OK then. I suggest that we form a yahoo user's group to work through the
issues in an analytical manner, as we can only do so much thru the din of a
reflector. It would amount to a working group for anyone interested (either pro
or con) on the topic of distance scoring. Sort of a grass roots effort to
provide more of a focus to the discussion. We could check back and forth thru
the reflector to keep lines of communication up and hopefully develop a
consensus, one way or the other. If a consensus does build up, VUAC could use
whatever they feel appropriate in their own deliberations.
Pse let me know if you are interested in participating in such a discussion
group. If there is sufficient interest, I can set something up.
Kevin
W9GKA
--- On Sat, 2/14/09, Jim Worsham <wa4kxy@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> From: Jim Worsham <wa4kxy@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: [VHFcontesting] A distance scoring contest
> To: "'Ron Hooper'" <w4wa@alltel.net>, kkaufhold@yahoo.com
> Cc: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Date: Saturday, February 14, 2009, 2:09 PM
> As a member of the VUAC I have to say that Ron is 100% spot
> on. If the VHF
> contesting community wants distance scoring in a contest
> then there needs to
> be a consensus developed by that community as to which
> contest it is and how
> it would work. Several other members of the VUAC and I are
> on this
> reflector. We are all paying attention, taking notes and
> waiting for that
> consensus to emerge.
>
> 73
> Jim, W4KXY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Ron Hooper
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 11:09 AM
> To: kkaufhold@yahoo.com
> Cc: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] A distance scoring contest
>
> Hi Kevin
>
> Thanks for trying to get this group focused into a
> direction that could
> yield some results. I would like to include some basic
> information.
>
> I think a lot of us old timers remember the reluctance of
> the ARRL to make
> rule changes based on some e-mails or letters without a
> SUPPORTED
> consensus. Prior to 2005/6, the ARRL CAC was the group to
> contact and
> hopefully would work toward a consensus to be presented to
> the MSC which in
> turn went to the BOD.
>
> Since then things have changed. The VHF community now has
> its own advisory
> committee called the VUAC. It is similar to the CAC but is
> only concerned
> with VHF & up contesting. This allows contesting issues
> to be considered by
> other VHF contesters and not by someone that has no idea
> what is going on
> first hand. The VUAC was created by the ARRL BOD and
> answers to the Program
> & Services Committee (PSC).
>
> The ARRL has placed a VUAC member in each of the ARRL
> sections to solicit
> input from the hams living in the division. The VUAC has a
> chairperson to
> gather the information from the other committee members and
> submit it to the
> PSC at different intervals during the year. These reports
> can be found by
> searching the ARRL site to see what issues are being
> considered or acted on.
>
>
> I know that my VUAC representative is on this list and
> reads the threads
> concerning the distance scoring and several other issues
> that I am not
> concerned with. There are probably several other VUAC
> members on this list
> and they can be be identified by going to
> http://www.arrl.org/contests/vuac.html
>
> I assume you can also contact the ARRL in some way and they
> will forward
> your communication through to the proper person/s that
> should get it.
> Obviously, the more people that contact the ARRL the
> quicker the distance
> scoring rule change study can be impliment.
>
> I am in favor of distance scoring and would like to see the
> issue studied by
> the VUAC to determine if it could enhance the future VHF
> and up contest.
>
> Ron W4WA
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 9:47 AM, kevin kaufhold
> <kkaufhold@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > For everyone's information, the ARRL did use
> distance scoring in the
> August
> > UHF for one year in 1982. I believe it was referred to
> as RANGE. Look it
> up
> > in the old QST's! When the VUCC started in 1983,
> the UHF contest moved to
> > the 1 x 2 grid squares as the multiplier. Between 1978
> when the UHF
> started
> > and 1981, a 1 x 1 grid square was used. At the time,
> various versions of
> > grid squares were considered to be an effort towards
> distance scoring,
> > certainly an improvement over using states as a
> multiplier.
> >
> > As an experiment, using a 6 digit grid locator has a
> lot of appeal,
> > especially if we start off in the August UHF. We have
> very few Joe 706's
> > active in August, so the disruption to that contest
> would be minimal, I
> > think. And, there was little problem when K9JK pushed
> 6 digits for the
> > Spring Sprints. August has a lot of very experienced
> microwave enthusiasts
> > who are quite used to 6 digits. And the UHF is small
> enough (in terms of
> > logs) that it a distance scoring experiment would be
> managable. We could
> > also put a max limit on a distance multiplier, to give
> some consideration
> to
> > EME without overly skewing the results.
> >
> > Distance scoring might also provide something of a
> disincentive to pack
> > roving operations. To max points, they would have to
> increase power levels
> > and run farther apart. I am sure they are capable of
> doing that, but they
> > then would at least be encouraged to have
> "real" contacts rather than
> QSO's
> > literally within a few feet of each other.
> >
> > A parallel type of contest using both grids and
> distance as a scoring
> > method would also be interesting to do for a few years
> to see which one
> the
> > VHF community really likes. That might lead to more
> complexity however,
> so
> > I do not know if a parallel track would be worthwhile.
> >
> > I know the League's resources are stretched.
> Either logging programs would
> > have to be modified for 6 digits, or the League would
> have to expand their
> > scoring techniques from the 10G to encompass distance
> scoring in August
> (or
> > other contest).
> >
> > If people are really serious about this (rather than
> just chatting on the
> > reflector), then I suggest an informal committee or
> delegation of some
> sort
> > be developed off reflector to study this more
> seriously. What say you?
> >
> >
> >
> > Kevin
> > W9GKA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
|