VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] New VHF+ contest rules and picking out certainbands

To: John Geiger <n5ten@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] New VHF+ contest rules and picking out certainbands
From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:07:28 -0800
List-post: <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 01:14:19PM -0800, John Geiger wrote:
> I guess I wasn't aware that running more and picking
> the best 4 bands was illegal or unethical, altough I
> haven't done multiop VHF contesting since they
> developed the limited multiop category.
> 
> Does the same hold true for HF?  Is it illegal,
> unethical, or not in the intent of the rules to
> operate on all HF bands for say the CQWW contest, and
> then just enter as a single band entry, picking the
> band you did best on?  I have done that before, but
> didn't realize that I might be violating the rules.

That depends.  The "HF Contesting - Good Practices, Interpretations and 
Suggestions" document release by the Contest Advisory Committee covers
this in section 7:  http://www.arrl.org/contests/hf-faq.html

Basically, if you are passing QSOs from bands other than your 
designated band to your designated band, then you can't designate 
your operation on that band as a single-band entry.  For example, 
if you submit as a 20 meter single band effort, but at some 
point you passed a station from 40 meters to 20 meters, you've
been operating on 40 meters to improve your score, so you're
not really a single-band operation any more.

Should the same principle apply to VHF contesting?  I would think 
so.


> 73s John AA5JG
> 
> --- aa4zz@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> > ?I know of no time (at least here in the SE) where a
> > 1296 score would ever approach the score of? well
> > equipped 222 station. I also think a pass from 1296
> > to a lower band very unlikely and certainly not
> > common enough to significantly effect scores.
> > ?? For us at AA4ZZ 1296 is run just to help?others
> > and frankly if it affects our score, it is to lower
> > it, because of the lost time and focus from the
> > other bands.
> > 
> > 73 Paul AA4ZZ
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Allowing a "limited multi" station with more than
> > four bands to operate 
> > the contest on all of their available bands opens
> > the door for "cherry 
> > picking" the best four bands after the contest is
> > over for their limited 
> > multi-op entry.  For example, 50/144/432 are usually
> > the best three, but 
> > operating both 222 and 1.2G during the contest and
> > picking the best band 
> > and the "fourth" is unfair, and is in no way within
> > the intent of the 
> > rules.  In addition, to be fair such an entry should
> > not be allowed to 
> > pass any station "from" any band which they will not
> > be claiming in 
> > their "official" score.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Pruett <>
> > To: kr7o@vhfdx.com
> > Cc: kx9x@arrl.org; vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> > Sent: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:49 pm
> > Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] New VHF+ contest rules
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > All:
> > 
> > While I acknowledge the point Robert is trying to
> > make, there is a dark 
> > "other" side to this which I think gets ignored.
> > 
> > Allowing a "limited multi" station with more than
> > four bands to operate 
> > the contest on all of their available bands opens
> > the door for "cherry 
> > picking" the best four bands after the contest is
> > over for their limited 
> > multi-op entry.  For example, 50/144/432 are usually
> > the best three, but 
> > operating both 222 and 1.2G during the contest and
> > picking the best band 
> > and the "fourth" is unfair, and is in no way within
> > the intent of the 
> > rules.  In addition, to be fair such an entry should
> > not be allowed to 
> > pass any station "from" any band which they will not
> > be claiming in 
> > their "official" score.
> > 
> > I sense Robert is trying to prevent the contest's
> > rules from 
> > inadvertently creating any negative impact on
> > activity levels.  This is 
> > an admirable goal, but IMHO the integrity of the
> > competition takes 
> > precedence.  I don't think it's fair to blame lower
> > levels of microwave 
> > activity on the limited multi category.  If people
> > have microwave gear 
> > and don't get on because activity is low, that's
> > their choice.  There is 
> > nothing forcing them to run limited multi, other
> > than the fact that they 
> > apparently think it's more fun.
> > 
> > Limited multi is what got me to buy equipment for
> > 50/144/222/432 and try 
> > to pull together a bunch of guys to operate the
> > contest.  While I think 
> > microwaves are cool, and I admire the guys who go to
> > the trouble to get 
> > it working, to me it's more work and $$$ than I'm
> > willing to undertake.
> > 
> > There's two sides...
> > 
> > 73,
> > 
> > Dave/K8CC
> > 
> > 
> > kr7o@vhfdx.com wrote:
> > > I am going to try and stay out of the rover issue.
> >  There were some good 
> > > changes made, and some...... (I will stop here). 
> > Time will tell.   Out on 
> > > the west coast, but the limited-multi fixed class
> > killed 95% of all 
> > > microwave activity in CA for years.
> > >
> > > Related to that:
> > >
> > > 2.6.2.Limited Multioperator: Stations submit logs
> > with a maximum of four 
> > > bands used. (Logs from additional bands used, if
> > any, should be included as 
> > > checklogs.)
> > >
> > > I am not sure if this exact wording was in the
> > previous version, but the 
> > > SHOULD in this line needs to read MUST BE
> > SUBMITTED!  In this era of 
> > > computer log checking where participants are
> > penalized for NIL contacts, it 
> > > is unacceptable for any multi-op to submit a
> > partial log.  They MUST submit 
> > > their entire log and the the Cabrillo header needs
> > to specify which bands 
> > > that station wishes judged for the contest.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 73, Robert KR7O/YB2ARO, DM07ba/OI52ee  (ex. 
> > N7STU)
> > > kr7o@vhfdx.com
> > >
> > > www.vhfdx.com (KR7O/YB2ARO homepages)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > 
> > 
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________
> > More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL
> > Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> >
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

-- 
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/

_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>