Or how about 2 categories in each class: 1,2,3 and 8
land (category 1), and everyone else (category 2)?
73s John NE0P
>From the black hole of EM04
--- Jim Erickson <k3lfo@mddsg.com> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> The Sprint Rovers:
> Although the Sprints are a lot of fun, They are not
> real conducive to
> roving. we spend two days minimum preparing for a
> rove. Most of the
> Sprints are also during the work week, ending quite
> late to do much
> traveling. WE would have to leave a couple of hours
> before the contest and
> not return for a couple of hours after.
>
> Lack of participation by Rovers is more of a
> practical mater than any
> consideration for the rules.
>
> The Rover Rules:
> I feel that the present rules are fine (both old
> origional and new). Any
> major changes to the Rover rules to compensate for
> those "questionable"
> practices would punish the rest of us!
>
> The situation is no different than the unfairness of
> High Power stations
> competing with low power stations. Or Multi Op
> stations with 10 band
> microwave systems competing with Multi Op stations
> who don't operate above
> 432. What do we do for these situations?? We make
> a new category for
> them. Thats why there is SOHP, SOLP, MO Limited, MO
> Unlimited. How about
> applying these categories to the Rover Class? Maybe
> make a new class
> called Multi Rover or Team Rovers? You can
> specifically add grid circling
> and or captive roving to this category. Those who
> wish to pursue and even
> refine these techniques can do so in competition
> with each other. We will
> all benefit from any contacts they let us make with
> them.
>
> Just another approach,
> 73,
> Jim K3LFO/Rover & Dave W3DIO
>
> > One problem though. We get almost no rover
> > submissions. We get maybe one or two for each
> band. So if the original
> > rover rules are all that great then why don't the
> rovers operate in the
> > sprints?
> >
> > 73
> > Jim W4KXY
> > SVHFS Fall Sprint Chairman
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Geiger" <johngeig@yahoo.com>
> > To: "Paul Kiesel" <k7cw@yahoo.com>;
> <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 1:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] A quasi-history of
> roving
> >
> >
> >>
> >> --- Paul Kiesel <k7cw@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 2004 - VHF contesters still want fixes for the
> rover
> >>> rules that have essentially remained unfixed for
> >>> almost two decades.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> The only change I want is a return to the
> original
> >> rover rules. CQ Magazine uses those rules for
> the
> >> CQVHF contest, and I think the spring and fall
> sprints
> >> use the original rover rules also.
> >>
> >> 73s John NE0P
> >>
> >>
> >>
> __________________________________________________
> >> Do You Yahoo!?
> >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> >> http://mail.yahoo.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|