At 10:33 AM 12/16/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>You are not going to get everyone who shows an interest in VHF operating
>to
>>buy microwave gear. It's expensive, it takes a lot of time and effort to
>>build a station, and a lot of time and effort to learn how to use it. It
>>has been and always will be a small niche activity.
>
>The same argument can be made about becoming a competitive HF contest
>station. It's expensive, it takes a lot of time and effort to build a
>station, and a lot of time and effort to learn how to use it. The big
>difference, is it takes more time to construct a microwave-capable station -
>as it's not a plug-n-play operation. Sure, an HF station isn't either - but
>more so than getting 903 on the air with 50w.
In HF contests, there far more opportunities for less capable stations to
feel like they are playing for something. There are HP, LP, and QRP
categories. There are single-band categories. Some contests have categories
like "tribander and single wire." There are some contests that favor certain
locations, but there are also many contests that can be won from just about
anywhere, and (almost) anywhere you are you can find an HF contest that lets
stations in your location have a chance. What Ev is suggesting is that there
should basically be only two single-op categories in VHF contesting, both
of which would require significant microwave gear to be competitive.
A reasonably useful low power HF contest station would consist of a $1000 -
$1500 HF transceiver, one or two towers, and a half dozen antennas, some of
which would be wires. A reasonably useful low power 10-band VHF contest
station requires, what, a 6/2/432 all-mode rig, seven transverters, six or
so brick amplifiers, IF switching and/or sequencing, one or two towers,
and ten antennas, give or take. The in-shack gear could easily cost $3000
on top of the cost of the 6/2/432 rig. Some HF antennas are more expensive
than VHF antennas - some are much cheaper. VHF requires better feedlines.
If I had to take a guess, I'd say that getting on 10 VHF/UHF contest bands
would easily be 4x to 5x as expensive as getting on six HF contest bands.
And when you start thinking about going to high power, you're looking at a
~$1500 HF amplifier vs. four $1500 single-band amplifiers for 50/144/222/432,
and probably at least $500 for each band above that - a factor of more like
6x or 7x as expensive. That, in and of itself, is one of the reasons there
are many fewer hams willing to build microwave stations than HF stations.
There are many inhibiting factors to getting on the microwaves - it's very
expensive, it's very technically challenging, it's very time consuming, and
you cannot work very many stations in large parts of the country. Offering
extra points for microwave QSOs in and of itself is simply not going to be
enough of an incentive for most people to get on those bands. Those who
are getting on the microwaves are mostly those who would be inclined to be
on the microwaves anyway. In fact, the pro-microwave contest rules might
even have the opposite effect - it might make the task of climbing up to a
competitive level in the contest a task so daunting as to turn away a lot
of potential competitors. Ev's suggestions would really only serve to make
the contests more complicated and more daunting.
Ultimately, the only real way to get more people on the microwaves is to
make it cheaper and technically easier to do with less time and effort.
> >Didn't your contesting experience at K8GP teach you ANYTHING about the VHF+
> >contesting environment? Sure, you make fewer QSOs on 903+. BUT, with the
> >right combination of conditions and activity - you can do REALLY NEAT
> >STUFF.
I operated, in a somewhat limited way because I was something of an outsider
to the group there and I was an unknown quantity - which is perfectly
reasonable. I got the coveted 4AM time slot on six meters. They did not
let me touch the microwave gear :-)
> >No. Let's not get rid of ANYTHING. Let's make the BEST of what's out there,
> >and compete on the existing playing fields. There are plenty of options,
> >even in VHF+ contesting. SOHP, SOLP, SO QRP, M/M, M/L, Rover and
> >single-bands. I don't see much difference here, other than the number of
> >(A)
> >categories between VHF and HF contests. Where, if anywhere, do you see the
> >lack of variety that you spoke of earlier? I still see a decent slate of
> >competitive categories, a decent sized group of competitors, and a LOT of
> >opportunity. What YOU see, is the inability to win.
In VHF contesting, there are the same six entry categories in every contest.
The contest exchange is exactly the same in every contest. Every contest
is scored basically the same way. Every contest is about 99% phone operation
on the lower four bands. Aside from different propagation, is there any real
difference between the January, June, and September contests?
Maybe we could have a contest with CW-only, Phone-only, and Mixed-mode
single op categories. Maybe we could have a contest that uses distance-based
scoring. Maybe we could have a four-hour long, four-band sprint. Maybe
we could have a contest with an exchange other than grid squares. Maybe we
could have single-op limited-bands categories...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth E. Harker "Vox Clamantis in Deserto" kharker@cs.utexas.edu
University of Texas at Austin Amateur Radio Callsign: WM5R
Department of the Computer Sciences Central Texas DX & Contest Club
Taylor Hall TAY 2.124 Maintainer of Linux on Laptops
Austin, TX 78712-1188 USA http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|