The work done by the VHF-UHF Contests/Awards Subcommittee has been completed.
The written report and along with some some in-person additional comments were
given during the ARRL Board's Program & Services Committee meeting on July 15th
(just before the ARRL Board meeting on July 16-17). The P&SC did not take
action on the report and will study it during the next several weeks. In the
mean time, the P&SC agreed with me that the report should be posted here for
your information and it will be sent to the Contest Advisory Committee for
information and possible comment (three CAC members were on the VHF/UHF
subcommittee).
What will happen from here? The P&SC will work with the Membership Services
Department in Newington to take the recommendations any further. Some may
result in rules changes, some may not. Except for possible changes to the
2004 EME contest, I don't believe you'll see any contest changes until 2005.
Some recommendations (primarily awards-related) may have to wait until budget
resources are made available. The full ARRL Board does not normally get
directly involved in contest rules issues - contest rules are usually not
policy matters.
We really do appreciate the input received when the various proposals were made
several months ago. It revised our thinking in a number of areas. As you will
see from the report, though, we don't feel that we have done enough to develop
recommendations for increasing the amount of activity in VHF+ contests. That
represents a continuing issue that will have to be addressed in the future -
and I hope the VHF+ community will continue to work on it as well.
-- Tom/K1KI
PS: for KE3HT - I've tried to e-mail you several times in the last few months,
but the messages always bounce back.
Date: 14 July 2004
To: Programs and Services Committee
From: VHF-UHF Contest/Awards Subcommittee
Subject: Final Report
Our original task:
(Jan 2002) Minute 65. "On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Roderick, it
was unanimously VOTED that the Membership Services Committee review existing
VHF, UHF, and Microwave contest and awards programs and make recommendations on
ways to increase interest and participation."
Starting in the mid-90s, activity in the VHF+ contests has dropped. Activity
in the Jan/Jun/Sep contests peaked in 1996-97 and has dropped 25% since then.
The EME and UHF contests have seen an even greater decline (50%), while the 10G
and Up contest has seen some modest increases.
The MSC established a subcommittee (in May 2002) consisting of K1KI (chairman),
W5ZN and N7NG. N0AX (Contest Advisory Committee member) was added a few months
later, and N1ND contributed input from the Contest Department. An ARRL web
survey was circulated in the Fall of 2002, and resulted in input and ideas from
more than 250 VHF+ operators.
Survey results were tabulated and analyzed during early 2003. An initial set
of recommended changes were approved by the Membership Services Committee in
January 2003.
It was obvious from the survey comments that the subcommittee would benefit
from some additional members with experience in VHF+ contesting. As a result
the subcommittee was expanded to include K1JX, K2UA(CAC), W3ZZ(QST VHF Editor),
AA7A(CAC), and KM0T.
We had several months of extensive discussions through e-mail and several
conference calls, then a period of relative inactivity while engaging in
discussions on e-mail lists, operating several VHF+ contests, and continuing to
think of ways to improve VHF+ activity.
In February 2004 we released a set of draft recommendations to the VHF+
community for their review and comment. While many of the recommendations
were supported in the 200+ responses, a number of the key (and major) changes
were not. As a result we have not included them in this report. As might be
expected, most of the comments came from the most serious competitors. While
they didn't like some core proposals in our draft, they generally did not offer
alternative ideas for boosting activity.
This leaves us with the real risk that the proposed changes are not sufficient
to generate the needed boost in VHF+ awards and contest activities. The
expected move to an HF entry-level license will likely contribute to a decline
in VHF+ activity. It is very important that the ARRL work to boost interest
and activity in VHF+ spectrum. The current occupancy and trends in activity on
VHF+ frequencies leave us at great risk to the future loss of some spectrum.
SUMMARY
Changes Already Implemented
--------------------------------------------
Allow digital QSOs in the EME contest. Approved by MSC 1/2003.
Status: implemented for 2003 contest, working fine.
Work to establish an Internet template for entry of small and medium sized
logs.
Status: announced 1/2004 for all ARRL contests
Add a club competition to the June VHF QSO Party. Approved by MSC 1/2003.
Status: implemented for 2003 contest, working fine.
Work to find good authors and to encourage more regional reporting of VHF+
contest results.
Status: implemented, staff working hard to identify authors and has been
successful so far.
Encourage Logbook of The World development to be supportive of VHF+ awards,
like the VUCC.
Status: implemented 9/2003, working fine.
Encourage the development of a high-quality grid square map of the United
States.
Status: very nice laminated, color grid square map covering North
America released 6/2003.
