Several questions and comments have come up about distance based
scoring. Let me answer some.
1. If distance based scoring is so good, why don't other contests use
it?
They do. The Stew Perry Challenge on 160M, the ARRL 10 GHz and up
contests, several RSGB, NZART, and DARC contests all use distance
based scoring. For the VHF contests and the 10 GHz contest, the
scoring is based on exchanging the 6 digit Maidenhead grid square.
2. How do I determine my 6 digit Maidenhead grid square?
Pretty much the same way you determine your 4 digit grid square, you
use a computer, use a GPS, use a map, look up your call on QRZ.COM, or
ask another ham. Or ask the first guy you contact in the contest. In
what must be one of the most quaint rules in contesting, at least one
RSGB contest allows the operators to exchange "enough information to
determine a 6 digit grid square if the station does not know it" in
lieu of exchanging an actual 6 digit maidenhead grid square. I assume
this would be longitude and latitude or an address.
3. Do I need a computer to calculate my score so I can submit a log?
Well it is a not too well kept secret that no one submits a score to
contests anymore. With today's contest rules, you submit a log and the
computer/log checker at the sponsor computes your score from your log
and other logs. You just compute your own score to get a general idea
of how you did. So distance based scoring is no different. While a
computer generated log is nice, it is not a necessity. There are
programs available to calculate scores from raw logs for the Stew
Perry, I suspect that they could be easily adapted for 6 digit
exchanges as well.
4. Won't the rovers have a hard time figuring out where they are?
Most rovers carry a GPS so they already know where they are to the 6
digit grid square. A map premarked before the rove does the same
thing. I suspect that most rovers know where they are better than do
many fixed stations.
5. Won't the 6 meter ops who get a good Sporadic-E opening be at an
advantage over those who don't?
Well, yes they will, but they have that advantage already. In fact,
the distance based scoring may well be fairer in this regard than
conventional scoring. With distance based scoring, the advantage of an
opening is restricted to the 6 meter portion of the score. With
conventional scoring, the additional multipliers gained during a 6
meeter opening will also multiply the QSOs on the other bands, and the
additional 6M QSOS will be multiplied by multipliers from the other
bands giving an even bigger advantage.
6. Wouldn't there be problems enforcing or validating distances?
Well this problem exists already. It is not harder to validate and
enforce the exchange of 6 digit grid squares than it is 4 digit grid
squares. The computer/log checker would compute the scores based on
the grid square, so there is no problem with anyone overestimating the
distances.
7. If this is so great, why hasn't it been implemented earlier?
There is a lot of inertia opposing change in contesting rules at the
ARRL. It is a conservative institution. The decision process for
change in contesting is spread out among 3 or 4 entities. It is hard
to get someone to take the initiative to change things. It is hard to
get a consensus for change. The current VUAC seems willing to take
this on though. That is good. Changing the scoring would likely incur
some expense in setting up new log checking and reporting software.
The BOD is reluctant to spend money in these tight times. The VHF/UHF
contesting community is very vocal and is likely to raise a fuss. If
things go wrong, even slightly, they are likely to make a bigger fuss.
Contest sponsors don't want a big fuss.
Any other questions? - Duffey
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|