It seems to me, after reading through all the previous responses, the
underlying issue is digital FT8/4. I’ve also experienced this myself over the
past few years as a VHF contester.
I’ve often thought there needs to be some incentive to keep the VHF/UHF bands
alive. It’s no secret that even before the FT8/FT4 craze, the number of
participants and scores have been decreasing over the years. FT8/FT4 has just
exacerbated the problem for CW/SSB.
I’ve also thought that any solution should not affect the past scores history
of the various contests. Otherwise we lose the ability to evaluate our progress
or other metric trends. I know such changes have probably been made in the
past, and you longtime contesters can probably point them out.
With that said, I would look at the underlying FT8/FT4 issue and deal with that
separately to minimize the effects on the overall contest objectives and
existing operating skill sets.
If ALL the existing point scoring was left intact and ONLY the FT8/FT4 mode is
addressed it may resolve the issue. I’m suggesting give a 1/2 point to FT8/FT4
contacts and leave everything else as is. A new multiplier would still count as
normal. I realize this is breaking out a specific digital mode and could
complicate MSK AND EME if digital modes are all lumped together. But hey, it’s
only software.
This way, you minimize the historical scores AND provide incentive to get on
CW/SSB.
The lack of participation is another issue and will only be masked by
generating more contacts/mode.
IMHO,
Joe - KC2TN
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 11:50 AM, map92map@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> I generally agree with Pete, but with some slight differences:
>
> 1) Per band, allow 1 contact using CW, and 1 contact using Voice (one of
> either SSB, or AM, or FM), and 1 contact using Digital(any one digital mode),
> for a maximum of 3 contacts per band.
> 2) Keep it simple --same point values.
> 3) Any legal mode on any frequency that is allowed by contest rules. (EX:
> don’t restrict CW to the CW portion) So, basically, I think this is the same
> as what Pete is saying, except no time limits between contacts.
>
> 73 Mark K1MAP
>
>
> From: Pete K0BAK via Packrats
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 8:12 PM
> To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com ; Packrats Reflector
> Subject: Re: [Packrats] [VHFcontesting] Fwd: VHF Contests Rules Discussionand
> Proposal
>
> I guess this will generate *some* discussion. :-)
>
> I think allowing 3 modes of contacts on each band should help increase
> activity, the number of contacts, and overall fun. Let's go for it!
>
> Different point values do make some sense, but I'm not sure there can ever be
> a solid consensus as to the mode point values. For instance, your analysis
> emphasizes the speed of each contact ... which makes sense for a major
> multiop where contact rate is very important. I would argue, for instance,
> that CW should count for *less* than voice because it gives a 3-6db or so
> advantage over SSB ... which is much more important for typical VHF contest
> stations. The same thing applies to fast digital ... even more of an
> effective power advantage over CW so it should count for less.
>
> Since it will be hard to get a consensus in the VHF community on different
> point values for different modes, I *strongly* believe having different point
> values should be deferred. Instead first simply allow 3 mode contacts worth
> one point each and see how it works out in practice.
>
> As to "manufactured contacts": that's a problem I hadn't considered before.
> However, I think it would be simpler to require a minimum time between
> contacts on the same band rather than spread out the activity for
> conventional modes. It would be easy enough to move from a solid voice
> contact to meeting up at an agreed frequency in the CW portion of the band.
>
> In summary:
> 1) A big enthusiastic thumbs-up to 3 modes per band.
> 2) Keep it simple and defer consideration of different mode point values.
> 3) Don't change the traditional mix of terrestrial CW and voice in the same
> band portion. If necessary, require a minimum time between contacts in a band.
>
> Thanks for taking the considerable to write this up and submit it formally.
>
> [This is my personal opinion only. I have no idea how my fellow club members
> feel in the aggregate, but I hope we (PackRats) respond as a club after
> "some" debate.]
>
> -- Pete K0BAK (/R)
>
>
> On Monday, March 16, 2020, 07:21:37 PM EDT, Bob, W3IDT <w3idt@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have sent the following discussion and proposal for VHF Contest Rule
> Changes to appropriate ARRL and CQ contest personnel. If you are
> interested in the future of VHF contests, please read carefully and
> offer your considered opinions and alternate recommendations.
>
> Please forward to your local contest and vhf clubs.
>
> [A copy of this email with a PDF version attached for ease of
> re-distribution is somewhere in the email system; it may or may not
> appear in VHFcontesting.]