Further recommendations
----------------------------------
Awards
----------
Change the entry-level steps for VHF+ awards so more people will be able to get
started in the VUCC, WAS and DXCC using VHF+ frequencies.
Consider changing the steps for different level awards to a smaller increment.
Establish a VUCC challenge-type award, similar to the one used by DXCC.
Create a new award or awards to appeal to entry-level or rover/portable
operation, such as a grids activated or miles per watt award. Consider GCR
certification rather than card checking.
For VUCC awards on 50 through 1296 MHz and Satellite, all contacts must be made
from a location or locations within the same grid locator or locations in
different grid locators no more than 200 kilometers apart. (Currently they have
to be made from the same grid same grid.)
EME contest
-------------------
The Contest department should work to establish dates for the EME contest as
early as possible, and include them with the contest calendar as the yearly
summary is released.
Change the multiplier to include US states and Canadian provinces instead of
call areas.
Stop requiring that stations operating outside of their traditional call area
sign portable.
VHF Sweepstakes + June/September QSO Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establish a new Limited Single Operator category designed with the newcomer in
mind. Operate on no more than four bands with low power only.
Simplify the limit for low power operation to 150w for 50-144-222-432 MHz.
Eliminate the rules that allow Multi-Operator stations to work their own
operators on 2.3G and up.
Strengthen the rules to minimize the rover practices known as grid circling and
captive rovers.
Offer plaques for the January and September contests, in addition to June.
Work to find individual, club or corporate sponsors. Otherwise offer plaques
to national and regional leaders at their own cost.
Make sure the rules indicate certificates are awarded for low power entries in
January, and for top DX entries.
Promotion
---------------
Promote suggested times and frequencies for "activity hours" on each band.
As changes are made to the Contest and Awards sections of the ARRL web site,
give more visibility to VHF+. The number of HF contests and awards tends to
overwhelm the VHF+ offerings.
Work harder to support and encourage smaller VHF+ contests sponsored by other
organizations.
Provide more information on which contests logging programs fully support ARRL
contests.
Continue the work to report on contest results by region. Find ways to
showcase existing VHF+ stations and VHF+ contest operating techniques.
Work to make sure that administration and promotion of VHF+ contesting events
are given equal status with HF contests.
Explore ways to offer "trinkets" for VHF+ contests. Pins have not been
successful, plaques work for top scorers, perhaps something like mugs or
T-shirts would be attractive.
Utilize the e-mail addresses from those submitting contest entries to alert
them to the availability of online contest results.
COMMENTARY
-----------------------
Some additional explanation and comments about each recommendation are included
below.
Awards
-----------
** Change the entry-level steps for VHF+ awards so more people will be able to
get started in the VUCC, WAS and DXCC using VHF+ frequencies. Consider changing
the steps for different level awards to a smaller increment.
The actual number of VUCC awards issued is relatively small. We think that
offering an entry point requiring fewer grid squares, or offering a "pre-VUCC"
award would be a good way to get more people interested in trying to work
longer distances on VHF+ frequencies (i.e. try something besides repeaters and
simplex FM operating). [This will likely generate a new award, not a revised
VUCC]
** Establish a VUCC challenge-type award, similar to the one used by DXCC.
The current VUCC awards are all single band awards. One of the things that has
made DXCC so popular over the years was the 5BDXCC, and more recently, the DXCC
Challenge (and DeSoto award). It would provide a continuing challenge for VHF+
operators to go beyond the basic VUCC on each band. Administration of the
VUCC is not as well support as DXCC is by software programs, so this may be
something that has to await some additional resources.
** Create a new award or awards to appeal to entry-level or rover/portable
operation, such as a grids activated or miles per watt award. Consider GCR
certification rather than card checking.
A lot of VHF+ activity is made possible by those who operate while mobile
(rovers) or go to hilltops. An award that rewarded their activity in putting
remote grid squares on the air would encourage even more activity during
contest and non-contest times.
** For VUCC awards on 50 through 1296 MHz and Satellite, all contacts must be
made from a location or locations within the same grid locator or locations in
different grid locators no more than 200 kilometers apart. (Currently they have
to be made from the same grid square.)
The current rules restrict the location to one grid square. For some people
that includes nearby hilltops, for others it doesn't, so we're recommending
that the location be expanded to include locations within 200 km (about 125
miles). After all, for DXCC you can include contacts made anywhere in the 48
states.
EME contest
-------------------
** The Contest department should work to establish dates for the EME contest as
early as possible, and include them with the contest calendar as the yearly
summary is released.
