Hello to all on the list....I was one of those that proposed the 3 tier
rover class system that we have today. When I proposed what became the
"Limited Rover Class", I proposed that it be ONLY 6M, 2M, and 432.
Since I do not spend all my time thinking of how people will abuse the
system, I did not propose power limits at that time, but later proposed
that the class should be 6M/100W, 2M/50W, and 432/35W.....this would
work with all the radios that we are familiar with....the ICOM 706/7000,
the Yaesu 857D/897D, the Yaesu 736R, and the TS2000(yes you would have
to turn the power down slightly for the the TS2000, but that is easily
done in the menu system). This would have been perfect AND would have
presented a level playing field for everyone. NO amplifiers, NO
transverters, NO extra bands, NO BS.
What did we get??? We got a class with the big three and
222(eventually) and power limits that make no sense. Some on the VUAC
were very strong on the inclusion of the extra band.....I cannot imagine
why. Beginners will NOT go out and try something new, work their butts
off, and spend a lot of money on gas, food, and lodging, when they KNOW
in advance that they have no chance. Any "beginner" type rover knows
that a team with 4 bands and the maximum power allowed in the class is
going to beat them with their bare ICOM 706 or ICOM 700.
I tried to get the ARRL to issue First, Second, and Third certificates
for the rovers in each Division. No luck there either. Certificates
are really cheap.....especially compared to the effect that they
generate. A "newbie" who won Third Place in the Delta Division or the
Roanoke Division would be hooked for life. But now, the newbie gets
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING until he wins First Place in his Division.......
Creating a special class, the Unlimited Rover, for those folks that are
using "special techniques" did not work either. For some reason, known
only to them, the grid circling/pack roving/coordinated rovers/whatever
view the Unlimited Rover Class as the "penalty box" and will not compete
in the class created especially for them. In typical ARRL fashion, the
rules did not require those using "special techniques" to actually be
placed in the class specifically made for them.
Anyway, another June contest is in the books. We at K5QE did well on
6M, fair on 2M, and poor on the rest of the bands. Propagation was way
down, except for 6M and that was pretty darn good.....I hope everyone
did well and enjoyed the contest.
73 Marshall K5QE
James Duffey wrote:
> The log submission has closed for the 2010 June ARRL VHF QSO Party and
> claimed scores have been posted on the ARRL site. It was a successful contest
> with 1107 Cabrillo logs submitted and if previous years are any indication,
> another 100 or so paper logs with 10 of them being rovers will be added.
>
> Overall activity appears to be strong and comparable to previous years, so
> the contest is healthy, if not growing slightly. Widespread sporadic E over
> much of the country during most of the contest kept interest up and people at
> their operating position. The widespread and lengthy Es made roving very
> effective and productive. Good Es activity usually results in lots of logs
> being submitted.
>
> Below are the preliminary 2010 results tabulated with previous years. As I am
> primarily interested in the Rover class, this table only goes back to 1991,
> the year the Rover Category was instituted. The Rover category as a whole
> appears to be healthy, if down a bit from previous years, but when paper logs
> are submitted, the total fraction of rovers will probably be pretty close to
> historic values. The price of fuel was reasonable this year, so that had
> little effect on rover activity.
>
> Year Entries Rovers % total Notes
> 2010 1107* 88* 7.9* *No paper logs
> 2009 1152 102 8.9
> 2008 1074 96 8.9 New Rover categories
> 2007 860 98 11.3
> 2006 1047 96 9.2
> 2005 840 92 11.2
> 2004 766 91 11.9
> 2003 818 92 11.2
> 2002 672 84 12.5
> 2001 680 61 9.0
> 2000 749 62 8.3
> 1999 701 75 10.7
> 1998 865 72 8.3
> 1997 837 74 8.8
> 1996 923 72 7.8
> 1995 837 52 6.2 Rules Change
> 1994 781 68 8.7
> 1993 818 63 7.7 Rules Change
> 1992 840 64 7.6
> 1991 710 50 7.0 Rover class initiated
>
> Below is a table with the breakdown by Rover category since 2008, the first
> year multiple Rover categories were used. Due to ambiguities in the Cabrillo
> tags, I suspect that there are really only 5 Unlimited Rover entries this
> year and that the other four belong in the Limited Rover or Classic Rover
> classes. There are similar ambiguities, although not as many, in the Limited
> Rover entries, but I suspect that will get sorted before the results are
> finalized. If you are a rover, you may want to check your entry in the logs
> submitted page on the ARRL Site and drop KX9X an e-mail with the correct
> entry class if you have different categories in the Category and Type Columns
> listed on the logs submitted page.
