VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] More Roving

To: "James Duffey" <jamesduffey@comcast.net>, vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] More Roving
From: "R. Michael West" <k6nc@saciplaw.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:17:03 +0000
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
James:

We agree with you that the Limited Rover class was not necessarily intended for 
beginners, although it does provide an entry level class in terms of 
equipment/power limitations. Personally, I really like the Limited Rover class 
for those times when I just don't want to (or can't) put the whole system 
together for a contest.

One of the most porous holes in the rules, in our opinion, is the ability of 
the General Rover class to make up to 100 contacts with another Rover. If this 
were restricted to 30-50 contacts, or so, the incentive and the ability to grid 
circle in the "gang roving" sense would be significantly limited. This same 
limitation should apply to the Limited Rover class, as well. Personally, we 
can't think of a single contest where our contacts with another Rover station 
have even approached 30 contacts. When you're not traveling together, the 
chances of making that many contacts with another Rover (especially out West) 
are fairly remote. If you were able to look at the logs of the parties 
mentioned in previous postings who "maxed out" their contacts with other 
Rovers, it would be interesting to see how many hit 100 contacts with another 
Rover.

It's "gang roving" that skews the results so significantly, so that activity 
should be available only to the Unlimited class.

On the other hand, we do not believe that restricting the Limited Rover class 
in terms of band selection, should be limited in any way. We prefer the lower 
bands when we operate fewer bands, but if someone wants to operate up higher, 
and still be restricted in power as the rules provide, why not allow it?

73, Mike K6NC and Catherine KG6HXI




-----Original Message-----
From: James Duffey [mailto:jamesduffey@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 08:29 PM
To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Cc: 'James Duffey', 'frank bechdoldt'
Subject: [VHFcontesting] More Roving

Frank - You wrote: To answer James’s question : The issue is more the 
manipulation of the rules and lack of forethought in the creation of the rules. 
That being taking something that was meant to encourage new people to our sport 
and manipulating it to work as a team to win all three classes roving. This is 
like having Bobbie Fisher showing up to the elementary school chess club and 
beating all the 8 year old kids in 5 moves and using the results to declare 
himself national champ. That being said I’m sure some would compete in a 
limited fashion just to see how far they could go, So it needs to be limited at 
or below 1.3 ghz. That’s where the commercial stuff is and that what the class 
was made for. This would not punish the microwave people. They are not 
beginners. The process of healing of ALL contesting will begin with open logs. 
I am not sure that the VUAC thought of the limited class exclusively to attract 
Joe 706 pack to contesting, but rather to form a class where one would not need 
significant resources to compete effectively as a rover. A four band and a 160 
Watt limitation pretty well defines the upper limit of what one can spend on a 
rove and still drive around in a street legal vehicle. While I am sure that the 
VUAC did not contemplate a limited rover operating solely on the microwave 
bands while roving, they did nothing to prevent that in the rules. Now that has 
happened they can reconsider hte rule, if it should be changed and if something 
should be changed, what. Rules are rules. One either follows the rules or he 
disregards them. If one can follow the rules and not get the expected results 
then the rules need to be changed. But one should not blame the one who is 
following the rules. There are lots of ways to deal with grid squaring. The 
current attempt was a good start. It is not perfect, nor did the VUAC expect it 
to be. It can be made to work. There are other alternatives. I outlined some of 
them in a previous e-mail. No matter what we think of the present situation, it 
does no good to complain without suggesting a viable alternative. Suggesting 
that someone do something is not very valuable. Suggesting what specifically 
they should do is a much more valuable contribution to the sport. If you don't 
like the current state of affairs in roving, suggest specific alternatives that 
will fix the problem without introducing new problems. - Duffey -- KK6MC James 
Duffey 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>