I get what you are saying and I get that VHF+ is different.
But we somehow manage to have 3 mode specific NAQP contests twice a year.
And yes, I think having some mode specific VHF+ contests would be great. I
think we are losing some of the fun with the move to FT8, while of course
gaining other fun. But why lose any fun? Why not create a situation where
each mode gets their focus?
That sounds like the most fun to me. Cheers - jeff wk6i
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:28 AM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It is that way on HF. But on VHF the different modes aren’t segregated.
>
> Do we really want a CQWW VHF SSB contest, CQWW VHF CW contest, a CQWW VHF
> RTTY contest AND a CQWW VHF FT8 contest?
>
> There’s also the issue of boats having different handicaps. One can have a
> large engine but a current only for it pushing it back. This is the
> parallel of east coast vs west vs whatever.
>
> Contesting is a unique sport, and therefore these comparisons don’t work.
>
> Ria
> N2RJ
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 1:20 PM Jeff Stai <wk6i.jeff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that racing sailboats, row boats, canoes, and kayaks in the same
>> race is not necessarily desirable. Operating each requires different skill
>> sets. They each go at different rates. They each excel in different
>> conditions. They each have different limitations.
>>
>> Contesting phone, CW, FTx, and yes RTTY in the same contest is a similar
>> proposition. Each has its own challenges. Each requires different skill
>> sets. Each I would argue requires different station setups for a winning
>> station - my station can do any mode any time but when set up for a serious
>> contest effort it is different for each mode. There is a reason we already
>> separate most contests into different modes.
>>
>> I think the FT modes do require different skills than the other modes to
>> win a contest. This is one reason why I would advocate keeping FT modes in
>> separate contests (and out of RTTY contests too, just by the way).
>>
>> The good news is MORE CONTESTS and MORE FUN! :)
>>
>> 73 jeff wk6i
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:34 PM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it would be worthwhile to compare participation pre and post FT8.
>>>
>>> I suspect a lot of those who are using the FT8 mode are not really the
>>> ones who were using CW and SSB before.
>>>
>>> From what I head these modes actually increased participation and many
>>> who use these modes wouldn't otherwise be able to participate.
>>>
>>> The only constant is change and there are things that come along that
>>> knock us down a peg or two. For me on HF it's commercial remote
>>> operation. I can't see how someone who builds their own station can
>>> compete against someone who rents airtime on a pre built mega station
>>> in Maine. But that's the reality now. On VHF the game has shifted
>>> heavily toward weak signal digital modes.
>>>
>>> The game has changed. So I play differently now. Different categories,
>>> different goals and different expectations. I tried (team) roving
>>> last year for ARRL VHF and I liked it. However, time for a rove is at
>>> a premium, and my roaming partner (K2EZ) has work schedules that may
>>> place her in Texas or somewhere else so it's a hit or miss.
>>>
>>> I suspect resistance will be futile. Putting the digital modes in its
>>> own contests basically says that we don't want these new modes and we
>>> prefer to compete the same old way against the same old (and getting
>>> older) guys. You also only have so many weekends per year.
>>>
>>> Let's go back to a basic question:
>>>
>>> What are you measuring with contesting? Skill? Station? There are a
>>> lot of variables. And it's not as easy as sitting and punching buttons
>>> on FT8/FT4. To begin with the rate is lower. You also have to consider
>>> that sometimes a station will abandon you to move on to someone else.
>>> And it takes 15-60 seconds to realize that. On CW and SSB you can tell
>>> right away if someone faded away or simply dropped the QSO.
>>>
>>> Not offering a solution one way or the other here. I realize that this
>>> issue has passions on both sides. I'm firmly on the "let's change it
>>> up and try new things" camp. However, I draw the line at full
>>> automation which I think is reasonable.
>>>
>>> 70% of ham traffic is now FT8. That's the reality. However, fully
>>> automatic operation will not be (and should not be) allowed for credit
>>> contesting and DXing. Honor system and obvious automation is easy to
>>> spot.
