On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:16 AM, <vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com>wrote:
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:39:58 -0600
> From: "Mike Metroka" <VHFRover@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] VUAC proposal to ARRL
>
> VUAC representatives,
> I sincerely feel that the 30 QSO limit for Rover to Rover contacts is too
> restrictive. I am okay with the current 100 QSO limit and ask the VUAC to
> NOT approve the proposed 30 QSO Rover to Rover limit. I'll go along with
> the other proposed changes (especially opening the UHF contest to club
> competition which I feel is a great way to potentially increase
> participation).
> 73
> Mike WB8BZK/R
>
Nice, quick, and to the point! I did not follow Mike's example. I wrote a
book, and here it is:
What Mike said is kind of what I thought. I have problems with that 30 QSO
limit, not the least of which is the "remedy" being you get pushed up into
the Unlimited Rover category. So when a guy like Mike (who I've worked a
bunch of times since getting into VHF contesting in 2007 and who is NOT a
grid circler or captive rover) accidentally works the same guy that 31st
time he gets moved into a category he didn't intend to enter, rather than
just having that new Q not count.
We're fortunate in northeast Illinois/southeast Wisconsin to have a few
rover stations like WB8BZK and K9JK and some convenient grid square
convergences - we're pretty much sitting on the line that divides EN62 and
52. I have a meager allowance, but I can run out and borrow enough
equipment to get on 6 to 1296 that could work another rover in all six of
those nearby grid squares with some careful planning, plus laser and 10 GHz
WBFM for some Qs that couldn't make it quite as far. And if I was really
feeling saucy I know where I can find a 24 GHz gunnplexor. That's 8 bands
(9 with 24 GHz) that I could get probably 35-40 Qs out of without "grid
circling." And, like I said, I have a meager allowance. If I can scrounge
up that many bands anybody can. Yeah, I would have to coordinate with Mike
or whoever but that's not hard OR against the "spirit" of the rules - rovers
post their schedules on this reflector all the time.
I don't like the 50% rover to rover contacts limit. Yes, it encourages
rovers to work fixed stations but I think it would have unintended
consequences. Heck, the rules say you can enter as a rover AND a single op,
you just need an additional radio and antenna. If anything, the 50% rule
might result in the California pack having HIGHER scores. Remember, the
stations you're trying to make rules around have a ton of people and they
don't seem short on cash. They'll figure it out.
Honestly, though, I still think those guys in California will still figure
out ways to have very competitive scores and some of you will still
complain... Go visit N6NB's website, they obviously work out a strategy
based on whatever the rules are beforehand. He'll even tell you what it is:
"In the original category, grid circling is not a good strategy (with only a
limited number of QSOs allowed with any other rover, the savvy way to use
those Qs is for multipliers--not to work anyone more than once in a given
grid square)." The 30 Q limit isn't going to be much of a problem for them
- they had 8 rovers on the road for January, so they can still come up with
plenty of mults. Maybe that 50% rule will have an effect, maybe not - I
don't know Wayne and haven't seen his logs. I'm thinking, though, that it
will probably just encourage them to set up some QRP portable or single op
stations at waypoints, and people will just complain that they've taken over
QRP portable, too.
Now, before we get into a bunch of math and nonsense let me say that I don't
have a problem with N6NB's operation. I don't think he's evil. I don't
think he's done anything wrong - he has played by the rules and has
maximized his own score. Obviously he and his group enjoy themselves since
his convoy increases every year. Good for them! I do understand, though,
the objections of K4GUN and others about competing against what is
essentially a multi-op station on wheels. So here are some ideas that I've
got with some figurin' to back them up:
If you really want to reduce the effect of road rallying to multiple grids
you need to focus on multipliers and points, not QSOs. Mults are what
REALLY increase your score in a hurry. Let's go to the video tape...
Let's take N6NB's score from the August VHF contest, shall we? This will be
an easy one to work with because they posted the number of Qs and mults the
top finishers claimed. N6NB had 365,721 points and 101 multpliers. Now, we
can't figure out how he did on any one individual band, but we can divide
his score by the mults to find out he had 3621 QSO points. Shazam! 3621
points from 383 Qs makes for 9.54 points per Q, so a ton of those had to be
on 2.3 GHz or higher where the score is 12 points each. (Interestingly
enough the next highest scorer had an average of 6.46 points per Q, more on
that in a bit.)
