Now we'll have to excuse Nate while he ices his thumbs after typing that
manifesto on his iPhone :-).
For what it's worth, though, I agree. Note the we're not complaining that
the League moved "too fast." Au contraire, mon frere - if the League had
moved fast enough to have the changes incorporated into the 2009 rules the
first time they were published, there wouldn't be an issue. The problem is
the rules were published then changed. That's not cool. Also 222, 902, and
1.2 GHz are all equally within the range of the beginning rover using out of
the box equipment - one might argue that 1.2 Ghz is actually, in fact,
easiest since you can get an all-mode without using a transverter while on
902 and 222 you're limited to FM only without transverters. Not to say that
222 FM isn't fun during a contest - it's a hoot.
It's annoying that the rules keep getting messed with to combat some
perceived grid circling problem in a way that's akin to grabbing a fistful
of darts and throwing them all at a target hoping that one or two stick.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, rovers who have nothing to do with the
"problem" are affected by the rule changes. This one is poorly written to
boot - you can't even operate on another band, making it way more
restrictive than Limited Multiop. Is that _really_ what they intended?
The worst part about this rule change, though, is that here were are
debating the whole thing again! If the League had been a little more
considerate they would have implemented it while the post-contest rover
rules debate and hand-wringing was already in progress, thus sparing
everyone from reliving the same argument an extra time this year. ;-)
73! Chris N9YH
On Tue, 26 May 2009 22:26:32 -0600, Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com> wrote:
> To be ultra-clear here..
>
> You added "grid-circling" to your reply. This rule change has nothing
> to do with that, nor does it even address it. Any rover can still
> grid- circle their little hearts out under the rules.
>
> You say "simplification" is good for rovers but not for limited multi-
> ops because somehow only fixed stations have the mental ability to
> understand the pros and cons of 222 vs. 1.2 GHz which would be mildly
> insulting if it weren't so obviously thoughtless.
>
> You also bring up that people get upset at the perceived speed of rule
> changes which was also not mentioned at all in my previous message. I
> didn't complain about the speed, I complained that the rules were
> ALREADY PUBLISHED and then changed. It would have been more
> appropriate to say since the rules were already out for 2009 that this
> change would take effect in 2010 and the change documented in QST this
> year.
>
> Finally you admonished me to compete. I've already won the Rocky
> Mountain Division unlimited rover category twice in 2006 & 2007. And
> I rejoined the W0KVA unlimited multi-op station in 2008, helping them
> post their first ever top-ten national ranking last year. I think I
> know how to compete. Noooo problemo. My concern is the NEW rovers,
> of which we only see one or two a year in my area. This change may
> have helped them against an "all microwave" rover working with a TEAM
> of other rovers and fixed stations, but they will ALWAYS lose to any
> such organized group. Forcing them to buy 222 if they already had
> 902, 1.2, or even 10 GHz did nothing to change that fact.
>
> I didn't "cut any slack" because this rule change is yet again, poorly
> thought through.
>
> For "limited" roving...
>
> If you own a TS-2000X... You just got hosed by the VUAC and ARRL.
>
> If you own an IC-910 with 1.2... You just got hosed.
>
> If you own an FT-857/897 or IC-706 and ANY other band transverter
> other than 222 MHz... You just got hosed.
>
> If you own an FT-857/897 or IC-706 and any number of cheap commercial
> 927 MHz FM rigs... You just got hosed.
>
> If you have an interest in the microwaves only... You just got hosed.
>
> The LAST scenario was the only one they were supposedly trying to
> eliminate, and even that doesn't jive with the stated goal of the June
> contest. If the Limited Rover is a "stepping stone" to the Unlimited
> Rover, then limiting THREE bands is appropriate MAYBE, and the fourth
> band is the operator's option.
>
> Imagine the uproar if the same limitations were also imposed on the
> Limited Multi-ops with similar stations as listed above?
>
> Let's see parity on the "Limits" between Limited Rover and Limited
> Multi-op. And let's see a Limited Single-op category too instead of
> only a power level distinction.
>
> And if grid-circling is the REAL perceived problem, then ban it
> completely and make it stick.
>
> Personally the more frustrated I become at the constant illogical
> changes that dance around this FAKE problem... Since the stated goal
> of the contest is "as many contacts as possible"... It just makes me
> want to go form a new circling team of rovers that ignore the fixed
> stations altogether, just like the Californians. We'd have fun.
>
> Who wants to meet up in Colorado next year, rovers? Texas? Whatever.
> Let's go. Want to set some distance records, we'll send someone up
> Pikes Peak to over 14,000 MSL and have line-of-sight to Kansas.
>
> This rule change fixed one problem and in the process alienated any
> new rover who doesn't have 222, and took effect after the rules were
> already published for this year, without communication of any sort
> from our representatives on the VUAC. It also purposefully
> disenfranchised people who ARE working piles and piles of microwave
> contacts.
>
> I've said this one before, too... Does ARRL want an OPERATING contest
> or a BUILDING contest? If the REAL problem is folks operating
> equipment they didn't purchase themselves, or didn't build/assemble
> themselves, then ban THOSE activities for everyone and start requiring
> proof-of-purchase labels or receipts for components. (Obviously
> that's not going to happen either, and I'm saying it only to point out
> that the perceived problems are not being met head-on with solutions.)
>
> The California girl beat the other Limited Rovers with strategy and
> someone else's money and stations. It showed a logical flaw in the
> Limited Rover that could have been fixed with a three-or-less band
> limitation without all the above examples of collateral damage. And it
> could have been fixed sooner than three weeks before the largest
> annual contest of the season.
>
> "Fair" enough?
>
> --
> Nate Duehr
> Sent from my iPhone
>
--
Chris Burke
chris@n9yh.com
--
Chris Burke
chris@n9yh.com
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|