--- "Ev Tupis (W2EV)" <w2ev@arrl.net> wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't follow
> this. How would I be
> discouraged from building a better antenna system?
It is the same dilemma we out in the weeds face today
on whether to operate HP vs. LP category. I'd love to
be running high power now already but the gain in Q's
and mults I'd get by having higher power is more than
offset by being having to compete in the HP category.
This is because the HP stations in higher population
density areas can always count on making many local
Q's and still have the power to make the long haul Q's
for the extra mults. Many of the LP ops in those same
areas can't always make the long haul Q's. However the
majority of the Q's that those of us who are in lower
population density areas make are of the long haul
variety. So we have to count on achieving high
multiplier totals for a good score. So to stay
competitive at all we must use good antennas and feed
systems. The ERP derived category approach takes away
one of the main tools we ops in the low density areas
have to remain competitive in the LP category. This is
because as soon as we would build a good antenna
system we would automatically be lumped into the HP
category, - no matter how little power we actually
run. But the ops in the high density areas will find
it easier to stay at a lower ERP in order to be able
to remain in the LP category, and their scores (a.k.a.
competitiveness) will not suffer nearly as much. Their
choice to do that will then further hurt those of us
out in the weeds because they will always be mostly
unworkable because they don't have the signals to get
out to us or be able to hear us from out in the weeds.
And they will also have minimal incentive to make that
investment (which would also put them into the HP
category they may not want to be in either).
This is already a problem with the way things are
scored now, there is a tendency for some of the ops in
the larger urban areas to not try all that hard to
make the long haul Q's. This is because there are so
many easy "local" Q's to be made, their reward isn?t
large enough to try harder (or build a better station)
to make the long haul Q?s. In the long run this hurts
VHF contesting in general, if those of us out in the
weeds have no one to work we will be less likely to
get on, and then those in high density areas will have
no one outside of their local regions to work. That in
turn will generate even less incentive for them to
build bigger better antennas. VHF contesting will then
eventually turn into a # of Q's only affair with no
point in having multipliers at all.
> Grid dancing is an entirely different issue. Maybe
> the topic for a different
> thread.
Agreed that is a mostly different topic, but it does
however illustrate what population density (and
therefore close proximity of other stations) alone
does for scoring, especially so for the low performing
antennas systems that grid circling (only) rovers
typically use. So that is why I also used the example
of a hundred lower capability stations all in close
proximity to each other and in 4 different grids. They
now have no incentive to invest time and $ into their
stations if they are nearly always assured a strong
showing in the contest results because all of those
close by and easy to make Q?s.
Which keeps bringing me back to the need for a finer
granularity to the reward there is for working longer
distances. If more emphasis is put on a distance
scoring element then everybody (including those in the
high population density areas) will have more
incentive to make as many long/longer haul Q's as
possible. And it will in the long run make more
stations workable for everybody because everyone will
then have the additional incentive to make their
station work the best it possibly can regardless of
power category. They will tend not to if there is a
penalty for maximizing antenna gain that an ERP based
rule would create.
As an added benefit a distance based scoring element
will take away any incentive there is now for close
proximity grid circling and drive that kind of
activity to only be rewarding if there is substantial
distances between the participants. If all the rovers
are then building their rover stations to be able to
work each other over these larger distances then
everyone else in the contest will stand a better
chance to work them too. Again more possible Q's and
mults for everybody everywhere.
We need to make sure that the VHF contesting rules
keep the primary emphasis on encouraging the building
of stations to achieve the longest working range as
possible, not toward trying to level the playing
field.
Duane
N9DG
EN53bj
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|