Dates for the EME contest need to be set to maximize the opportunity for EME
QSOs, and that depends on moon and sun locations. It would be very helpful to
have the dates set earlier than they have been in recent years.
** Change the multiplier to include US states and Canadian provinces instead of
call areas.
This change should boost participation from the US and Canada, and the interest
for DX participants.
** Stop requiring that stations operating outside of their traditional call
area sign portable.
Though a long-time requirement, this rule has never been followed by
participants, nor enforced.
VHF Sweepstakes + June/September QSO Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Establish a new Limited Single Operator category designed with the newcomer
in mind. Operate on no more than four bands with low power only.
In the past ten years there have been a large number of HF radios sold that
have also include one or more VHF bands. Most VHF+ operating starts with only
a couple of bands, and then expands as interest, time and resources permit. A
limited band category should attract a lot of interest from the newer VHF+
operators, or even those who have no interest in expanding to the microwaves.
This proposal was originally to have a category for 50-144-432 but while there
was strong support for the concept, many wanted 222 to be added to the mix. We
felt it even better to propose a 4-band low power category.
** Simplify the limit for low power operation to 150w for 50-144-222-430 MHz.
The low power limit is 200w on 50 and 144 MHz, and 100w on 222 and 430 MHz.
We believe setting the limit on all four bands should be 150w, consistent with
the typical HF+VHF transceiver, or a transverter and "brick" amplifier. (We
know the CAC is considering a 100w limit for HF contests but believe 150w is
more appropriate for VHF+ events.)
** Eliminate the rules that allow Multi-Operator stations to work their own
operators on 2.3G and up.
This is a rule that was originally created to insure that activity on 2.3 GHz
and up happened during contests. It was much more difficult many years ago
than it is today. Today, those QSOs are not as difficult to make and an
exception for multi-op stations to work their own operators on the microwave
bands is not needed.
** Strengthen the rules to minimize the rover practices known as grid circling
and captive rovers.
Grid circling is the practice of pairs rovers going to the junction of 4 grid
squares and working each other at short distances while moving through each of
the grids. This can mean 16 QSOs per band for 10 or more bands, and can
generate huge scores (millions of points) while not encouraging contacts with
other contest participants. Requiring a minimum distance for rover QSOs would
help to minimize this type of activity.
A captive rover is a station that only (or primarily) works one multi-operator
station during the contest. This may be the norm in less populated areas of
the country because there is little other activity, but in populated areas it
can generate considerable angst among competitors. The practice that
generates the most heat is a rover that only works one multi-op and does not
work others in the area. Many of them never submit logs. Because the rovers
are usually going to rare grids and have microwave equipment on multiple bands,
their efforts can really boost the scores of those they work. The current
rules are fairly weak in their attempt to encourage rovers to operate in a way
that gives a chance to all stations in the area to work them and should be
strengthened.
** Offer plaques for the January and September contests, in addition to June.
Work to find individual, club or corporate sponsors. Otherwise offer plaques
to national and regional leaders at their own cost.
The plaque program has been reasonably successful in the June VHF Contest and
we think it should be expanded to cover the other two major VHF+ events.
There is some administrative burden in handling plaques but the price we charge
for plaques generally covers our costs.
The plaques we offer in the June contest are awarded (when sponsored) to the
top entrants in these categories:
Top 10 Single Operator (both High and Low Power) scorers.
Top 5 Single Operator QRP Portable scorers.
Top 5 Rover scorers.
Top 10 Multi-Operator scorers.
Top 5 Limited Multi-Operator scorers.
Instead of focusing on plaques for national winners, which is really not a fair
way of comparing VHF+ scores across the country, plaques should focus more on
regional competition.
** Make sure the rules indicate certificates are awarded for low power entries
in January, and for top DX entries.
While not a major issue, this topic generated a surprising number of comments.
Certificates are issued for these categories but the printed rules have not
been clear.
What isn't included in the recommendations?
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were several key proposed changes that were not well-received. The
subcommittee was not 100% supportive of proceeding with them so we are not
proposing them at this time.
** Reduce the large emphasis on microwave contacts in the Jan/Jun/Sep contests.
Microwave QSOs make a huge difference in the total scores that can be made.
The subcommittee felt that the incentives, while useful to generate microwave
activity when they were instituted many years ago, provide too much of an
incentive today. This tilts the core of VHF+ activity towards the microwaves
and away from working those who are casual participants or newcomers. Making
one microwave QSO is generally more valuable that making 10 QSOs on 6 or 2
meters, for example.
