I have been predicating in VHF contests for almost 40 years. This is so far
the best response I have seen so far. I concur.
Tom AC5TM W5GAD ex WA9TMC K9YHB
Ex neighbor of Frank K9HMB
----- Original Message -----
From: "w4rx" <w4rx@cox.net>
To: <vhf-contest-proposal@arrl.org>; <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 2:11 PM
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Comments on proposed changes - please excuse
excesive bandwidth
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
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|