>
> Year Classic Limited Unlimited Total
> 2010 37 42 9 88
> 2009 60 37 5 102
> 2008 61 26 8 95
>
> The migration of operators from the Classic Rover category jumps out at one
> from this table. It appears that many are going to the Limited Rover
> category. As of now it appears that the Limited Rover entries will outnumber
> the Classic Rover entries for the first time since the categories were
> introduced. Even if all of the remaining logs to be submitted are Classic
> Rovers, this will still be a significant drop in Classic Rover activity.
> This cannot be healthy for contest microwave activity. I suppose that this
> migration from Classic Rover to Limited Rover is to be expected as a similar
> migration was seen from Multi to Limited Multi years ago. The growth in the
> Limited Rover category appears to be healthy, but it is not due to attracting
> new operators with 706 class rigs as was envisioned when the category was
> created, but rather appears to be coming at the expense of Classic Rovers. So
> the question remains unanswered, what do we do to attract Joe-706 pack to VHF
> contesting?
T
> he Unlimited Rover category continues to languish with only 9 (and perhaps
> as few as 5) entries and, as far as I can tell, only KR0VER/r and N0LP/r used
> it was envisioned when the category was created. Can this category continue
> without more activity or a rules change to encourage more participants?
>
> There were several big, for the category anyway, scores put up in the Limited
> Rover Category. And, with a single exception, these scores were put up by
> Limited Rovers operating alone, without the benefit of coordination with
> other rovers at grid boundaries. K5HN/r put up a score of 92,738 topping the
> Limited Rover category with no apparent coordinated activity with other
> rovers. Ironically, this was for the North Texas Microwave Society.:^)=
> NO5LA/r, whose claimed score does not appear on the ARRL web page with his
> log submission, but who posted a claimed score of 86,339 on the 3830 site,
> also appeared to operate without coordination with other rovers. Less than
> 2000 points separate the apparent 3rd, 4th, and 5th place finishers in the
> Limited Rover Category, showing that this is indeed a competitive category.
> Interestingly enough, W6YLZ/r may have been handicapped by his participation
> with the Southern California Contest Club coordinated rovers as his claimed
> score is sig
ni
> ficantly down from his score last year when he roved solo. There appear to
> be 8 limited rover scores above 50,000, which, over the past couple of years,
> several on this list declared was impossible without coordinated roving.
> Well, seven of those scores appear to be done with no coordination with other
> rovers. In the past it has also been said on this list that Limited Rovers
> who did not engage in coordinated roving techniques such as pack roving and
> grid circling could not be competitive with those that did partake in those
> practices, even with lots of Es. This year's contest clearly shows that is no
> longer the case. Limiting the bands to the lowest four and the number of QSOs
> with rovers seems to have had its effect in the Limited Rover category.
>
> The Southern California Contest Club coordinated rovers have the 6 top
> claimed scores in the Classic Rover category and, with two other Southern
> California Contest Club rovers who did not submit claimed scores, appear to
> have the top 8 Rover spots nailed down. Coordinated roving is an effective
> strategy for winning the club competition, especially when bolstered by even
> modest fixed station contributed scores from other club members. I wonder
> though, if the domination of the Classic Rover category by the Southern
> California Contest Club pack rovers is driving some Classic Rovers to the
> Limited Rover category to where they perceive that they can be more
> competitive.
>
> With the 10 vehicle rover pack from Southern California well ensconced in the
> VHF and UHF contests, and perhaps several more from around the country whose
> similar activities do not rack up such large scores, and probably a similar
> number of captive rovers who do not submit logs, it dawns on me that this
> activity, which I lump under coordinated roving, has reached 15% or 20% of
> the total rover activity in ARRL contests. When one thinks about it, this is
> a relatively large number compared to the total number of rovers. Political
> Scientists, for example, cite this number as what is generally required to
> support significant social change. There are pluses and minuses to this
> activity and many of the pros and cons have been discussed on this list
> before, but the number of rovers who participate in coordinated roving is
> becoming significant and the impact of their activities continues to grow. As
> an example of one impact, It appears to me that one cannot currently win a
> contest c
om
> petition in the medium category without at least a modest contribution from
> coordinated roving.
>
> When one ponders it, having ten-10 band stations that can be deployed at 75
> mph essentially anywhere within a 175 mile circle in any of several
> categories, not just the rover categories, is a powerful tool. Those stations
> will have a significant impact in a contest, even if their use is restricted
> in the Rover categories.
>
> Some thoughts. I will update this assessment when the results are final. -
> Duffey
> --
> James Duffey KK6MC
> DM65tc
> Cedar Crest NM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|