You know, if the government spent this much time working on fixing the budget,
we'd all be richer, the economy would be thriving and every rainbow would end
at a pot of gold. Unfortunately, life and many things aren't "fair" to someone
or others ..
I've watched this thread and others like it with interest and angst for years
... From my home, I'm really not able to contest on VHF and above, for many
reasons including keeping neighbors friendly and not being able to pay the
extortion charged by my city for engineering and permitting requirements ...
Instead, I pack up more antennas and gear than many amateurs even own, much
less have in use, haul it all to a hill or mountain top, spend one to two days
setting up multiple yagi's, microwave dishes, verticals and then all of the
radios ...
Then it's contest time ... 24, 30 and more hours, followed by tear down,
packing everything back up, taking it home and unloading it all to wait for
another "weekend".
All of this from the VHF plus contesting armpit of the United States, in San
Diego.
If I'm lucky, I'll work about 70% fixed stations, and perhaps the remaining 30%
mobile, many of which are "rovers". In some cases a rover is declared on the
fly, simply because the incidental contact is driving from point a to point b,
not sure if they're going to cross an invisible grid square line. In other
cases, I'll catch travellers going across the US - Mexico border, or crossing
state lines on travel to Arizona or Nevada.
I'll also make contact with what I'll affectionately call the "N6NB Entourage"
while they're in range and working their course, typically moving north and
away from the coast. Candidly, I'm grateful for the extra bands, points and
grid squares. Often times, this group will be the only ones with capabilities
on 902 and higher. Additionally, I'm always appreciative of anyone who (until
recently) braved 4+ dollar a gallon gas just to drive around like mad men (and
women) and push operating conditions and limits. Note, contrary to what some
apparently believe, they DO work others outside their travelling group.
Have you figured out yet that I don't care too much about "scores" ? I guess
this gets back to the original question as well, "What is accomplished" ?
I never stand a chance of getting a nationally recognised rating or score, we
simply don't have the ham population in southern California to support it -
fixed or mobile. I do however enjoy putting DM12 on many folks maps and logs
that otherwise won't have it. I enjoy moving to the digital modes in the
evening when regular traffic starts to wane and picking up the odd stuff off of
burning rocks and the Moon instead of calling it an evening.
I've always been and to this day remain facinated that this "stuff" works at
all - antennas,radios, propagation, digital modes, and folks also crazy enough
to engage in it. I've always told people it's like fishing, you get what you
get, sometimes you're lucky, sometimes not. There are people that like to fish
in the ocean and streams, others may prefer lakes, including ones that are
"stocked". Everyone is going to have an opinion about what is best, what is
fair and what is legal. Everyone also has a chance to choose which they prefer
or even to participate.
If I don't think it's fair because the northeastern states have such a high
population of active operators and ultimately win the majority of all
categories in every contest with nationally recognised scores, should I suggest
that we start playing this like bowling or a golf game ? Handicap operators to
balance out scoring because they have the "advantage" that I will never have ?
Probably not a very popular thought, and frankly while I find the thought
amusing, I'd never suggest it because it's simply rediculous to consider. The
rules are the rules, folks have and will continue to be critical of them but
until they're changed, not much we can do about it until then.
Maybe I should start the charge to "equalize" the scoring to give Southern
California a realistic chance to score well or high nationally ? How 'bout we
focus on that instead of a dedicated group of operators that simply work the
rules as they are today ?
Nah, didn't think so :-)
OBTW - since we're all so detail oriented and passionate about this stuff,
please note that Carrie is driving an Infiniti, NOT a Lexus ....
regards, kg6iyn
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, James Duffey <JamesDuffey@comcast.net> wrote:
From: James Duffey <JamesDuffey@comcast.net>
Subject: [VHFcontesting] What is accomplished?
To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Cc: "James Duffey" <JamesDuffey@comcast.net>
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 5:47 PM
Steve - I understand your frustration. But I think it is misplaced.
The question "What is accomplished?" can be applied to all of us,
and
probably has been at one time or another. What is accomplished by
straight (non-circling) roving? Well you and I have an answer to that;
it is fun, rewarding, and technically challenging, but I suspect that
much of the population will go "So what?" when they hear that I spent
an entire weekend and drive 710 miles to make 87 contacts, many with
the same people. One would probably get the same reaction for amateur
radio contesting in general by the general population. It all boils
down to different strokes for different folks.
You and others in the northeast corridor are blessed with an amateur
radio population density that is quite active at VHF/UHF and hence
have a lot of stations to work in contests. Much of the rest of the
country is not, including Southern California, believe it or not. Grid
squaring creates a high population density of VHF active hams. Simply
put, grid squaring gets people out and active that otherwise would not
be. One an argue that it is artificial, but it is effective.
Now one can argue that the scoring should be adjusted so that regular
stations are more competitive with these stations. And that is a fair
argument. But I think that the argument should go deeper than that.
Grid squaring (circling) is only part of the problem. The scores in
the limited rover category by the grid circlers are inflated by the
additional QSO points for the microwave bands. The grid circling
scores would be in line with the rest of the limited class if the
additional microwave points were not added in.
In short, I think that the scoring and reporting should be revisited
so that the contest is interesting to everybody and no one's specific
interest is eliminated.
There are several solutions to this problem, if you think that this is
a problem. We have covered all of these at one time or another. The
VUAC has suggested that the new rules are a trial balloon and will be
in place a while before additional changes are made. Here are some
suggestions that have been put forward before.
1. Score and report all entries by grid square. This makes sense as
the grid square is the exchange. Report contest results by grid
square. Rovers would compete with other category (single op, QRP
single op, multi op) stations in each grid they operate from. In
addition Rover scores from the separate grids would be aggregated for
a separate Rover competition.
2. Use distance based scoring, as in the 10 GHz contest. Give 100
points for each initial contact with a station, and 1 point per
kilometer of distance between stations worked. Exchange 6 digit grid
squares. Stations can be reworked if one station has moved a
reasonable distance. say 50 or 60 kilometers. Nobody grid circles in
the 10 GHz contest.
3. Several years ago, K5AM suggested a two tier approach for
categories that went something like this:
Low Bands (6, 2, 1.35 and .7)
1. QRP
2. single op low
3. single op high
4. Multi op
5. Rover classic
6. Rover unlimited
High bands (all bands above 902MHz)
1. QRP
2. single op low
3. single op high
4. Multi op
5. Rover classic
6. Rover unlimited
A station can enter in the low category, the high category, or both.
Other changes that are equally viable, but that may be viewed as
unfairly punitive (and are in some cases) include:
4. Require a minimum distance, say 1 km, for QSOs between rovers.
5. Set time limits, say an hour, on a Rover making additional QSOs
after revisiting a grid square.
6. Eliminate the extra QSO points for microwave contacts. All QSO
points are worth 1.
7. Change the QSO limit from 100 per rover to 100 total with other
rovers.
8. Change the rover limit from 100 per rover to a smaller amount, say
30 or so.
9. Ban grid circling outright.
There are 3 VHF/UHF contests and a UHF contest. There is no reason why
the rules need ot be the same for all. In fact, a diverse set of
competition may be more attractive to participants than the same old
thing one after another.
So, a modest proposal that the VUAC might consider is:
1. Leave the June contest as it is, essentially a free for all.
2. Implement distance based scoring in the UHF contest and in the
January contest.
3. Institute K5AM's suggested categories in the September contest,
along with scoring and reporting scores by grid square.
Or whatever may be better suggestions from others?
By the way, although results are not officially out, it looks like you
won the September VHF contest limited rover division. Congratulations!
- Duffey
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
_______________________________________________
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
|