Okay, let's say N6NB makes 1 more 2.3 GHz Q, but doesn't get a new
multiplier. He would get 3621 + 12 = 3633 QSO points times 101 mults for a
score of 366,933 or an increase of 1212 points - not coincidentally his
mults (101) times the points for this individual Q (12).
Now let's say he gets a multiplier from it. Now you're talking 3633 times
102 for a score of 370,566 an increase of 4845! Again, this is the same
1212 we got earlier plus a "bonus" equal to the QSO point he earned, so
another 3633 for the new multiplier.
This is why, of course, their strategy is to forgo additional QSO points
with their group and to use that 100 Qs to add multipliers. And they would
do the same if the limit was 30 Qs instead.
Yeah, everybody knows this already - that's why we all try to work new grids
during the contests. But rovers get an additional multiplier by making a Q
in a different grid - that encourages a road rally type of operation. You
have to make a Q, but that's why you bring a buddy along. And if you're
going to a grid you haven't worked someone from, now you're guaranteeing
yourself 2 mults. If Wayne had gone to just one more grid and worked a
station on a band he hadn't worked before (let's pick laser - that's an easy
one for this) his score would have increased to 374,199 - that's 8478 more
points.
N6NB knows that, too, and seems to lament the current system as much as
anyone else on this reflector has: "Many rovers attempt to visit as many
grid squares as possible, a practice encouraged by the ARRL rules (which
award an extra multiplier for each grid square visited during the contest
period). That forces rovers to keep moving, never venturing far off the
major highways and rarely stopping to operate with directional antennas. If
they are to visit as many grid squares as possible, rovers have no choice
but to leave *rare* grid squares quickly and go on to grid squares that are
*not* rare." (N6NB's website)
So why do rovers get more multipliers? Easy: back in the day before 1991
there really wasn't a "rover" category, so all the rover scores got listed
with the single ops. Fixed stations could manage higher scores by virtue of
having better antennas and not having to take time to drive anywhere, so
that basically froze the rovers out of QST. (That's a fact from N6NB's
site, too, but I confirmed it by looking at QST VHF contest rules and
results from 1989-1992.) The addition of all the multipliers was done to
bring rover scores more in line with fixed stations. Now, though, since
rovers seem to get equal billing in contest coverage it would probably be
safe to eliminate the multiplier from a new grid and simply add the scores
from each grid operated from.
So multipliers is one issue, the difference in score between bands is
another. N6NB averaged over 9 points per Q while the second place finisher
averaged about 6.5. Third place was 4.92. Fourth was W6TE, part of N6NB's
group, and he averaged 8.98 points per Q. The scoring in the UHF is
supposed to really encourage microwaves - you get 12 points for 2.3 and up
versus 3 points for 222 and 432. But do we really need that kind of
difference? More points, yes, but THAT many more? Even the 4 points for
2.3+ versus 1 point for 6 and 2 meters during September might be a bit
much. Remember, you get a new multiplier for every grid you work on every
band. We already saw how a new mult drives your score up faster than QSO
points anyway (4845 for a new Q with a mult versus 1212 for the Q alone.
Let's say in the example about we get a new mult from 432 in the August
contest instead: that's 369648 points for an increase of 3927 points for a Q
that would otherwise have been worth 303 points.). So the incentive is
already there to add more bands - you get to work closer stations again for
new mults.
And let's face it - a lot of us don't need that extra scoring incentive.
I'm crazy enough to want to build a transverter, just to say I did it, then
spend half and hour tuning a guy in on 1296 rather than rack up a ton of Qs
per hour on 6 meters anyway. :-)
So, if you're still with me after all that, why would I do? 1) Eliminate
the extra multiplier for activating a new grid and make rover scores the sum
of the contacts made from each grid, 2) reduce the difference in QSO points
for individual bands, maybe give 1 point for 6-432, 2 points for 902-2.3,
and 3 for 3.5+, 3) leave the 100 QSO per rover limit alone, and 4) put a
minimum operating time per grid into the rules for Rovers and Limited
Rovers, say 60 minutes. You could still grid circle, but you couldn't cover
nearly as many grids. HF contests have similar rules for band changes. The
rule would have to specify that contacts from stations that change grids
more often won't count for Rovers or Limited Rovers - that would keep one
station from following the rule by staying put only to be contacted by other
rovers who don't follow the rule and entered as Unlimited Rovers or just
didn't submit logs. I don't think I'd even go with that 50% rule - I just
think it's too easy to get around that.
Like I said, though, don't be surprised if the California stations still
come out on or near the top.
73! Chris N9YH
--
Chris Burke
chris@n9yh.com
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|