My 3 cents worth (with inflation):
I agree with Ev about limiting bands or not limiting bands, but I also
disagree about any other rules to limit groups of operators according to
antenna gain, power output, money invested, operator IQ, number of
elements, bad QTH problems, flareup of hemorrhoids, or lack of good coax!!.
I spent a bunch of time making a 3456 looper array. It has 448 elements.
If I apply any handicap to that band, I am sure that 448 elements would put
me in the highest category no matter what. If I did not want to be in that
category I would not be able to use such an array. I put up a small thingey
and I miss out on most all contacts. Others miss out by not working me. 3456
is sort of a new frontier and big arrays and higher power are showing the
band to be a great place for working DX. It seems counter productive to me,
and rather socialistic to limit these things. What is wrong with trying to
make your station better? I know many are limited in what they can do by
external factors. They may have zoning problems, TVI problems, neighbor
problems. The list is endless. Just because you cannot compete with W2SZ or
K3EAR or K8GP is no reason to make new categories. Why limit performance? I
should also remark that some operators finely hone their skills by operating
in all sorts of operating events. They copy CW at 60 wpm. They can work 120
per hour for hours on end. I can't do any of that stuff. My operating
ability would fit in a small container! I can build things though.
Everybody hasifferent strengths and weaknesses. We should not try to limit
these very much at all. I think the solution is to localize the VHF contests
and spread the credit around . The newer contest results pages goes a long
way towards this with regional summaries and the spreadsheet results where
all sorts of comparisons are easily made.
I am still smarting from the limited multi op category implementation
where microwave activity plummeted and many rigs for 903 and up gathered
dust on the contest weekends.
Ev has made some very good points. Power output seems to work for a
category and can help foster increased activity by low power mountaintop
operation. A single op can take some QRP gear on a mountain and really
complete with high power ops in home locations. It really can build activity
and foster excitement. Simple gear makes this possible. That being said,
making more categories is not generally the answer for me. I think the way
in which the contest is reported and dissected after the fact can be
improved to allow fellows and gals in less populated areas, or people who
accomplish admirable feats, to receive the recognition they deserve. With
the WWW, there is a vehicle for the ARRL to regionalize all the VHF results
and recognize superior efforts no matter where they occur.
Merry Christmas to all, and I am going back to work on improving my
gear for next year!!
Dave K1WHS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marten T Beels" <martentb@goshen.edu>
To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] A suggestion for ERP-based Entry Classes
> I agree with Duane, using that formula would discourage the use of better
> antennas, personally I think that an ERP category is a terrible idea.
> Additionally, the theorticaly max gain of antenna is determined mainly by
the
> length of the boom, not how many elements it has.
>
> In my opinion, classes by power does a great job of allowing lower budget
> stations to remain competitive. I can built a 1.6 wavelength 2m antenna
for
> $30 that will give me the same gain as a $300 amp.
>
> My 2 cents,
> Marten
> KC8HZM
>
> Quoting Duane Grotophorst <n9dg@yahoo.com>:
>
> > On Dec 14, 2003, at 8:09 AM, Ev Tupis (W2EV) wrote:
> > >
> > > (Element count) x (RF Output) = Entry Category is
> > > a great way to categorize our
> > > efforts without compromizing our future by
> > > encouraging less band-participation
> > > or band-reporting.
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree, while it may not discourage
> > adding new bands for a better score it will discourage
> > the building of a better station as far as antennas
> > go. The last thing we want to do is discourage the
> > building of a better overall station, which is
> > normally done by adding more bands and/or improving
> > performance with better antennas, feedlines, and
> > equipment.
> >
> > For example using antenna element (or gain) X power
> > would give HT's an huge correction factor. And then
> > for example taking this to the extreme a small group
> > of 100 or so ops all with tri and quad band HT's
> > roving around a grid corner and doing the classic
> > "grid dance" could completely win a VHF contest, - and
> > do it without ever making Q over few miles in
> > distance. Even if they were not "rovers" and there
> > were 25 ops in each grid they would still rack up a
> > big score quickly and easily. So is ERP-based scoring
> > the direction we really want to push VHF contesting
> > towards?
> >
> > I suppose the negative effects of such a scheme could
> > be largely offset by using a distance based scoring
> > element, that way emphasis is shifted back towards
> > trying to figure out how to make our stations better
> > and more capable rather than trying figure out how to
> > fill a barrel with fish to shoot. It is the pushing of
> > the limits for our equipment and shack layout that
> > drives us toward adding new bands and adding better
> > equipment like radios, antennas and/or power. A
> > distance based scoring element will do more for
> > achieving that than trying level the playing field by
> > limiting the number of bands or adding score
> > correction factors for our equipment capability.
> >
> > Additionally a distance based scoring system that is
> > based on 6 digit grid square contest exchanges is more
> > enforceable because all of the required data is
> > already in the logs that would be submitted. Arguably
> > the current scoring scheme does already reward longer
> > distance q's by the virtue of higher multiplier
> > totals, however its granularity is too coarse,
> > especially so for the higher bands.
> >
> > Duane
> > N9DG
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|