No worries, email isn't the greatest at conveying contextual information.
During contests, I tend to look at "what is most fun." Scoring high and
winning a category is definitely fun, so I like to look for ways to get as
high a score as we can. I'm sure we could get higher scores in contests,
but there are definitely ways of doing that which would add some drudgery
and make it less fun. A large pack would probably reduce the fun quota a
bit, you'd be so busy trying to work everyone in your group that you'd miss
the thrill of snagging a weak station or getting a small run going. Having
a second rover tagging along would be nice though, it'd certainly eliminate
some of the "well I've been sitting here for half an hour calling CQ, but
there's a football game on so no one is on the radio" type things where
you're just trying to get one contact, any contact, to activate that grid.
I don't know how you'd fix the rover pack thing without making it so that
rovers can't contact other rovers. You also run into trouble if you try and
limit the microwave contacts, that makes it less worthwhile to carry that
gear, and the rules are crafted in such a way to encourage use of the
higher bands as much as possible.
Sean WA1TE
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:12 PM JamesDuffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net> wrote:
> OK Sean - I took your shenanigans comment wrong. Sorry. - Duffey KK6MC
>
>
> James Duffey KK6MC
> Cedar Crest NM
>
> On Apr 12, 2018, at 13:30, Sean Waite <waisean@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I didn't mean shenanigans in a negative way, I'm a fan of shenanigans! The
> SCCC and other groups that drive a lot of these rules changes are masters
> of seeing exactly how to work the rules to maximize their scores. It's
> pretty impressive.
>
> Up here in New England it's hard enough to even find another rover, let
> alone go at it as a pack with one. We have a lot more fixed stations
> though, iirc.
>
> Sean WA1TE
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:14 PM JamesDuffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Sean - One person’s shenanigans are another person’s strategies and
>> tactics. Pack roving in VHF + contesting is one way to address very
>> different levels of activity, mostly microwave, across the USA. You can
>> like it or not, but it is not a dishonest activity.
>>
>> If the ARRL and others want pack roving eliminated, they should outlaw it
>> outright. I understand that may be difficult to do without eliminating
>> roving and its advantages entirely. It is clear that the present rules with
>> the Unlimited Rover class don’t address the pack roving issue. Few if any
>> pack rovers participate as Unlimited Rovers. - Duffey KK6MC
>>
>>
>> James Duffey KK6MC
>> Cedar Crest NM
>>
>> On Apr 12, 2018, at 12:13, Sean Waite <waisean@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Rick K1DS goes pretty well in depth into some of the shenanigans that the
>> rover packs would get into in one of his videos on roving:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baETPvsxcdI&t=2687s
>>
>> When you start to get a little into the history, you can see what
>> specific events triggered the somewhat odd rules here or there. I
>> appreciate that they created the Unlimited class to allow the rules-bending
>> outside-the-box stuff to continue, while protecting the groups that don't
>> want to play those games.
>>
>> Sean WA1TE
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:45 PM JamesDuffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Larissa - You asked:
>>> “Now, I can see the difference between Limited and Unlimited Rover
>>> categories, but why
>>> is there a separate category for Classic Rover? What are the
>>> differences?”
>>>
>>> The big difference between the Classic Rover class and the Unlimited
>>> Rover class is that the Classic Rover class is limited to 100 QSOes with
>>> other rovers; there is no such limitation in the Unlimited Rover class. The
>>> Unlimited Rover cannot contribute the score earned to a club score. In VHF
>>> contests, the club competition is big, so this is a significant difference.
>>> There are other differences, the Unlimited Rover can have an unlimited
>>> number of operators, the Classic Rover is limited to two operators and
>>> everything that the classic rover uses to make QSOes must be hauled by one
>>> vehicle while in the Unlimited Rover one doesn’t need to haul anything with
>>> the rover at all.
>>>
>>> The Unlimited Rover category was instituted to address what many saw as
>>> a problem to VHF contesting and roving, that is pack roving. To what an
>>> extent pack roving was (is?) a significant problem depends on many factors.
>>> I won’t go into that here, but you can get more than a flavor of it by
>>> perusing the archives of this list for the first 7 or 8 years of this
>>> century. Among other things it is an interesting view into psyche of
>>> VHF/UHF contesters. Whatever one’s stance on pack roving, the Unlimited
>>> Rover category has had few, if any, entries from pack rovers over the 10
>>> years of its existence and in my opinion has failed to gain traction as a
>>> class. Not allowing Unlimited Rovers to contribute to a club score has kept
>>> the pack rovers in the Classic Rover class, and by judicious choice of
>>> QSOes with other rovers, large scores can still be generated by pack rovers
>>> in the Classic Rover class even with the 100 QSO limit. Hence there is no
>>> real incentive to go to the Unlimited Rover class.
>>>
>>> I have operated in all three classes and get the most satisfaction out
>>> of the Classic Rover class, but by operating Limited Rover I am more
>>> competitive nationally and the setup is quick. There is much less
>>> competition operating in the Unlimited Rover class, but I have found that
>>> winning that class in a division where there is only one other entry does
>>> little to sate my competitive appetite.
>>>
>>> I hope this answers your question. If not, ask again. - Duffey KK6MC
>>>
>>> James Duffey KK6MC
>>> 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
|