>
> TO: Distribution List
> at bottom of this memo.
>
> FROM: Robert F. Teitel, w3idt
> for the Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators
> VHF contest club, W3SO
>
> And while this proposal is NOT an official
> Potomac Valley Radio Club (PVRC) position,
> it does represent what appears to be a
> consensus of a number of our VHF operators.
>
> RE: VHF Contests Rules Discussion and Proposal
>
>
>
> CONTEXT:
>
> The Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators VHF club (operating first as W3YOZ
> then as W3SO in Western Pennsylvania) has participated in almost every
> VHF contest for the past 25 years.[*]
>
> We usually produce among the top scores in the limited multi-operator
> class. Thus we are in a position to comment on VHF contesting from long
> and extensive experience.
>
> [*] Only exception has been four January contests when we had snow and
> ice so bad that operating was simply not possible. This past January
> 2020 contest, after a couple of hours of operation, we lost the rest of
> Saturday due to ice, and had to wait until at least some of the ice
> melted on Sunday to resume operation. Such is life contesting from a
> mountaintop in Western Pennsylvania in the winter. The rest of the year
> it's usually very nice!]
>
> SUMMARY:
>
> 1. We don't need to research detail numbers of contest participants or
> number of QSOs to know what has happened to VHF contests in the past
> year or so: CW and SSB participation is WAY down, and activity on 222
> and 432 has almost disappeared. Oh yeah, a huge continent-wide Eskip
> opening does bring some participants, once the word gets out. But that
> does not represent normal contest activity.
>
> In short, Marshall, K5QE, - who manages another major limited
> multi-operator class station - stated the essence of the problem in his
> 3830 post with his results from the January 2020 VHF contest:
> "NOT A SINGLE SSB CONTACT ON 6M".
>
> The cause is, of course, the tremendous increase in the use of FT8.
>
> 2. We do NOT have anything against FT8 (or FT4).
> Its use for weak signal contacts on HF and VHF has been a tremendous
> advance, especially for the increasing number of hams living in antenna
> restricted communities. We also don't object to appropriate use of FT8
> in VHF contests (though we wish more stations would make use of the more
> contest oriented FT4).
>
> 3. There has been much discussion lately, in the VHF contesting
> reflector and among VHF operators, concerning what should be done to
> increase activity on the VHF bands during contests.
>
> The following are among the major suggestions:
>
> A: Banning DIGITAL operations in general, or FT4/FT8 specifically, in
> VHF contests.
> We do NOT favor this approach.
>
> B. Allocate DIFFERENT point values to the (SINGLE) contact per station
> made with CW, with VOICE, or with DIGITAL modes in general or with
> FT4/FT8 specifically.
> We do NOT favor this approach.
>
> C: Change the various VHF contests to have different rules;
> that is, for example, have the ARRL January contest be ALL FT4/FT8; the
> ARRL June contest have different point values depending on the contact
> mode; and the September contest a multi-mode contest (and let the CQ
> contest committee and VHF contest manager make a choice among various
> options for the July contest).
> We do NOT favor this approach.
>
> D: Add more competitive classes, such as an "FT4/FT8 only" class to
> complement the current "FM only" class.
> We do NOT favor this approach.
> In fact, we would favor the removal of the "FM only" class.
>
> E1: Permit MULTIPLE contacts with the same station using different
> modes, CW, VOICE(AM,SSB,FM), and ANY DIGITAL, with the SAME contact
> value for each contact.
> We MILDLY favor this approach in general, but have some concerns
> regarding specific rules.
>
> E2: Permit MULTIPLE contacts with the same station using different
> modes, CW, VOICE(AM,SSB,FM), and ANY DIGITAL, with DIFFERENT point
> values to contacts in different modes.
> We STRONGLY favor this approach in general, but again have some concerns
> regarding specific rule (as discussed below).
>
>
> DISCUSSION:
>
> on A: Banning DIGITAL operations in general, or FT4/FT8 specifically.
>
> Stations not near densely population areas rely on Meteor Scatter (MS)
> and Earth-Moon-Earth (Moon-Bounce or EME) modes to work grids outside
> their immediate vicinity; we certainly do NOT want to ban such activity;
> in fact, it should be encouraged.
> [We, at W3SO, do very little MS or EME, not that we are near high
> population areas - we definitely are not - but for whatever reason none
> of our operators has so far been interested.]
