In a message dated 3/6/2004 7:58:28 PM Mountain Standard Time,
n0cal@yahoo.com writes:
>>From a meeting of the PVRC on January 20, 2004 Page 13
>"W3ZZ, Gene reports a June VHF contest with bands
>limited between 6M and either 432 or 1296 is likely.
>ARRL will likely return to the old rover rules for VHF
>contests. Contacts which are in your grid or touch
>your grid may be worth 2 points. If it doesn't touch
>your grid it's 3 points. After working a rover on each
>band you get 1 point when he changes bands. The point
>structure is not yet clear. The purpose is to attract
>the >100K Icom 706 and FT100 type rig owners."
I wish I had access to all the comments filed by everyone in response to the
ARRL's request. I don't, but I have been able to find replies from 91 hams
so far in the areas of the net I can access. Most of these replies did not
address all of the various points made in the ARRL's original message.
The most often mentioned point was the limiting of bands in the June contest.
35 commenters were against elimination of the microwaves in June. There
were 8 suggestions that January would be better than June but all but one of
those was against elimination of bands in any contest including January, but
thought January preferable to June if it had to be done. Only 3 comments were
made in favor of this proposal.
As for Rover rule changes, the vote had no mandate on changing the rules
back to those originally used for the class or leaving them alone. 18
specifically said change them back, 20 said leave them alone, and 3 were
neutral (of
those that expressed an opinion on this proposal). Time limits for grid
activation or re-activation were another matter entirely. 26 were against any
time
limits versus only 4 were in favor of general time limits, while 12 were for
time limits only applying to rover to rover QSOs. Similarly 30 were against
rover QSO point changes (of any type), 8 were in favor of the specific
proposal (distance based QSO points with rover QSO points fixed at one
regardless of
distance), 4 suggested some QSO point limit on rover to rover contacts only,
and 2 suggested boosting QSO points for 222 MHz contacts over all other bands
to encourage operation there.
The only proposal from the ARRL which was met with general approval of the
existing contesters was that for new classes of operation in existing contests.
18 commenters were for one new class or another with a 'Limited Single
Operator' and 'Time Limited Hilltopper' being most popular. Commenters were
emphatically against limiting either proposed class to specific bands,
presuming
that a 'number of bands limit' is placed on either class, let the operator
choose which bands to operate on rather than specify specific bands.
11 commenters thought eliminating the UHF Contest a bad idea while only one
commenter was in favor of the proposal. Several alternatives were suggested,
beyond the ARRL's suggestion of expanding the 10 GHz Contest. The best was
the idea of replacing the UHF Contest with a 6M thru 432 MHz or 1296 MHz
contest
implementing the new suggested rules (without depleting an existing contest),
to see how such a contest might actually be received.
No consensus was reached on the possible expansion of the 10 GHz contest.
Only six commenters specifically mentioned it, and at 4 for and 2 against the
proposal, out of 91 commenters that isn't enough to indicate more than a mild
trend.
9 comments (mostly from non-rovers) were specifically against grid circling
rovers.
19 comments (mostly from rovers) were mildly (who cares?) to strongly in
favor allowing grid circling.
7 comments (mostly from non-rovers) were specifically against captive rovers.
24 comments (mostly from rovers) were mildly to strongly in favor of allowing
captive roving, or thought that any anti-captive roving rule would be
impossible to fairly implement.
9 commenters specifically mentioned the proposal to eliminate the rule
allowing Multi-operator Unlimited class entrants to work their own operators on
bands from 2304 MHz up. At 4 for, 4 against, and one neutral, no consensus
was
reached here either.
11 commenters want all scores to appear in QST. NO commenters were against
this proposal. Everyone who mentioned this proposal felt it would do more to
bring new operators in VHF+ contests than any of the proposals in the ARRL's
original request for comments. While I didn't mention it in my comments I
strongly agree.
Assuming that comments to the ARRL not posted in the parts of the internet I
could reach were similar to those I could reach, if the ARRL cares about the
opinions of existing VHF contesters at all, it will NOT eliminate any bands
from any existing contests (including the UHF contest). It will NOT change the
rover rules other than possibly instituting a rover to rover only time limit
for re-activating grids. It will NOT change the QSO point system in any
existing contest. It MAY institute one or two new classes of operation in
existing
contests. It SHOULD put all scores back in QST. If they do anything else it
is against the majority opinion of the existing VHF contest operators as to
how they can best implement their SUPPOSED goals of increasing VHF contest
activity.
73,
Jim
w0eea@aol.com
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|