With about 3 active rovers total in the SF Bay Area, even if it affected
100% of them, we are not talking about a wide-spread impact. I have never
understood why 97% of the comments on this reflector are about < 3% of the
operations...
I won't put my two cents on the new rule, because I am not a rover, but
anything we can do to get more REAL activity, I would be in favor of. Too
bad there is no FM activity any more. That used to be a good "entry" ground
for VHF contesters.
Tim - NU6S
CM87
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:57 PM, James Duffey <JamesDuffey@comcast.net>wrote:
> Rather than speculate, it is interesting to see who this affects.
>
> January 2008 VHF contest, the first one with a Limited Rover entries:
>
> 1 station (out of 25), chose to include 1296 MHz instead of 222 MHz
>
>
> June 2008 VHF contest
>
> 5 out of 26 entries chose to use another band than 222 MHz in the
> contest
>
> The winner, KG6TOA operated on 2.3, 3.4, 5.7 and 10 GHz.
>
> One station chose to operate 2304 as the fourth band.
>
> The other 3 chose 1296 MHz over 222 MHz.
>
>
> September 2008 Contest
>
> No stations out of 13 chose to use another band other than 222 MHz.
> Interestingly enough, all but one entry used all four bands.
>
>
> August 2008 UHF Contest
>
> 3 out of 7 entries chose to use bands other than the lowest 4.
> Interestingly enough, none of the limited rovers chose to use 902 MHz.
> So, limited rovers that want to stay competitive will have to get on
> 902 MHz. That will be my summer project.
>
> KG6TOA again used 2.3, 3.4, 5.7 and 10 GHz.
>
> The other 2 chose 10 GHz.
>
> It looks like the rule change will have a significant impact on UHF
> Limited Roving. It has a bigger impact than I thought on the June
> contest, and not too much on the January and September contest.
>
> DEMI should see a rush on 902 MHz boxes, well 6 or 7 maybe. :^)=
>
> If I look at the Classic Rover scores, which has larger numbers of
> participants, and hence better statistics, it looks like there are
> more QSOs made in the contest on 222 MHz than on 1296 MHz. You have to
> go all the way down to the 15th place finisher before you find someone
> with more QSOs on 1296 MHz than 222 MHz. So on the face of it, it
> seems like choosing 1296 over 222 MHz may be a poor strategy. This
> makes sense, as it is a lot cheaper to generate power on 222 MHz than
> 1296 MHz.
>
> The rule change is not the end of the earth and may well level the
> competition in the Limited Rover class. I suspect that the committee
> did not really look at the UHF results too closely though. It will
> require equipment investments by those of us who rove in that contest
> if we want to be competitive. - 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
|