We proposed to change the point value for all QSOs to a 1-2-3 point system for
all bands (one for rover QSOs, two for QSOs in your own grid and those that
touch it, and three for QSOs with distant grids). No one seemed to like the 1
point for rovers proposal, and most who commented did not like the reduction in
QSO points for microwave contacts. A majority of the subcommittee favored a
change to a simple two point per QSO scoring formula but without stronger
support it didn't make the final cut in our recommendations.
** Since Jan/Jun/Sep contests are nearly identical, convert one to a pure
VHF/UHF contest (no microwaves).
We proposed to change the June contest to a 50-1296 MHz event. Many
commenters saw this as a decrease in ARRL commitment to microwave frequencies.
A large numbers spoke of "use it or lose it" regarding microwave activity.
It appears that a considerable portion of existing microwave activity happens
during the six ARRL VHF+ contests - that is cause of concern.
** Eliminate the UHF contest, expand the 10G and Up contest to include
2.3/3.4/5.7 GHz.
The UHF contest has never "taken off." The contest began in 1978 with 118
entries and attracted 159 the next year. It peaked at 249 entries in 1994 and
250 in 1999, and was down to 140 entries last year. While the UHF contest has
declined, the 10GHz and Up contest was started in 1986 with 52 entries and has
steadily grown to 141 entries last year. Our draft proposed dropping the UHF
contest and expanding the 10G and Up contest to include the 2.3/3.4/5.7 GHz
bands. Again, this was received in a similar fashion as was described in the
previous item.
We believe further work needs to be done to find ways to improve the UHF
contest.
** Revert to the old rover scoring rules.
Despite the many years of comments by some people that the old rover rules were
preferred to the current ones, the general consensus of those providing input
to the draft proposals was split fairly evenly. It does not appear that going
back to the old rules is merited.
What are the key trends and information in the data analyzed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decline in entries
As noted earlier, activity in the Jan/Jun/Sep contests is down 25%, and
activity in the EME and UHF contests is down 50%. Changes are needed. There
were some start-up issues in moving towards electronic logging, though they
happened several years after the decline began. It has never been easier to
log VHF+ contest QSOs and to submit the log electronically. Paper logs are
still accepted, though electronic ones are encouraged.
Attachment #1 has additional details on entries for VHF+ contests.
(the attachment is not included by shows the number of logs in VHF+ contests
since around 1975. Send me an e-mail if you'd like a copy - K1KI)
Logs vs activity
An analysis of VHF+ logs indicates that the number of logs received is a good
estimate of the total amount of activity, as it is with HF contests.
An analysis of VHF+ logs indicates that the number of logs received is a good
estimate of the total amount of activity, as it is with HF contests. Looking
at log data from the last several years shows that there are about 4500 active
stations in the three major VHF contests (but only about 500 in the UHF
contest), and that the amount of activity can be calculated from the number of
logs received. The number of callsigns comes from the actual log QSO database.
Average Average
Contest Entries Calls Ratio
UHF-01-02-03 148 506 3.4
Jan-01-02-03-04 803 4014 5.0
Jun-01-02-03 728 5277 7.2
Sep-01-02-03 536 3253 6.1
Core of microwave operators
In each VHF+ contest there are a fairly small number of stations that make QSOs
above 1.2 Ghz. September 2003 was typical with only about 100 stations out of
more than 500 entries making microwave QSO, and more than half of them were
multi-ops or rovers. Many of the top single operator stations use
microwaves, especially in the densely populated areas, but 80% of the entrants
do not. Most of the contest activity (97% of the QSOs) takes place on 1.2G
and below, but microwave QSOs can double the score of the stations.who invest
in them.
Final thoughts
There are two pools of people we believe should continue to be focused on to
generate additional interest and activity in VHF+ awards and contests. Those
who already operate VHF+ but generally use FM and repeaters as their major
focus are one group, and the other is the large number of people who have
purchased one of the many HF+ radios that include one or more VHF bands.
Reconciling the strong preference for those "at the top" for extra rewards (QSO
points and multipliers) for microwave QSOs, with the desire to encourage more
activity is difficult. That was the fundamental issue we struggled with.
Committee members:
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, Chairman
Joel Harrison, W5ZN
Wayne Mills, N7NG
Ward Silver, N0AX
Clarke Greene, K1JX
Rus Healy, K2UA*
Gene Zimmerman, W3ZZ
Ned Stearns, AA7A
Mike King, KM0T
Dan Henderson, N1ND
* participation limited after 9/03
=====
e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|