger days, now the
reflexes don't stand up so well to the competition, hi). And a PVRC member for
50+ years. I got started in VHF+ mountaintopping (we didn't have rovers then)
in the 50's in the Northeast. Then began upgrading the home station for VHF+
in the 80's, band by band, until I am now active in most of the contests on 50
MHz thru 47 GHz (yes, there are stations such as W3IY/R who are equipped that
high). Why did I make all of that effort to equip my station? Because there
were stations to be worked in the contests on those bands.
Beginning with your basic goals, I agree with all of them. But there is a
major omission from your goals, which is to encourage the use of as many
amateur VHF+ bands as possible, particularly the microwaves. First: All of
our bands, particularly the higher ones, are under constant pressure from
commercial interests. To the industry, frequencies = money, lots of it. We
are indeed fortunate to have all the bands we do. Only by using these bands
will we keep them. The reality is that there is much more activity on the
microwave bands during just the four ARRL-sponsored contests (June, September,
August UHF, and January VHFSS) than the sum total activity for the entire rest
of the year. Please don't do anything to discourage that activity. Second:
Encouraging contacts on the higher bands will encourage contesters to upgrade
their stations, just like it encouraged me, and in the process they will
improve their technical proficiency and operating skills. That's what it is
about - it's not about tailoring the contests to make us more content to be
appliance operators.
On to the specific proposals.
(1) Change Rover Rules. I remember when the original rover rules were changed
so that grid multipliers didn't count repeatedly from each new grid activated.
A few rovers didn't like the change, a few even quit roving. But the number of
rovers has increased steadily since then. My own survey of active rovers
indicates that almost none of them feels strongly that the old scoring needs to
be reactivated. Your premise is that going to the old scoring would encourage
rovers to travel further and activate more distant grids. This is not true.
The successful rovers under the present rules are stretched to the limit by
travel time as it is. They would not activate a single added grid, in fact,
they might be tempted to alter their routes to include more grids close to
major population centers, so as to maximize the number of grids they could
repeatedly work. Ask a successful rover like W3IY, who usually activates 11
(sometimes 12) grids as far away as FM15 and FM25 under the present rules.
Those locations net him relatively few grids. Under the old rules he would get
a higher score by dropping those grids and going to, say FN10, FN20, and FN21
each easily reached and within range of a larger number of grids. Yet he was
probably the only FM15 and FM25 for all who worked him, while we each worked at
least a dozen FN10/FN20/FN21. The result in terms of distant grids activated
could easily be negative, not positive. Also note that the present rules make
the top rover scores on a par with the top fixed station scores. There is no
need to adjust rover scores if the present rules are retained. Above all
please don't de-incentivize the rovers by not allowing their scores to count
for their club (most rovers are faithful club members) and especially don't
de-incentivize them (and those who work them) by making QSO with rovers worth
less than QSOs with fixed stations. These are both very poor ideas, conceived
only to compensate for the flawed premise to revert to the old rover scoring
system. Bottom line: the rover rules and scoring ain't broke. Please don't
try to fix them.
There remain two rover issues: so-called captive rovers and grid-circling. The
captive rover "issue" is easier to deal with. I believe there are very few
"captive" rovers who actually would refuse to QSO a calling station. I have
personally yet to encounter one. If a major club station is able to outfit an
army of rovers and sends them out to contact home base, more power to them.
These guys may have a long road to travel and may not spend much time at each
stop. They may have low power and poor receivers (as would be adequate for
mountaintop-to-mountaintop QSOs from many of the grids they might activate),
making them difficult to work. Stations on the fringe of the population
density (e.g., K1WHS) send rovers in a direction away from other population
centers (like FN45) so that, even with great equipment, those rovers may be
unworkable by others. Should we penalize the rover? The home station?
Mostly, if you hear these rovers and call them, they answer. They might not
call CQs from all their locations, but should we try to legislate that? I
don't think this is a problem that needs to be dealt with. For the outlier who
clearly ignores callers, the solution is peer pressure. Simply state in the
rules that refusal of a rover (or any station, for that matter) to answer a
caller (that he can hear, that is) is unethical behavior and if it is
verifiably reported, that behavior will be noted in the contest writeup. The
problem of grid circling is harder, because this is an intentional activity of
a few which attempts to gain unfair advantage (at least many of us think so) by
using the rules in a somewhat perverted way to their advantage. A lot of
possible restrictions have been floated on the reflectors to prevent this. But
every time you prescribe a restrictive or punitive action, there is a
probability of unintentionally harming someone else's legitimate activity. The
best way to deal with this (if it needs to be dealt with) is, again, peer
pressure. Make clear in the rules that grid circling is considered an
unethical practice and the perpetrators will be identified when the results are
published.
