First of all, can somebody explain what we're really talking about? How
exactly would a distance based scoring system work?
I must say that the people who have been posting in favor of this, with one
distinct exception (duly and respectfully noted Christophe), are talking from
the perspective of a base station. Ron's concern about the amount of gas I use
and the operating practices I choose indicates a lack of comprehension about
why I enjoy roving. Cutting down the number of grids I open doesn't seem to
benefit anybody.
Some of us like to drive. I enjoy the changing scenery. I enjoy the variety.
If I didn't, I'd find a basement and hole up in it for 30+ hours like others
do. Roving is very rewarding to me, but also pretty challenging. Adding in
the pressure of distance based scoring makes me nervous. I'm open to hearing
exactly what others have in mind, but I am skeptical.
If it requires a 6 digit grid exchange, I'm opposed and strongly so. Contrary
to Ron's suggestions, I do have high gain, directional antennas and I do look
for high ground and good areas from which to work. However, I also drive a
good distance between these positions and the directional antennas don't do
much good during these moves. This is when I switch to omni directional
antennas. I can't make the long distance contacts, but I can still operate. I
have a logger next to me and in order to stay safe, we S&P, but always listen
long enough that we have the other stations call and grid before calling them.
Its then a matter of checking my GPS to make sure I'm still in the grid I think
I am and exchange information and hit return on the laptop.
Imagine doing this with a 6 digit grid exchange. Even if my GPS showed 6
digits, its possible to be on a road that crosses those sub-grids several times
in a matter of minutes. That means LOTS of extra attention to the log and to
the GPS and figuring out exactly where I am, at the instant me and the other
station hit "enter" to log the QSO. That's something you don't have to worry
about when sitting in your Lazy-Boy.
So let's hear it. What is the actual plan for a new VHF scoring system? Take
into account what you're doing to the motivation of a rover. Are you creating
disincentives to travel to rare grids? Are you trying to force your operating
practices on others for your benefit? Or are you really looking to improve
radio in general? I'm receptive to hearing the plans.
Steve
K4GUN/R
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Ron Hooper" <w4wa@alltel.net>
> Hi Duane
>
> I agree with you. Leveling the playing field is certainly not the issue and
> distance scoring may or may not help. I do think it would help get the
> rovers off the roads and back to using higher gain directional antennas and
> operating more from good locations which would in turn save them time and
> gas. I just can't imagine the future of rovers if the gas prices don't come
> back down. To get people to move up the bands when 6 is open is to increase
> the points per contact. Currently, the qso points are the same in June for 6
> and 2 meters. Since 6 was open for so long, the only incentive last weekend
> to move to 2 meters was to get a new multiplier, set up higher band contact,
> or listen for the e skips possibilities as the MUF came up.
>
> After operating VHF contest for over 30 years, I can tell you that the 6
> meter opening last weekend was out side of the normal band conditions for
> the June contest. Building more capable stations for DX and working more
> bands should be the goal for everyone. Using 6 digits is not necessary but
> helps to determine the direction of a station especially for the microwave
> operators. I think using 6 digits should remain optional and not required.
>
> A (true contester) goes to the band where he can make the most score for the
> time spent. A (VHF DXer) is looking for new grids activated in the contest.
> A (VHF newbe) is just wanting to get on and work someone to learn about the
> bands and meet other people. We have a lot of people that get on in contest
> for many different reasons but the bottom line is to have fun. I think
> striving for distance contacts (DX) on any band by any station fits many
> operator profiles regardless of the individuals motivations. Distance
> scoring is certainly going to enhance the reason to make further contacts.
> Sooner or later the newbe will eventually move to one or both of the
> other categories mentioned.
>
> Ron W4WA
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Duane - N9DG wrote:
>
> >
> > I too am a long time proponent of distance based scoring. Not so much for
> > the notion of "leveling the playing field", whatever that is. But instead
> > to
> > build-in more incentive for all of the participants to want to build more
> > capable stations. More stations that there are that can make the long haul
> > Q's, then the more Q's there is for everybody. The way it is now there is
> > comparatively little incentive for people in the denser population centers
> > to build better stations to pick up just another dozen Q' on 2M or above
> > when they can make nearly 100 closer by with fairly modest antenna systems.
> > Also with the current emphasis on Q counts over distance we get silly
> > things
> > like grid circling by rovers and rovers clinging to population center.
> > Rovers would want to do that simply because that's where the Q's are,
> > that's
> > understandable. Although fuel prices now may be the biggest disincentive
> > long haul roves.
> >
> > A 6 digit grid exchange based distance based scoring system would not
> > necessarily break the ability to compare new score with old scores because
> > extracting Q counts and 4 digit grids is a piece of cake. Calculating
> > scores
> > by the contest sponsor is no challenge either with computerized log
> > checking.
> >
> > At this point the single biggest challenge of distance based scoring is how
> > to handle 6M. Simple distance based scoring will turn almost every VHF
> > contest in to a 6M only event. Today even with a decent 6M opening the ops
> > that score very well overall also show a strong presence on the higher
> > bands. It is somewhat rare for 6M only op to win a VHF contest even with a
> > wide open band all weekend, though they can make a real good run at it. But
> > trying to scale 6M Q/distance values destroys the value of 6M Q's if there
> > is no Es at all. I really don't know what the answer is for the 6M distance
> > based scoring conundrum.
> >
> > And if I'm not mistaken don't many of the EU VHF contests use distance
> > based scoring? And from what I can tell they have high levels of
> > participation.
> >
> > Duane
> > N9DG
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 6/20/08, David Olean wrote:
> >
> > > From: David Olean
> > > Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] 6meter
> > > To: "Ron Hooper" , "Gabor Horvath, VE7DXG" <
> > ve7dxg@rac.ca>
> > > Cc: VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > > Date: Friday, June 20, 2008, 7:31 AM
> > > Hi Ron,
> > > I am with you, but anytime the concept is brought up,
> > > the complaints
> > > start flying. The fact is that contest stations are built
> > > to accomodate the
> > > conditions in the geographical area of that station. I
> > > live in a remote
> > > area far away from most VHF active population centers. The
> > > only one I can
> > > take adavntage of is the Boston Area, about 100 miles away.
> > > Philly is 350
> > > miles. NYC is 250 miles away. Needless to say, a seven
> > > element two meter
> > > yagi would be a waste of time here. If I lived between
> > > Philly or NYC I might
> > > be very happy with a seven element yagi. I could be
> > > competitive,
> > > contestwise, as the numbers of stations I could work would
> > > be high. Here in
> > > rural Maine, I would work about 25 stations.
> > > The complaints revolve around the unfair advantage
> > > gained from:
> > > 1. Running high power VHF amps cost too much and are not
> > > affordable for
> > > many.
> > > 2. Big antennas They are unfair too. I can't swing a
> > > big antenna in my
> > > yard.
> > > 3. Towers cost way too much money. I can't compete
> > > without a big tower.
> > > 4. Running too many bands. Transceivers are too expensive
> > > making it
> > > impossible to compete.
> > >
> > > Still it would be fun to have distance scoring. It
> > > removes the
> > > advantage, to a small extent, of stations in high
> > > population areas. I think
> > > it levels the geographical playing field a bit.
> > >
> > > Dave K1WHS
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|