>
> Trying to craft rules prohibiting FT4/FT8 and/or similar "simple and
> fast" digital modes yet permitting / encouraging "complex and slow" MS
> and EME modes would be difficult, though possible. Hence, in order to
> protect MS and EME modes, we have to accept FT4/FT8 as a valid DIGITAL
> modes. As noted earlier, we have nothing against FT4/FT8. It is simply
> another mode of communication.
>
> A major limitation of FT4/FT8 for VHF contesting is the inability to
> request the availability of other bands and to pass a FT4/FT8 station to
> other bands. By using FT4/FT8, operators make the choice not to pass
> callers to other bands. [The developers of FT4/FT8 are aware of this
> problem.]
>
> We do NOT favor banning DIGITAL operations in general, or FT4/FT8
> specifically.
>
> on B: Allocate DIFFERENT point values to the (SINGLE) contact per
> station made with CW, with VOICE, or with DIGITAL modes in general or
> with FT4/FT8 specifically.
>
> There are two problems with this approach for VHF contests.
>
> The first is that it does virtually nothing to ameliorate the basic VHF
> contest problem: Lack of CW and VOICE activity. We seriously doubt that
> FT4/FT8 stations would suddenly gravitate to CW (assuming it is the
> highest valued mode). A few normally VOICE/CW operators might come back,
> but that doesn't increase the total number of participants.
>
> The second is how to assign the point values. That CW operating skill is
> greater than VOICE operating skill is universally acknowledged in
> amateur radio; hence, its usual higher point value in mixed mode
> contests (or in non-contest Field Day). How would "simple and fast"
> digital FT4/FT8 contacts be valued relative to VOICE, CW, or "complex
> and slow" digital MS and EME contacts?
>
> We don't want dismiss different point values for different mode contacts
> as such, even though there might be considerable controversy over the
> actual point values.
>
> We do NOT favor allocating DIFFERENT point values for SINGLE contacts
> made with different modes because it would do very little to increase CW
> or VOICE participation.
>
> On C: Change the various VHF contests to have different rules; that is,
> for example, have the ARRL January contest be ALL digital or ALL
> FT4/FT8; the ARRL June contest be a differential point value contest;
> and the September contest a multi-mode contest (and let the CQ contest
> committee and VHF contest manager make a choice among all the options).
>
> Hard to predict how this would be received by the VHF community at
> large. Since we are NOT in favor of at least two of the choices, we
> could hardly be in favor of such an approach. The UHF/Microwave
> community would certainly object, as there would now be one whole
> contest without the possibility of moving stations to higher bands (or
> "running the bands").
>
> We do NOT favor vastly different rules for the different VHF (and
> UHF/Microwave) contests.
>
> On D: Add more competitive classes, such as an "FT4/FT8 only" class to
> complement the current "FM only" class.
>
> We think of the available modes as being CW, VOICE (AM,SSB,FM), and
> DIGITAL (RTTY, any WSJT or similar mode). Fragmenting participation in
> various sub-modes is not the direction we need in VHF contests, just the
> opposite: We need more general participation, not less.
>
> We do NOT favor adding additional competitive classes.
> In fact, we would favor the removal of the "FM only" class.
>
> ON E1 and E2.
> E1: Permit MULTIPLE contacts with the same station using different
> modes, CW, VOICE(AM,SSB,FM), and ANY DIGITAL, with the SAME point value
> for each contact.
>
> E2: Permit MULTIPLE contacts with the same station using different
> modes, CW, VOICE(AM,SSB,FM), and ANY DIGITAL, with DIFFERENT point
> values to contacts in different modes or submodes.
>
> Both these options provide the ultimate goal: Increase activity in VHF
> contests. If today, some station typically works 200 contacts, rule
> changes E1 or E2 could provide up to 600 contacts depending on specific
> implementation.
>
> Increased use of CW and VOICE contacts provide the ability to move
> stations to other bands.
>
> We lean to DIFFERENT point values for contacts in the three modes, CW,
> VOICE, and DIGITAL. But recognize the problems creating equitable point
> values for the different modes and, especially, distinguishing between
> "simple and fast" digital FT4/FT8 contacts with one point value, and
> "complex and slow" digital MS and EME contacts another value, as noted
> above in the discussion of option (B:).
