The log submittal deadline for the June VHF contest is over. There
were 1023 electronic logs submitted and with the paper logs not yet
counted, it appears that activity will be close to what it was last
year and continue the healthy activity that the contest has shown over
the past 5 years or so.
There were 93 rover entries, 53 in the Classic Rover category, 34 in
the Limited Rover category, and 5 in the unlimited category. By
comparison, in 2008 there were 96 rover entries, 62 in the Classic
Rover Category, 26 in the Limited Rover category and 8 in the
Unlimited Rover category. The Limited Rover category is growing,
apparently at the expense of the Classic Rover category. It appears
that the more restrictive rules governing the Limited Rover category
did not deter activity, quite the opposite, the category is growing in
popularity.
The new rules appeared to curtail the coordinated roving activity from
California, as only one call from the 15 or so that have participated
in that activity over the past few years appears in the logs
submitted. It is a shame that there were eight 10 band VHF/UHF
stations that appeared to be dormant in this year's contest. I think
that this is a bad sign, with that activity, rover activity would have
been at a hew high. I hope that some of these stations found their way
into fixed, portable, or other rovers.
According to the 3830 list, KO4MA scored an impressive 61,880 in the
Limited Rover category, in no small part by visiting 22 grids! My
earlier calculation showed that KG6TOA's score from last year would
have been around 48,000 if his contacts on the 4 microwave bands had
been translated directly to 6/2/1.35/0.7 meters. So it is likely that
if a coordinated rover activity had been conducted in the Limited
Rover Category this year, KO4MA would have won, or at least been
competitive with the coordinated rovers.
The 5 entries in the Unlimited Rover Category appear to not have
participated in coordinated roving activities. Instead they chose to
enter the division for other reasons, using on-site power, not having
to carry all the equipment used, having multiple ops, or simply to
make a point. This division has yet to gain traction.
The migration from the Classic Rover class to the Limited Rover class
mirrors what has happened in the Limited Mult/Multi classes. In the
long run this is probably not good for microwave activity in all
categories, not just the rovers. Which probably means at some level it
is not good for VHF/UHF contesting.
Comparing the activity in the Rover class(es) since its inception is
interesting
Year Entries Rovers % Rover of total Notes
2009 1023 93 9.1 no paper logs included in
these tallies
2008 1074 96 8.9
2007 860 98 11.3
2006 1047 96 9.2
2005 840 92 11.2
2004 766 91 11.9
2003 818 92 11.2
2002 672 84 12.5
2001 680 61 9.0
2000 749 62 8.3
1999 701 75 10.7
1998 865 72 8.3
1997 837 74 8.8
1996 923 72 7.8
1995 837 52 6.2 Rover rules changed to
current scoring
1994 781 68 8.7
1993 818 63 7.7 Rules change in response to
grid circling
1992 840 64 7.6
1991 710 50 7.0 Rover class initiated
What does this tell us? Well for one thing, rovers are pretty reliable
in turning in their logs. Since 2003, there was a +/- 3% variation in
rover logs turned in while the entries as a whole varied +/- 10% or
so. I guess most rovers figure that if they are to go to the all the
effort required to rove they will damn well turn in a log, no matter
how mediocre the results are. Your casual contestant is probably more
likely to turn in a log if band conditions are good to great, like
lots of Es and tropo.
What is interesting is that the initial rover rules changes in 1993,
initiated by the first big grid circling effort that had an impact on
club scores, did not impact activity by much. But the rules adjustment
for 1995, intended to boost rover scores a bit and placate the rover's
complaints about the new scoring system, resulted in a big drop in
activity, at least for one year. But the long term big migration away
from the rover class due to the rules changes that is often talked
about is not evident in these numbers, at least over the long haul.
What is interesting is the upturn in rover activity in 2002 which was
sustained in subsequent years. This is certainly not traceable to any
changes in the rules, and I don't think it is traceable to the
reduction in code requirements which occurred in 2001. After some
thought, I think that this uptick in rover activity may well be caused
by the DC to Daylight rigs introduced in ca.1999 - 2000, which
incorporated 6M/2M/70cm. It took a couple of years for these to
become widespread and adapted by rovers.
Speculation is always fun. - Duffey
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|