6m is also the most effective way for a new op to get into the contest.
Most HF rigs have 6m in recent years. Almost everyone has a dual band
mobile or HT, but running just solo on those will lead to a dull contest
without major effort.
I see no reason to remove 6. If the band is closed it acts a lot like 2m
anyway, and when it's open it can really spice up a contest.
Sean WA1TE
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 13:30 Jay RM <w9rm@calmesapartners.com> wrote:
> Where I live, EVERY contact on 2M and above is DX. There may be 5-10 local
> QSOs to be made, but many of them are only available because I moved them
> from 6. The closest concentration of 'above 6M ops' ( "Above's" ?? ) is
> 250 miles away. I work more 2M stations on meteor scatter then locals.
>
> I live and die by 6M openings and, like Paul, I can be nationally
> competitive in June if 6M cooperates. I'm also a little strange, evidently
> (according to some), because I do VHF contests specifically to run rate.
> Massive rate.... I'm addicted to rate. This is why I have issues with FT8
> attracting a lot of ops off of SSB, but that's not what this thread is
> about.
>
> Dropping 6M would be the death of serious VHF contesting for me and many
> others. A lot of the big signals you hear on 6 in the western half of the
> county ONLY work 6. We would all be gone or, at most, we would be giving
> out token multipliers on 2M scatter. Knee jerk reactions have seriously
> hurt VHF contesting in the past (revised Rover rules....), don't make the
> same mistake.
>
> -W9RM
>
> Keith Morehouse
> via MotoG
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 11:44 AM Paul Kiesel via VHFcontesting <
> vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
>
> > I've finally come to the realization that digital is here to stay. I
> hate
> > that not so many SSB and CW contacts can be made now during the contests.
> > It's not that they are superior to FT8, but that operating in the contest
> > is a hell of a lot less fun without them.
> >
> > In recent years' June contests, I've competed in the Single Op/High Power
> > category against all others in the same category. But, I've operated
> solely
> > on 50 MHz because it's a challenge to beatothers who run many or all of
> the
> > higher bands. It used to bother me a lot that I could beat others both in
> > number of QSOs and number of multipliers and still not win because of the
> > points advantages given for use of bands 222 MHz and above. Now, I
> welcome
> > this challenge, even though I know I will not win in the category. But,
> the
> > guys running all the high bands during the contest know they are
> competing
> > against me. This makes operating on the higher bands an advantageous
> > opportunity to my competition. The result of this is that they will make
> as
> > many contacts as they can on all available bands while being careful to
> not
> > neglect 50 MHz. Planning and coordination are important for them.
> >
> > This is not the first time that people have suggested eliminating 50 MHz
> > from the June contest. I don't think dumping six meters is going to solve
> > anything, but make things worse. Rather, havingall VHF and higher bands
> as
> > relevant in the contest is the way to go.
> > What bothers me more than the reduced use of SSB and CW in the contests
> is
> > the fact that the digital modes are restricted to audio bandwidth zones.
> > This could be considered an efficient use of spectrum, but actually the
> > conditions during a contest or band opening in that narrow a zone are
> > nothing less than horrid. All one needs is one strong station in the
> other
> > FT8 sequence to ruin any possibility to compete or decode weak DX. And
> this
> > problem is not going to go away by trying to enforce which stations call
> on
> > even and which call on odd.
> >
> > It may be time to think about rearranging the rules, but eliminating 50
> > MHz from the June contest would be a bad mistake. It would be better to
> > consider either limiting the number of contacts that can be made using a
> > single mode or by maybe having a suite of frequencies wherein FT8 QSOs
> > could be made. As an example 50.310 to 50.320.
> >
> > The June contest is unique and should be kept the way it is as much as
> > possible. You shouldn't remove a band from the contest because people are
> > choosing to use it!
> > 73, Paul K7CW
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019, 2:46:24 PM UTC, JamesDuffey <
> > jamesduffey@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Chris - Thanks for your comments on the impact of FT8 on the January
> > contest.
> >
> > To your first point, I don’t think that the increase in 6M activity is
> due
> > entirely to casual ops using digital modes (FT8) instead of SSB and CW.
> For
> > one thing, this year there was a significant increase, about 19% in the
> > number of logs submitted in the contest over 2018 while the total number
> of
> > QSOs in the contest only grew by about 3%; essentially remaining the
> same.
> > If the digital mode ops are all casual they do a much better job of
> > submitting logs than do the casual SSB ops.
> >
> > The actual number, as well as the fraction of QSOs on all bands 144MHz
> and
> > above decreased significantly over 2018. This strongly suggests that the
> > increase in digital (FT8) activity came at the expense of QSOs on the
> > higher bands.
> >
> > I think that the increase in activity in the January Contest is good and
> > welcome. I think that the decrease in the activity on the higher bands is
> > not good. To me, it appears that both of these effects are due to the
> > digital modes, in particular FT8. Interestingly enough, there does seem
> to
> > be a significant number of FT8 ops, who once they saw how straight
> forward
> > it was to make digital QSOs, also tried MSK144, thereby increasing that
> > activity as well.
> >
> > I am not sure what the answer is, but I fear that all the VHF contests
> > will become dominated by 6M, not just the June contest when Es is in.
> > Perhaps it is time to rethink the contesting paradigm. - Duffey KK6MC
> >
> >
> > James Duffey KK6MC
> > Cedar Crest NM
> >
> > > I have been wondering for a while where the FT8 VHF contest ops are
> > > coming from and if perhaps some of the community's concern is
> overblown.
> > > I see two possibilities:
> > >
> > > * Casual ops who have that HF+6 radio and get on to play around for a
> > > couple hours, get some new grids towards VUCC, etc. In the past, these
> > > people would have done the same thing but on SSB. I have a feeling her
> > and
> > > there's a lot of them. They are not serious contesters and were never
> > > going to be people you could work through the bands with.
> > >
> > > * More serious contesters who are wanting to try something new and are
> > > focusing much of their time on making digital contacts. I feel like
> > > there are relatively few of these people due to their likely time and
> > > money investment in having gear for other bands.
> > >
> > > The first group wasn't going to have 2m, 70cm, and up beams and amps at
> > > home. Not having digital modes available means we are losing points
> and
> > > some mults by not being able to work this group, but I don't have any
> > > concerns that I am missing higher band contacts due to the move from
> SSB
> > > to FT8 here.
> > >
> > > The second group is the one to be concerned with. I haven't been here
> > > long enough to know what the answer is, so hopefully someone else does.
> > >
> > > Personally, my roving plan for at least future June contests is to have
> > > two ops. One op will essentially be a mult station, dedicated to
> > > watching 6m on SSB and FT8 during openings (and also watching for when
> > > those openings occur). The other op will be the points station and
> > > handle all the other bands.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Chris Lumens - KG6CIH
> > > Hike * MTB * XC Ski * Haskell
> > > Research - Experimentation - Testing - More Testing
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|