This morning pretty much convinced me that few people actually want a
change or a return to a traditional contest. I participated in the sprint
this morning and worked two stations. When presented with an option. No
one, at least in my area which is a pretty active VHF+ region, bothered to
participate. I guess most want to complain and few want to participate.
Dave
N2OA
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 12:42 PM Paul Kiesel via VHFcontesting <
vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
> I've already in the past expressed my opinions about changing contest
> rules. With the exception of extra points for bands above 144 MHz, which I
> consider to be no longer needed because commercial equipment is now readily
> available, I think contest rules should stay the same. After all, a contest
> is a contest and, to win, you use the established rules as best you can,
> all pleasantness aside. Present ARRL rules allow us to use all modes and we
> can do that as we see fit to win. CQ rules restrict to using only CW and
> SSB and you can mix if you like. I like those rules.
> Again, I contend that leaving rules unchanged is the way to move forward.
> 73, Paul K7CW
>
> On Thursday, June 3, 2021, 9:36:45 AM PDT, Bob, W3IDT <
> w3idt@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> ALL interested in VHF Contesting,
>
> A year ago I drafted and distributed a paper regarding where goes VHF
> contesting given the prevalence of FT8 operation and the reduction of CW
> and SSB contacts. The paper generated much discussion directly with me
> and on various VHF and club reflectors.
>
> I was unable to follow-up on the discussion because 1) the unexpected
> death of Marty Johnson, w3yoz, the owner of the W3SO VHF contest station
> in FN00 at which I usually operate 6m, and 2) my own heart attack - now
> fully recovered. Then the COVID19 pandemic... [June will be my first
> time back at W3SO since January 2020.]
>
> While in this short note I can't restate all the arguments for and
> against various options covered in the original paper - a copy is below
> the signature block - several features stand out:
>
> 1. The need to permit multiple contacts, in multiple modes, per band.
> 2. Clear distinction between "CW only" and mixed mode CW/SSB contacts.
> 3. Retention of a scoring system encouraging use of the higher VHF and
> UHF bands.
>
> In the short run, while nothing will happen to the official rules from
> the contest sponsors (ARRL for the June contest, CQ for the July
> contest), it is possible for us, the participants, to create our own
> "contest within a contest" and still abide by the official rules.
>
> I am proposing is that the "contest within a contest" expand on the
> official rules as follows:
>
> 1. Permit multiple contacts, in different modes, per band; specifically
> A. THREE contacts on 6m and 2m:
> one CW-only (in the CW-only portions 50.0-50.1 and 144.0-144.1)
> one FM, SSB, or mixed, and
> one any form of digital;
> B. TWO contacts on the higher bands
> one CW, FM, SSB, or mixed, and
> one any form of digital.
>
> 2. Point count per contact to remain as now:
> [ARRL 5.2 QSO points for June and September contests:
> 5.2.1 Count one point for each complete 50- or 144-MHz QSO.
> 5.2.2 Count two points for each 222- or 432-MHz QSO.
> 5.2.3 Count three points for each 902- or 1296-MHz QSO.
> 5.2.4 Count four points for each 2.3 GHz (or higher) QSO.]
> Note that TWO contacts on 432, for example, equals 4 points whereas
> THREE contacts on 50 or 144 equals only 3 points.
>
> [CQ One (1) point per QSO on 50 MHz and
> two (2) points per QSO on 144 MHz.]
> Hence, THREE contacts on 2m would equal 6 points,
> whereas THREE contacts on 6m would equal only 3 points.
> *As a 6m op I should change this :-)
>
> 3. Multiple contacts per band for the "contest within a contest"
> A. does not violate ARRL contest rules, which state explicitly
> "
> Log Checking Penalties
> Logs are cross-checked using custom software and human judgment.
> LGCK.1. Duplicate contacts are removed with no additional scoring penalty.
> "
> B. I couldn't find an explicit rule for the July CQ contest, but other
> CQ contests do not penalize for duplicate contacts.
>
> That's it.
> Scoring? Sum of (Contacts * Multipliers * Points per Band).
> Self scoring and reporting via 3830 and VHF contesting reflector.
>
>
> At W3SO (FN00) we will try to use the operating schedule below:
> 1. SSB at the top of every EVEN UTC hour.
> 2. CW - in the CW band portion - at the top of the ODD UTC hour
> 3. FT4 in between; FT8 only when nothing else available.
> 4. SSB or CW when Eskip or Tropo conditions exist.
> [We do not do much MS or EME but obviously encourage its use.]
>
> Self plug:
> We tend to hang out around 50.165 and 144.213 SSB
> and will try 50.095 and 144.093 for CW;
> 222.115 and 432.115 on the higher bands.
>
> PLEASE forward this email to other individuals and/or club reflectors.
> Thank you.
>
>
> Bob, w3idt
> and the Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators, W3SO
>
> .......
> . Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT
> .
> . w3idt@comcast.net
> . w3idt@arrl.net
> ........
>
>
> ========================================================================
> COPY OF LAST YEAR'S DISCUSSION AND PROPOSAL
> ========================================================================
> -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 .
> .............................
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|