I (Keith, KB3ILS) and in much the same situation as Buck. I am a fairly new ham
and maybe a contester. I am antenna restricted due to where I live, but have
some of the same concerns Buck does. I operate a small home station and for
the Jan contest put up some temporary antennas. I have read all of the emails
on this and often see references to people with the new HF/6/2/440 setups.
That is me and my Icom-706 so I thought I would toss my 2 cents in about how to
encourage people like to participate.
1. I was intimidated when I heard the first UHF/VHF contest. I figured all
the other more experienced ops with more power would just consider me as
getting in the way with my small setup. I made a few contacts and enjoyed it
but was still not comfortable. That was last June. Since then I have been
reading the various contesting reflectors and learned that all contacts are
worth points and that all the big stations work each other every contest. By
working the other smaller stations like me, they get add more points that
someone else might not...especially later in the contest. That made me much
more comfortable jumping into the January contest. I threw up a temporary 6
meter beam in the back of the townhome on a mast that I built. Had a blast and
gave out some points on three bands. I think that educating radio ops and
making them feel comfortable jumping in is more important than restricting
bands etc. Take away the intimidation factor and more will jump in. I ag
ree that
the ARRL does a miserable job of educating people on using SSB and other modes
on the UHF/VHF bands. I looked and found very little. I have been educating
myself via the Internet...but it takes a lot of time to do it that way. Some
people dont have the time for that.
2. Don't take away any options for the little guys to make contacts and have
an incentive to expand their stations. I don't think that restricting bands is
a good idea. During the contest I hear people talking about the other bands
and moving to them etc. I could not make the changes to the higher bands, but
did not think it made the contest a waste of time. Instead, I started thinking
about how I can add one or two (plan to start by adding 220mhz) and join in on
the fun. Learning new things and adding to your radio setup and skill set is a
part of the amateur way. If we restrict the contest to what is available on
the mass market, then the desire to expand is reduced.
3. I also do not think it is fair to penalize the guys with a lot of bands just
because I do not. They invested the time and effort into their stations and
should be able to use them. These are the same people that are running the
UHF/VHF nets that I have started to listen to and learn more. (Packrat nets
etc.). Why penalize the people who are the best at it and take away their
incentive to participate?
4. Don't make rovering too hard. A lot of people live in areas that it is
tough to put up antennas and could get into contesting through small rover
operations with the new all in one radios. If this is too complicated with all
the rules, they won't do it and contacts will be lost for all. I think we need
to encourage rovering and giving out as many contacts as possible. I have seen
the debate over captive rovers etc......and don't really have an opinion. I am
not sure why anyone would want to be a captive rover...but it is a free country.
5. Contesters should encourage the use of these bands and modes during
non-contest time. I often listen to 2 meters and 6 meters SSB and don't hear
much. I will toss out some CQ's and hear nothing. Then during the contest....I
hear a ton of people who all live close by (I am in FN20) and I wonder where
they are during the non-contest times. Participating in this last contest is
what caused me to start looking for UHF/VHF nets and I checked into my first
one this past Sunday. (East Coast VHF Society by K2SMN). These nets give us
new ops a chance to adjust/test our antennas and setups throughout the year and
not just at contest time. If you are new and learning, this is important.
There are other benefits as well. K2SMN encouraged the people listening to
send in their logs to show that people are using the bands. I had not done
that...but due to his net I sent in my first log.
In summary, keep the rules simple for the new people like me with small
stations, but don't penalize the guys who put forth the effort to build a big
station.
Keith - KB3ILS
Newtown PA
Buck Calabro <Buck.Calabro@commsoft.net> wrote:
My name is Buck Calabro, KC2HIZ. I am a fairly new ham, contester and rover. I
have no place to put antennas at home, so my station is mobile. I started out
with an HT and now have an Icom IC-706mkIIG in the car with a Hamstick and dual
band Comet vertical for 2m/70cm. It would seem that this discussion is about
people like me, rather than the well established stations. Here is a reaction
from someone who seems to fit the profile of the person you want to participate
in VHF+ contests.
