Good write up. The only thing I would comment upon at this time is the lack
of logs from the "usual suspects" in CA. One regular member of that group
did submit a log as a Limited Rover with a score of 105000. A score like
that is absolutely impossible without coordinated activity. KO4MA and his
22 grid rove managed an impressive 64K score for 2nd place. That leads me
to believe there was a grid circling effort, but for some reason, the rest
of the members did not submit logs. I would be very curious to find out
why.
Besides having one Limited Rover with 105K points, there were also at least
two posts here on the reflector from others who claim to have made contact
with several members of the CA pack. They were out there. What they did, I
don't know.
If any members of the CA pack read this, would you mind e-mailing me. If
you don't want to post on-list, I would still be quite curious as to what
happened. This is sincere curiosity and not an attempt to start an
argument.
Steve
K4GUN/R
"un"limited rover
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:05 AM, James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|