VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] distance scoring

To: Bruce Herrick <bdh@teleport.com>, VHF Contesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>, k4gun@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] distance scoring
From: Duane - N9DG <n9dg@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
In line below:


--- On Sat, 6/21/08, k4gun@comcast.net <k4gun@comcast.net> wrote:

> From: k4gun@comcast.net <k4gun@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] distance scoring
> To: "Bruce Herrick" <bdh@teleport.com>, "VHF Contesting" 
> <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Date: Saturday, June 21, 2008, 10:55 AM
> No one ever said that, but then again, until Ev spoke up,
> nobody had ANY specifics.  Everybody keeps talking about
> use of 6 digit squares as if the current 4 digit is
> inadequate.  That's why I asked for details, rather
> than speculation.

6-digit exchanges work well for this purpose because the granularity of the 
distance increments is fine enough. Something on the order of 3-4 miles vs. 50 
or so when calculating based on 4 digit grids. BTW I do believe that 
maintaining 4 digit grids as multipliers is desirable as well. 

> 
> After reading Ev's posts, I remain skeptical, but I
> would be up for working some sprints to see how it actually
> ends up working.  I still think a 6 digit exchange is
> cumbersome for a guy behind the wheel of a truck.  My
> truck's built-in navigation system is not set up for
> Maidenhead readings so I've been relying on a paper map
> and comparing to the lat/lon readings to determine grid
> location and that would not work for a 6 digit exchange. 
> I'll have to buy more equipment and figure out how to
> integrate it into my system.  That's not horrible, but
> it makes me nervous "K4GUN/R in FM08us... no wait,
> uniform tango... hang on, the road keeps turning, make that
> us.  Yes, its uniform sierra, I'm sure, QSL?" 
> Meanwhile, my logger is furiously trying to enter my
> location as well as the location of the station I'm
> talking to.  Hopefully we all put the same information into
> the logs.

In the run and gun scenario I don't think anyone would be particularly 
concerned about a Q starting in one 6-digit grid and ending in another, in the 
end those kinds of instances would all average out. The rover would most likely 
make the exchange based on the beginning.

What 6 digit grids and distance scoring opens up as possibility is an 
allowance, or even the encouragement of rovers making multiple Q's with the 
other ops from within the same 4 digit grid. The scenario could go something 
like this:

Station 1 and the rover find each other. They are only 10 miles apart, they 
make the Q with 6 digit exchanges and log it. Later on as the rover is still in 
the same 4 digit grid and these two ops find each other again, but the rover is 
now 80 miles away. So they would simply work each other again and exchange 6 
digit grids again, and log it again. Note that for logging purposes none of the 
"dupes" are removed. Just submit them all. Once the logs are submitted the 
contest sponsor's log checking program would simply ignore all the different 
Q's in this scenario except for the one that achieved the longest distance from 
within respective 4 digit grids. If by chance they do not get another 
opportunity to work each other after the first short haul Q, then at least that 
one is in the bank.

One of the overall effects if this would be to increase overall contest 
chatter, generally speaking more chatter makes stations more likely to be found 
by others.


> I also see this as a dis-incentive for rovers to make
> longer trips.  Part (not all) of the advantage of moving
> from grid to grid is to get closer to population centers in
> grids that you could not get from your QTH or from a single
> spot during a rove.  Closer would mean less points.  That
> means few stations can work me because I will not be
> traveling to an area where they can get me.

It will ultimately come down to being a strategy decision to make as to which 
to do is better. So it will be either go for higher number of Q's vs. some 
fewer Q's, but potentially more points per Q's because each has more value. 
Today there simply is little or no incentive for rovers to consider long haul 
roves by choice. The long haul roves mostly occur today by trying to hit a 
large number of grids.

Then on the flip side of the whole equation the fixed stations will now have 
more incentive to try reach rovers in far away grids as well. And all ops will 
also have more incentive to try work each and every long haul Q in a distant 
grid instead of primarily the multiplier first one. In other words, make all 
long haul distant Q's to the same 4 digit grid roughly equal in true value vs. 
just the first one that represents a new multiplier. This is especially true 
for bands above 432.

Duane
N9DG

> 
> Skeptical.  That's all I'm saying.  I like it the
> way it is.  I don't see why it needs changed.
> 
> Steve
> K4GUN/R



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

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