Sean and I go back a few years together as contesters. :-)
I agree - the purpose of both HF and VHF contesting is to make as many QSO's
as possible and to maximize your score. Strategies and techniques may
differ due to the differences in behavior and performance of HF and VHF
bands and equipment, but the purposes are the same. Much of the discussions
lately have concerned Rovers. That may be one difference between HF and VHF
contesting. All HF contests I know of except maybe for the State QSO Parties
don't involve Rovers. The problems seem to start when some people are making
as many QSO's as possible without working as many different stations as
possible.
But you don't get points for finding people. You get points for working
people in any case, however it happens.
I enjoy both HF and VHF contesting. Some HF contesters get bored with VHF
contesting because they often can't establish a run and make 4 QSO's a
minute or better. I have to admit that's a rush that's hard to beat. But I'm
so used to both that when I do VHF contesting it doesn't bother me too much
if I only work half a dozen people in an hour. I still have fun.
Fun is still my primary goal in any contest. I just couldn't get into the
ARRL DX CW contest this past weekend so I didn't do much in it - it wasn't
fun for some reason this year. There's always next year.
See you in June! Hopefully we have a big 6m opening.
73, Zack W9SZ
On 2/26/09, Kutzko, Sean, KX9X <kx9x@arrl.org> wrote:
> Hi folks-
>
> After reading Marshall's opinions on contesting philosophy, I thought I'd
> chime in with my own views on this matter.
>
> Before I proceed, let me fire off the disclaimers:
>
> 1) These are merely my opinions and I speak for nobody but myself.
>
> 2) While an active VHF'er and contester, I have never made a QSO above 432
> MHz.
>
> 3) I do not make the rules, I enforce and administer what the Programs and
> Services Committee tell me to.
>
>
> I disagree with the fundamental premise that VHF contesting is different
> from HF contesting. As I see it, the basic premise of radio contesting is to
> see what I, as an operator with a transceiver and antenna, am capable of
> achieving on my own merit, using my own skill set. Using that definition,
> the band on which a radio contest takes place is irrelevant. Yes,
> propagation is different from VHF+ to HF. To me, that is a non-issue. It
> simply means that an operator wishing to do well needs to develop another
> skill set; that is, learning VHF propagation modes.
>
> I know many HF operators --myself included-- who would disagree with
> Marshall's assessment that HF contesting is about finding people as opposed
> to working them. Many an HF multiplier has gone unworked for various
> reasons, even at super-stations; it is not as simple as described. No matter
> if it's 160 meters or 24 GHz, if you don't work the guy, you get zero
> points.
>
> >From my vantage point, the "Thou Shall Not" rules as Marshall calls them
> serve a purpose: they keep the emphasis on keeping a radio contest a radio
> contest, not an internet contest where others do the work of finding
> stations for you. I think "assistance" is a big deal in the VHF world, too:
> K2DRH and K1TEO are perpetual winners in the Single-Op Low Power and
> Single-Op High Power categories respectively, using bands all the way into
> the microwaves, yet they don't use assistance. Last June, K1TEO beat all
> Limited Multioperator entrants and six of the Top Ten Multioperator
> entrants; Multioperator categories get to use "assistance." This is proof to
> me that there is little difference in VHF versus HF contesting; it still
> ultimately comes down to the operator's skill and what they are capable of
> doing with their station, with their own brain. Some in the HF world have
> postulated that assistance is actually a handicap; Single-Operator entries
> without assistance regularly beat the Single-Op Assisted entrants. Based on
> the efforts of K2DRH and K1TEO (and others), perhaps there is truth to that
> postulate in the VHF world as well.
>
> Not everybody will agree with my contesting philosophy. Fair enough;
> there's more than one way to skin a cat. That's why the ARRL rules allow for
> different operating classes. If you want to use spotting assistance to help
> you discover band openings or find out where a rover is, you can do that. If
> you want to see what just you and your radio are capable of doing, you can
> do that, too. We have to walk a tightrope from an administrative standpoint:
> offer sufficient ways to compete in any given event that allows for
> different operating philosophies, but not TOO many, so a contest stays
> competitive and doesn't deteriorate into an Activity Day, with certificates
> and balloons and cookies for everybody. As long as there will be radio
> contesting, there will be some who want to embrace every ounce of technology
> possible, and others that want to be "a boy and his radio." There is a
> place for both approaches.
>
> If you think something is broken, contact your VUAC Representative and/or
> your ARRL Director and let them know.
>
> See you in June.
>
> 73,
>
> Sean Kutzko KX9X
> Contest Branch Manager
> ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio
> 225 Main Street
> Newington, CT 06111 USA
> (860) 594-0232
> email: kx9x@arrl.org
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|