Hi all,
I was going to sit this one out but debating VHF contest rules is way
too much fun. :-(
There are always multiple things to "fix" in the VHF contest rules but I
think the big issue on the table with FT4/8 is the reduction of 6m
ssb/cw contacts and the impact on run rates.
That's what I hear people complaining about...as Jay/W9RM
writes...serious contesters are looking for decent run rates on 6m to
drive their score.
That's what I want, too....running on 6m ssb is way more fun than the
best day on FT8.
If 6m is really the issue, it may point to being a June VHF contest
issue (only). We don't get anywhere near the sporadic-e except in the
June (and July CQ VHF) contests.
I claim that a serious contester (focused on competing with the best
score possible) would choose cw or ssb 6m contacts when the band is open
with decent signal levels. Again, it provides the best run rate and best
score...if there is someone to work. So the fact that many/most/all 6m
operators are choosing FT4/8 even when signals are strong implies they
are not optimizing their score. They are optimizing something
else...probably just enjoying making contacts during the contest and not
so focused on the score. This is a key point because any effort to fix
this problem (as I've defined it) has to result in these casual
contesters changing their operating behavior. Unfortunately, I don't see
fiddling with the points awarded or operating categories changing their
FT4/8 preference. For example, if the rules award points for both
digital QSOs and ssb/cw QSOs, these casual folks will probably just keep
on making FT4/8 contacts and ignoring ssb/cw.
The one thing that might change their behavior is to restrict the
allowable modes to not include FT4/8. This would be a drastic change,
not one I would recommend at this time.
(Even then, it might not work...the contest might happen on cw/ssb while
the casual operators still have fun on FT4/8.)
I think Marshall/K5QE has the right idea:
Let's leave everything alone for the time being. All of us can
consider the situation and maybe some new and better rules may come
forward in the future. Arliss and Jay are two of the top VHFers
running around. We need to pay careful attention to their cautious
views.
Note: I am located in Colorado, so the VHF activity is on the sparse
side. Most of the contests end up being focused on 6m & 2m, with a small
sprinkle from the other bands.
73 Bob K0NR
bob@k0nr.com
On 17-Mar-20 3:15 PM, Jay RM wrote:
I started out answering a private email, but then thought this might be
better 'out there'.
FT modes are "out of the barn", loose in the wild and have wide acceptance,
so you can't look the other way or ban them - that would not reflect well
on the contest community. Education will not work, as the people who need
the education on how to contest (..just run the rate !) don't care - they
are just there for the Q's, not the score. Contesters mostly know they are
hurting their score by having to work everyone on FT8, but they need to get
the Qs, even if it's much slower than "the old days". The individual
contester need to decide whether he/she wants to.
I don't know what would work to bring people back to faster rate modes.
Personally, I think the days of 200+/hour on 6M E are over. I have a
single suggestion that I havent put a lot of thought into, but it might
lead somewhere.
SInce the FT8 boom has two main effects, one, lowering Q totals and run
rate on 6 and, two, depopulating the bands above 2M, let's either shunt FT8
modes off to a separate contest or category for JUNE ONLY. June is where
all the Qs on 6 are made AND June is arguably where you see the least
activity above 2M, since it's likely everybody is busy on 6 to a greater
degree than in January or September. If we need to kill off digital meteor
scatter in June by simply saying NO digital, fine. BTW, I'm a HUGE user of
digital meteor scatter and have been since the very first FSK441 version of
WSJT. But, I would accept not having it if it brought back SSB/CW ops.
January and September can remain status quo. FT8/4 was ready made for 6M
with weak signals (I.E. little or no sporadic E) and the need for digital
meteor scatter is much greater for the same reason.
If the activity in June dries up because of the proposed change, we can
still call it a successful experiment, go back to allowing ALL modes and
acknowledging the death of SSB/CW on VHF.
-W9RM
Keith J Morehouse
Managing Partner
Calmesa Partners G.P.
Olathe, CO
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
--
--
Bob Witte K0NR
bob@k0nr.com
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|