On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 04:54:26PM -0400, Ev Tupis wrote:
> What you seemed to miss is the perceptive-undercurrent that VHF+ decisions
> are being made within an HF context. This doesn't work. The issues are
> different. I believe that HF contests get 10k+ logs because the contests
> are designed for HF operation. I believe that VHF contests get 2.5k logs
> because they are designed for HF operation and just tweaked a little. Turn
> the tables and I believe that HF contests would be at the 2.5k level and
> VHF would be at the 10k+ level.
OK, I don't agree with this either.
VHF contests were the first major radio contests to introduce something
like the rover entry class. There is nothing even remotely like it
in ARRL or CQ-sponsored HF contests. The same thing for the Single
Operator Portable entry class - there are single operator QRP entry classes
in ARRL and CQ HF contests, but no classes whatsoever that involve portable
operation (aside from Field Day, which isn't a real contest.) CQ has one
HF contest (WPX) with a "band-limited" subcategory for entrants who do
not have HF licenses that let them operate on all six HF contest bands,
but that was introduced well after the ARRL VHF contests developed the
M/L category. Rovers and Single Op Portables are not just "tweaks" on HF
contest concepts - they are unique to the interests of VHF operators.
> I am simply suggesting that somebody (most probably those people who have
> already been charged by the MSC) would be best served to step back, take a
> breath and "re-tool" by not being afraid to untether from their HF roots
> when examining a 21st century VHF-centric world.
OK, what would you do differently?
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|