>Our recommendations had several basic goals. Changes to the
>contest rules and awards programs should:
> 1) encourage more people to work more other people
> 2) encourage QSOs made over longer distances
> 3) encourage more people to join in and participate
>January VHF SS and June/September VHF QSO Parties
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>1) Change Rover Rules
>
>"The final score consists of the total number of
>QSO points from all bands times the total number
>of multipliers from all grid squares in which
>they operated." This change would encourage
>rovers to go to rarer and more distant grids
>instead of staying closer to metropolitan areas.
Now this is an interesting item. I stay pretty close to metro areas because
that's where the hams are. With a little station and puny antennas, there are
precious few stations I can work from the outback. There's a really interesting
tradeoff between traveling to a new grid and staying put to work people where I
am now. Points vs. multipliers. This will bear more weight as I add beams to
the rover setup, because the longer it takes me to drive, set up and tear down,
the less time I have to operate. If roving turns into a mad dash to visit as
many grids as possible (for those multipliers) then am I encouraged to work as
many people as possible? This is a tough call to make and I'm glad I don't have
to make it! If there were some way to see statistics of rover behaviour before
and after the original rules change, perhaps that would improve the quality of
the debate.
>Because rover scores can be so large
>under the original rover scoring rules,
>they can distort the club competition scores.
I don't understand this. Can't every club help equip their members as rovers?
And wouldn't that be a good thing? More people on the air and more QSOs?
>2) QSO Point changes
>
>The current rules provide for increasing QSO
>points as contacts are made on higher bands
>plus additional multipliers on each band
>for each new grid. We propose to change the
>values for QSO points for all three contests.
>Regardless of band you would receive two
>points for QSOs with your own grid and any
>adjacent grid, and three points for each
>QSO beyond that. QSOs with rover stations
>would count one QSO point each, regardless
>of distance.
Oh, no! You want to make a contact with me worth less than a contact with a
fixed station? That is incredibly discouraging. Why on earth would a fixed
station want to give me a 3-1 advantage for each and every QSO? For a new grid?
That works for the first rover in, but the rest of us are sort of undesirable
after that one. Discouraging QSOs with a rover can't possibly help any of the 3
goals.
>3) June VHF QSO Party 50-1296 MHz only
>
>It seemed to us that at least one of the "big three"
>VHF+ contests ought to emphasize the VHF bands. We
>thus recommend that the June VHF QSO Party be limited
>to 50-1296 MHz only.
Oh no! You want to take the best month for microwaves away? How does removing
bands help any of the three goals? If you absolutely have to do this, do it in
January, but I'm completely against it.
>4) New categories in Jan/Jun/Sept
>
>Getting started in VHF+ contesting can be
>a bit daunting, and we wanted to find ways
>to attract the many people who have
>purchased multi-band transceivers that
>include VHF bands like the IC-706 and others.
I didn't think it was daunting at all, and I did my first contest with a 2m HT.
With this change, there is a certain temptation to drop my weak upper bands and
stay with the easy-to-use 3 band category. I don't think I will personally
succumb, because I rather like the other bands, and building radios by hand is
Very Cool Indeed. The rules permit me to actually operate 5 bands and only
submit my log for the 706 bands, right? So I could compete in what ever
category maximises my position in the standings regardless of the actual
capabilities of my station? That sounds like it's the letter of the law, but
not the spirit...
>New Microwave contest based on 10 GHz
>Cumulative - UHF contest dropped
>--------------------------------------
>
>We recommend expanding the format of the successful 10G and Up
>microwave contest and expand it to cover from 2.3 GHz and up.
Why? This is the one place the pioneers get to shine! It might help bring out
more microwavers, given the different categories, so maybe I'll be able to get
in on this one sooner rather than later. But I have to tell you that having a
10G+ contest is motivation for me to build a 10G transverter sooner rather than
later.
> The August UHF Contest would be discontinued after 2004. It
>never reached a critical mass of support and entries.
