VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] Changes to ARRL VHF Contest Rules

To: "'VHF Contesting Reflector'" <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] Changes to ARRL VHF Contest Rules
From: "Nate Duehr" <nate@natetech.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 19:16:39 -0600
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
On Tue, 26 May 2009 16:03:10 -0500, "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>
said:

> Hat's off to the league for this one.

--------
RULE WORDING: 
Couldn't the rule have been just as effective by saying: 

"At least three bands submitted by a Limited Rover must be 432 MHz or
lower.  The fourth band may be any band allowed in the contest."

Wasn't that REALLY the ORIGINAL intent?  

Seems like that would have worked better, and would have kept the 222
"favoritism" out of it, and also killed off the weird new four-band
microwave rovers that weren't intended.

--------
One more -- here's a reasonable question that will be nothing more than
trouble:

Why didn't the *Limited Multi-Operator band rules* change to match the
Limited Rover rule?

If Rovers in the "Limited" category can't use 902, or 1.2 GHz, or
anything else above 432, why can a fixed station?  Are they special? 

--------
A final administrative point:

Weren't the 2009 rules ALREADY PUBLISHED on the website, prior to this
change?  Perhaps it would be smarter not to publish the rules until
they're FULLY BAKED?  

I might be wrong on that last one, but weren't they up there?

--------
This change may have "protected" the Limited Rovers from the
"multi-microwave rover"... but if they had 927 FM or a nice new rig with
1.2 GHz in it... they just got totally hosed by this overly-restrictive
change, for no good reason.  

No hat's off from me.

Nate WY0X
--
  Nate Duehr
  nate@natetech.com

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

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