(2) QSO Point Changes. All three of these proposed changes are actually
counterproductive to what are (or should be) the goals. QSO Point Value: At
present, the number of points per QSO is roughly proportional to the effort
necessary to get on the band involved and to make the QSO. That is as it
should be. In particular, the large differential for microwave band contacts
should be retained, to encourage use and amateur development of these bands for
the reasons stated at the outset. It is proposed to replace this with a system
based upon grid separation. The stated goal of this is to discourage band
changing (which it would not) and encourage more contacts with casual operators
and newcomers. It would have the opposite effect. Many of us spend some
contest time on FM working locals (this is where the real newcomers and casual
participants are); we would be less inclined to do so if they were worth less
points than we could achieve on ssb working stations in some big city an extra
grid away. Point value based on distance: This gives no particular benefit and
introduces unnecessary complexity. But it does further discourage working
local casual operators and beginners. We all try to make as many long distance
QSOs as possible anyway (and are rewarded by the grid multipliers obtained
thereby). One point only for rover QSOs: As noted before, this is a very
poor idea, would make it less appealing to look for rovers (and to wait for
them, as is often necessary), and would badly de-incentivize the rovers.
Rovers are probably the single factor most vital to maintaining activity in the
contest. This change would be certain to reduce their participation.
Recommendation: no changes in the points per QSO rules.
(3) June VHF QSO Party 50-1296 MHz Only. The idea seems to be that if we can
reduce the number of bands, more people will operate. As if we can encourage
operation by reducing the options to the lowest common denominator. As if
people who don't have the higher bands are boycotting the contests because they
can't compete on all bands - the contest doesn't fit their particular rig.
Isn't this selling the average VHF ham a little bit short? When I got back on
the VHF bands around 1980, the first contest I operated I had 2 meters - only.
I enjoyed it but I definitely heard lots of guys moving to other bands where I
couldn't go. I didn't quit, I started building the station. Wouldn't you? It
took a few years but eventually I got to where I could go to other bands, too.
This is what we want - incentive. Microwaves are not the last frontier, but
they represent a technical step forward for many of us. Don't take the
incentive away by reducing the June VHF contest to the lowest common
denominator. And don't take the action away from the serious operator just
because the next guy hasn't gotten equipped. If some contest had to be
sacrificed in an ill-advised experiment to curtail the number of bands, June is
a very poor choice, when the opportunity for mountaintop microwave contacts is
greatest. Try January when microwave conditions are poor and access to
mountaintops may be nonexistent. Remember also that the CQ VHF contest (in
July) is limited to six and two meters. If a reduced number of bands would
increase activity, you would expect this one to be very popular, but activity
is actually much less than the all-band ARRL June contest. Recommendation:
leave June as it is.
Establishing a new limited-band single-operator category is a much more
acceptable proposal. It doesn't penalize the serious operator who wants to get
the maximum action out of the contest but it gives the band-limited station a
category in which to compete with a bigger opportunity to win. But don't
forget, even this reduces the incentive to improve.
(4) New Categories in Jan/Jun/Sept. A category for 50-144-432 only and a
category for 6-hour hilltopping. Again, this doesn't hurt anybody, so no
objections. But I think the premise may be flawed. It is as if nobody is
going to operate unless there is a category exactly tailored to his station, so
as to maximize his chances of winning. I think the guys with three-band radios
are going to operate if they are interested, and if they aren't interested,
this category won't make them get on. But try it.
(5) Other Recommendations. I agree with all of these. Particularly with
allowing DX-to-DX credit, which has been a conspicuous deterrent to Caribbean
and Central American activity.
Dropping the UHF Contest. This contest is a bit slow for me - I prefer the
action of all bands, 6M through the millimeters. But there are quite a few
guys in our area who enjoy the UHF contest a lot, and the rovers go out for it.
It would be a shame to drop it.
Changes and Better Publicity for the EME Contest. I haven't done this contest
yet, but plan to. It will probably become a more and more important contest
with time, particularly with the digital modes. Agree, on all counts.
Changes Already Implemented. Agree with all - well done.
Awards. These changes are all logical and non-controversial.
Strong Recommendations: Don't mess with the rovers. Don't mess with the
points per QSO. Don't take the microwaves out of the June contest.
One last thing: Putting the VHF contest line scores back into QST will do more
to stimulate VHF contest activity than any changes to the rules or scoring.
Thanks for listening.
73,
Jim
W4RX
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|