How about something nice and simple. If you are a rover and more than 20% of your QSOs are with other rovers, you are defined as participating in a group effort and therefore, you are an Unlimited Ro
I don't know about that. I think it would be pretty hard to "game" at 20 percent. If you're out with a group and you still manage to make 80% of your contacts with base stations, I say more power to
Excellent, excellent excellent! My only suggestion is a minor one and that is with regard to the bands available to Limited Rovers. The Kenwood TS2000 can be had with 902 capability so its an all-in-
I think you're missing how this is worded. It would allow up to 30 contacts with any single other rover. You could have 29 with one guy, 25 with another and 30 with another. As long as your total rov
LOL.... wait a second... let me make sure I get this. You cry about not having many fixed stations to work and then turn to lecturing others about how life isn't fair. That's just AWESOME! ROFLMAO. R
Sorry... I meant 1296. My error. My point was that the TS2000 has 4 band capability in single box and that seems to fit in with the ARRL's goal with the Limited Rover class. Steve ___________________
What? Do what you feel is right, but I'm seriously confused. How does this "discourage people who want to operate 7 bands..."? I've often asked others to post how may rover to rover contacts they hav
Mike, I see and understand your point, but I think the CA group has shown that they can't be trusted with a long leash. I'm also a solo rover but as Limited one meaning I only have 4 bands. The chanc
I've been away from my computer for the last week and missed a lot of discussions (got married this weekend!). I'm glad to see that things have calmed down a bit. I still see some points being missed
Your first proposed rule doesn't do anythi8ng to address the Lunchbox Brigade. It would leave them totally unaffected and I'm not sure what the goal is with this. So what if you start fresh at each n
What is it you're trying to fix with this proposed rule? I honestly don't get it. It makes no sense. Steve _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@con
Well, I appreciate the efforts, but I don't see how they do any of that. As a rover, I'm sure you are aware that we generally don't have the same incentives as base stations. Our operating conditions
That tongue in cheek proposal makes absolutely no sense. None. However, you do come to the exact same conclusion a lot of us have about the lunchbox brigade. They are working the system, rather than
About the point you raised below: No, no, no, no, no!!!! How many times do we have to say this? There is NO penalty for going over 30 contacts with another rover. There is no "zero point QSO". The on
I would be in favor of that. I do have this nagging fear that the Lunchbox Brigade will figure out a way to work within a 50% limit (dropping QRP stations like Easter eggs along the route would be my
Another thing to consider is the casual rover. I'm not talking about the guy who plans a route that catches the corner of 11 different grids. I'm talking about the guy who has to work on Saturday and
I've been on record as supporting the idea of the 30/50 solution that the VUAC has proposed. I still think its the best solution, but I have this nagging concern that I'm wondering if anybody else ha
That is excellent news. Whether or not distance based scoring becomes a reality, its nice to know Roverlog can be used. I have another question. I've been using Roverlog and am very happy with it. If
I find it funny that Ev is so fixated on trying to get rovers to operate like fixed stations do. None of his suggestions have anything to do with making rovers operate in a way that ensures both comp
What is it that is interesting about that? I'm passionate about improving radiosports. You'll also note that my e-mails are not complaints about the grid circlers. Its about the rules that allow it.