>
> In addition, "manufactured contacts" are one of our major concerns. We
> certainly do NOT want a pair of stations finishing a VOICE contact to
> then send "dit-dit" to each other and count it as a CW contact. This
> concern leads to a secondary issue: How many contacts in which modes on
> which bands?
>
> The latter issue is complicated and based on operator (radio) band
> capability, FCC band segment allocations, and current practice, keeping
> in mind that the goal is increased participation in VHF contests.
>
> On 6m, the "complication" doesn't exist: Most current radios have 6m
> capability, there is an exclusive CW band segment, and current practice
> is to have true CW contacts in that exclusive band segment. THREE
> contacts, one CW in the exclusive CW band segment, one VOICE, one any
> DIGITAL, with or without different point values would increase activity
> considerably, and might even draw in normally HF contesters.
>
> The high bands, 222/432MHz, 902/1296MHz, and 2.3GHz/higher, are really
> used only by serious VHF contest operators (who might also be serious HF
> contest operators), and do not have an exclusive CW band allocation;
> they can easily have a common set of multiple contact rules. So, how to
> prevent "manufactured contacts"? Three potential contest rules:
> 1) Require a minimum frequency change between those contacts (similar to
> HF Sprints),
> 2) Prescribe an "exclusive CW segment" (similar to some HF contest
> specified band segments), or
> 3) Require a minimum amount of time between those contacts.
> We lean to (2): An exclusive CW band segment prescribed by the contest
> rules.
>
> 2m is the most complicated from a multiple contact rules perspective:
> Few radios have 2m built in, so drawing the HF crowd to 2m contesting is
> more problematic; and there is an FCC designated exclusive CW band
> segment, but current practice is to have CW contacts in the SSB band
> segment.
>
> So, should the 2m rules follow those of 6m, or should the 2m rules
> follow those of the higher bands?
> 1) Following the 6m rules implies CW contacts in the FCC designated
> exclusive CW segment, contrary to current practice. But many "current
> practices" would change in a MULTIPLE contacts per band environment.
> 2) Following the higher band rules implies (per our view stated above) a
> contest rule designated exclusive CW band segment. What better exclusive
> CW band segment than the one already designated by the FCC?
>
> The discussion above leads to 6m and 2m having the same rules.
>
> [On all bands, a mixed CW/VOICE contact should count as a VOICE contact
> only, and the rules should make "manufactured contacts" impossible.]
>
> CONCLUSION:
>
> We are advocating a partial set of new rules for VHF contests:
>
> 1a. To permit up to THREE contacts per station, one each with CW, with
> VOICE (any of AM, SSB, or FM), and with DIGITAL (RTTY, any WSJT or
> similar mode), in all VHF contest bands, and
>
> 1b. That CW contacts be initiated and completed solely in the FCC
> allocated exclusive CW band segments on 6m and 2m, and in contest rules
> specified band segment on the higher bands.
>
> 2a. That DIFFERENT point values be assigned to the contacts in the
> various modes ONLY IF an equitable system of point value assignment can
> be be developed recognizing the distinction between "simple and fast"
> digital and "complex and slow" digital contacts.
>
> 2b. For an initial discussion on point values, we would suggest
> 1) ONE point for "simple and fast" DIGITAL contacts such as FT4/FT8,
> 2) TWO points for VOICE contacts, and
> 3) THREE or FOUR points for CW or "complex and slow" DIGITAL contacts,
> such as MS and EME.
>
> This proposal does NOT address issues such as DIFFERENT multipliers for
> contacts on different bands (CQ's ONE for 6m, TWO for 2m; ARRL's ONE for
> 6m and 2m, TWO for 222/432; FOUR for 902/1296; EIGHT for 2.3 of higher).
>
> It also does NOT address Entry Categories.
> It also does NOT address Assistance rules.
> It also does NOT address Rover-related rules.
>
> SUPPORT
>
> This proposal has been discusses with a number of major VHF contest
> participants within the Potomac Valley Radio Club (PVRC) (of which we
> are members - but is NOT a formal PVRC position), and with other major
> VHF contest participants well outside the mid-Atlantic area.
>
> There is rather unanimous agreement that
> a) current VHF contests are "broken", and
> b) that multiple contacts on different modes per band would invigorate
> VHF contest operations by generating much more activity and, perhaps,
> attracting HF contest operators, at least to 6m.
>
> There is not unanimous agreement on some of the operational details,
> including the number of contacts, in which modes, on which bands, and
> with what differential point values, precisely for the reasons discussed
> at length above.