>>>
>>> But I may be willing to try removing the FT/JT modes from these VHF
>>> contests as an experiment. I suspect participation will drop off as
>>> the digital stations will just stay on digital and work the band
>>> openings.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Ria
>>> N2RJ
>>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 13:00, Dennis McAlpine <dbmcalpine73@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > GM John,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I enjoyed the past weekend and the CQ VHF Contest quite a lot. For
>>> once,
>>> > there was propagation from SC to most areas East of the Mississippi
>>> both
>>> > afternoons. I, for once, actually thought I had done pretty well
>>> > considering that I only run about 400 watts into an H-Doublebay
>>> antenna with
>>> > the top at about 35' above ground. I ended up `with 326 QSOs and 120
>>> grid
>>> > squares for a score of 39,120, all on 6M. I have not used FT8/FT4 in
>>> > contests since I think it is against the principle that these contests
>>> are a
>>> > test of operator skill as much as equipment savy. I was a bit
>>> surprised
>>> > when I filled in the 3830 score submittal that it did not request a
>>> > breakdown by mode into CW, SSB, digital but then there was no separate
>>> > category within the contest either. All was fine until I started
>>> seeing
>>> > other scores coming in.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > It fast became obvious that unless one used the digital modes, they
>>> would be
>>> > banished to the lower echelons of the standings and my score quickly
>>> slid
>>> > down the rankings. So, I started looking at the top scores for 6M.
>>> I was
>>> > amazed at how many digital QSOs these scores contained. For example,
>>> K1TO
>>> > had 150 FT8 QSOs out of 715 in total, which was 21%. Similarly, N4BP
>>> had
>>> > 194 digital out of 673 total (29%); W5PR had 157 out of 564 (28%);
>>> KU8E had
>>> > 88/508 (17%); N4PN 212/312 for 68%; WQ5L 103/445 (23%); and W4PV
>>> 124/193
>>> > (64%).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Even more important was the much higher number of grid squares
>>> worked. It
>>> > would appear that digital added 20-80 grid squares to the total mult.
>>> I
>>> > can't break it sown further because the summaries do not ask for such a
>>> > breakdown in the submittal. Again, there are no numbers to back this
>>> up,
>>> > but how many EU stations did you work on CW or SSB? Probably not many
>>> (I
>>> > had none and heard none) . But, I bet the top digital scores were
>>> loaded
>>> > with DX QSOs that other modes never heard or had a chance of hearing.
>>> No
>>> > wonder the mult totals were so high. I never worked anyone west of the
>>> > Mississippi so I was really sucking wind.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > In looking at the total scores, I saw one very startling fact. Of the
>>> top
>>> > three scorers, K1TO had 6 CW QSOs, N4BP had 1 and W5PR had 1. To say
>>> they
>>> > ignored the CW mode is an understatement. It is evident from these
>>> numbers
>>> > that CW is an endangered species when it comes to the CQ VHF Contest.
>>> If I
>>> > wanted to use digital modes, I would certainly ignore CW in the future
>>> if I
>>> > wanted a higher score.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I respectively request that you consider the following proposals.
>>> First,
>>> > require submittal forms to include a breakdown of CW, SSB, Digital
>>> (maybe
>>> > broken down into FT-4 and FT-8) QSOs and mults. I think these are
>>> easily
>>> > found on logging programs like n1mm+. This would probably require that
>>> > mults be counted per mode and that QSOs could be made with the same
>>> person
>>> > on different modes. Then, valid comparisons could be made. Second,
>>> allow
>>> > mode entries. A competitor could submit multiple logs, i.e. one for
>>> CW, one
>>> > for SSB, one for digital and one for combined. It would make the log
>>> > checkers job easier. Think of how tough it was to make QSOs when
>>> conditions
>>> > were not as good as they were last weekend. Allowing QSOs per mode
>>> would
>>> > triple the number of possible QSOs and keep the contest from being a
>>> real
>>> > drag.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Let's adapt the rules to the situation before it becomes too late and
>>> CW
>>> > sinks down into the mud, never to raise its head again.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 73,
>>> >
>>> > Dennis, K2SX
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Stai ~ WK6I ~ wk6i.jeff@gmail.com
>> RTTY op at W7RN
>> Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/
>>
>
--
Jeff Stai ~ WK6I ~ wk6i.jeff@gmail.com
RTTY op at W7RN
Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|