Oh no! How does killing a contest help any of the three goals?
>Awards
>----------
With these changes I don't think I'll live long enough to garner any awards.
Addressing some of the ideas floated on the VHF contesting reflector, I am
adamantly against any idea that restricts the number of times I can cross a
grid line. One of the better ways to make contacts is to drive along the grid
line and work a fixed station from both sides of the line, giving him two
grids. Otherwise, why would he bother working a weak station like me? And every
single contest takes me out of my home grid out into some other grids and back
into my home grid. It would Well And Truly Stink if I were unable to work
stations from my home grid on my way back home each day. If we really believe
that grid circling is such a bad thing, then make a separate category for them.
Let them rack up a million points and try to beat each other. Don't let them
add to club scores. I am against limiting the number of times I can work from a
particular grid.
For me the beginner, it's an issue of time. I can drive to Canada and operate
as a rover from there at 3am local, but who will be awake to work me? The point
is that I need to be in a grid where I can work people with my small station
AND there are people to be worked. For instance, I catch quite a few people on
their way to or from church on Sunday by calling CQ on 2m FM at those times. If
I'm in a 'rare' grid at that time, I can't work those people. This reduces the
number of QSOs I make, defeating goals 1 and 3. A grid isn't any good at the
wrong time of day, and some grids are good multiple times a day, with a
different batch of operators each time.
Mainly, I just don't understand the furor about grid circling/captive rovers.
If someone has enough time, money and ingenuity to convince a pack of rovers to
operate with them, God bless 'em. That strategy is clearly open to everybody.
Same thing goes for the 'captive' rovers. If your club can convince a pack of
rovers to go out, more power to it. In either case you are sending more people
into the field, making more contacts on more bands than without them. If the
League has documented proof that a particular rover (or fixed station!) refused
to work another station, then that rover's log should be disallowed. Otherwise,
if one of these 'naughty' stations answers calls from others, despite mainly
working themselves, then they are legitimate and should be allowed to compete.
They are out making noise and answering calls. That's as good a definition of
goals 1 and 2 as I can come up with.
Regarding a DX category, I'm all for it. I'm all for DX-DX contacts as well,
and I don't care if they work W/VE. Who knows? I might be roving in a place
where I can hear at least one side of that QSO and be able to piggyback. The
more the merrier. Goals 1,2 and 3.
Regarding making 222 worth more points than 50/144/440 in a limited single op
scenario, I'm all for it. Goals 1 & 3.
As a beginner, I am adamantly against anything that discourages my puny
short-range station from making an entry. There is nothing here that will
encourage a station like mine to go out, make noise and submit a log. In fact
making the points distance based will it tough for me to figure my score with
my paper log but I can live with that because I transcribe my paper log into
RoverLog so I can submit a Cabrillo email to the robot.
If you really want more participation, I propose making each and every station
call CQ on 146.55 at the top of the hour. In fact, force the format of the call
to something like 'CQ contest from KC2HIZ rover FN32 listening until 5 after
the hour.' That's a lot of noise and it's bound to get someone new into the
fray. Goals 1 and 3.
Another thought (just to show that I'm not just a naysayer): To increase long
distance contacts, make contacts with rovers 'in the next ring' worth more
points. You'll reward the rover who's built and deployed a strong station and
you'll reward the patience of the fixed station who worked me, er, I mean the
rover. Goal 2.
I hate to be the one to say it, but this is a lot of debate over _points_.
There's no cash prize involved here, and most of us don't even get to see our
name in print anymore. For me, it's about getting better each round, and the
points are a way for me to measure my progress. Some day, ten years or so from
now, I may be competitive (as in top 10) but for now, it's about measuring my
own progress. This might be naive on my part, but I suspect a lot of contesters
feel the same way. Fiddling the points calculation just makes it harder to
figure out where I am on that ladder.
Thanks for your time and for letting me share my thoughts. It is deeply
appreciated.
73 de KC2HIZ/r FN32at
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|