>
> We have not listed the calls and names of those who have provided
> contributions and constructive criticism to this discussion and
> resulting recommendations in order to preserve their ability to issue
> public comments with or without acknowledgement of their previous
> participation.
>
> It surely will take time for the contest committees to sort this all
> out, and make appropriate changes to the contest rules.
>
>
> Respectfully submitted.
>
> Robert (Bob) F. Teitel, w3idt
> for the Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators
> VHF contest club, W3SO
>
> W3IDT:
> 60 year ARRL membership pin.
> Very long time ARRL Life Member,
> so long that I don't remember
> w3idt@arrl.net
> w3idt@comcast.net
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> To other VHF contest operators:
>
> If you support these arguments for rule changes, please raise you voice
> by writing to your ARRL (and CQ) contest and administrative
> representatives. Either formulate a proposal in your own words, or
> simply state that your support this proposal.
>
> If you do NOT support this proposal, please let that be known to the
> appropriate sponsors AND please send me a copy of your alternative
> suggestions.
>
> The list of the ARRL Board Program and Services Committee below is
> complete (taken from the ARRL website early February 2020). This
> committee tasks the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee with any study of
> rule changes for ARRL contests.
>
> A list of the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee is available at the
> following website: ARRL Contest Committee:
> http://www.arrl.org/arrl-staff-cac
> Select your committee representative.
>
> A list of the ARRL Division Directors and Vice directors is available at
> the following website: ARRL Division Directors:
> http://www.arrl.org/divisions
> Select your Division representatives.
>
> A list of the ARRL Section Managers is available at the following website:
> ARRL Section Managers:
> http://www.arrl.org/divisions
> Select your Section manager.
>
> The email addresses of ARRL Headquarter personnel, and the CQ VHF
> Contest Manager are the same for all correspondents.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Distribution list:
>
> ARRL Board Program and Services Committee:
>
> Matt Holden, K0BBC, Dakota Division Director, Chairman
> k0bbc@arrl.org
>
> Mickey Baker, N4MB, Southeastern Division Director
> [The website says N4MB@arrl.org.
> But a "copy email address" produces "gsarratt@arrl.org"
> The N4MB@arrl.org is probably correct.]
>
> David Norris, K5UZ, Delta Division Director
> k5uz@arrl.org
>
> Mike Ritz, W7VO, Northwestern Division Director
> w7vo@arrl.org
>
> Rod Blocksome, N0DAS, Midwest Division Director
> k0das@arrl.org
>
> Ed Hudgens, WB4RHQ, Delta Division Vice Director
> wb4rhq@arrl.org
>
> Bob Vallio, W6RGG, 2nd Vice President (Officer Liaison)
> W6RGG@arrl.org
>
> Norm Fusaro, W3IZ, (Staff Liaison)
> w3iz@arrl.org
>
> ARRL Regional Officers:
>
> Chas Fulp, k3ww, k3ww@fast.net
> Contest Advisory Committee
> Atlantic Division
> Tom Abernathy, w3tom, w3tom@arrl.org
> Atlantic Division Director
> Bob Famiglio, k3rf, k3rf@arrl.org
> Atlantic Division Vice Director
> Joe Shupienis, w3bc, sm@wpa-arrl.org
> WPA Section Manager
>
> ARRL HQ:
> Bart Jahnke, w9jj, w9jj@arrl.org
> ARRL Radiosport and Field Services Manager.
> Paul Bourque, n1sfe, n1sfe@arrl.org
> Contest Manager
> Kathy Allison, ka1rwy, ka1rwy@arrl.org
> RadioSport Associate
>
> CQ VHF Contest Manager:
>
> John Kalenowsky, k9jk, k9jk.cq@gmail.com
> CQ WW VHF Contest Director
>
>
>
> --
>
> .............................
> . Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT .
> . .
> . W3IDT@arrl.net .
> . W3IDT@comcast.net .
> .............................
>
> --
>
> .............................
> . Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT .
> . .
> . W3IDT@arrl.net .
> . W3IDT@comcast.net .
> .............................
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> ______________________________________________________________
> Packrats mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/packrats (subscribe, change
> email, unsubscribe, etc...)
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Packrats@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to map92map@gmail.com
> ______________________________________________________________
> Packrats mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/packrats (subscribe, change
> email, unsubscribe, etc...)
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Packrats@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to kc2tn@comcast.net
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|