The recent exchanges here point out that there are still unresolved issues
regarding rovers coordinating contacts and operating locales in VHF/UHF
contests. This has been going on for nearly 22 years. Another round of
discussion here, while almost certainly to be interesting, is unlikely to
resolve anything. I hope that the Ad-Hoc committee addresses this issue soon
and that is where our input should go. To many of us, this is as important a
VHF contest issue as is assistance, which the committee chose to deal with
quickly. The longer standing problems take longer to resolve I guess.
AF6O is correct, there is little grid circling these days. With the 100 QSO
limit with another rover, it is better to use those QSOes for multipliers
rather than QSO points, so most of the rover-to-rover QSOes occur at grid
boundaries, not at the convergences. This does little, however, to reduce the
perception, some have that these contacts are not as worthwhile as those that
occur spontaneously between rovers that have not coordinated their efforts.
Whether or not one agrees with this, the desire not to compete with these
coordinated rovers by the individual uncoordinated rovers is real. Over the
years, with several rules changes and several scoring changes, this difference
has proven to be irreconcilable. The Unlimited Rover category, an attempt to
separate coordinated roving efforts from other roving efforts, has largely been
a failure in that regard.
The very existence of a rover class encourages coordinated roving as, over the
course of a contest, rover-to-rover QSOes contribute more to a competitor’s
score than QSOes between or with non-rovers. This is a fundamental issue that
the committee should deal with.
I think that rover rules based on some variation of the 10 GHz and up contest
rules for VHF/UHF contests would address many of the concerns, both perceived
and real. Nearly everyone in the 10 GHz and up contest roves on one weekend or
the other, often in groups. Yet there are no complaints about coordinated
roving in the 10 GHz and up contest. The 10 GHz and up rules encourage QSOes
between rovers over significant distances and require that one end of the QSO
move a significant distance before recontacting the same station. The rules
also give 100 points for each unique station contacted; a good incentive for
working stations other than the rovers one travels with. It seems to me that
implementing those rules would be mutually beneficial to both sides in the
rover controversy.
You may have other ideas. That is good. Whether or not you agree with my
comments on roving, commenting about the rules here will not have the same
impact as writing to the Ad-Hoc committee members and letting them know how you
feel about the issue and making suggestions for the way you want it. Please do
that. I hope we will get some effective rover rules that everyone can live with
from the committee. This can only happen if they have significant input from
rovers and fixed station operators.
If you have suggestions for future and I hope, better rover rules, you should
make them known to the ad hoc committee:
Kermit W9XA (Chairman) < w9xa@arrl.org >
Dave NN1N < nn1n@arrl.org >
Marty N6VI < n6vi@arrl.org >
Doug K4AC < k4ac@arrl.org >
N6VI has roved with the Southern California group and I know that W9XA has also
roved. I am not sure whether K4AC or NN1N have roved. So, there are members of
the committee who have roved and should have some knowledge of the issues
involved. Send them an e-mail. - Duffey KK6MC/r
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|