I just wanted to jump in here with a comment. I am the Southeastern
Division Representative on the VHF UHF Advisory Committee (VUAC). All of
the members of the committee are very aware of the VHF survey and we have
studied and discussed it at great lengths. Having just finished a revision
of the EME rules we are now in the process of looking at the rover rules and
all of your suggestions are being noted (many of the VUAC members are on
this and other VHF reflectors). Digesting all of the hundreds of comments
we have received via email, surveys, personal contacts, etc. and coming to
some consensus on what the rover rules should be IS NOT easy or quick. Our
goal is to have some new rules in place for next years contests. Note that
I said a goal not a promise. You have now heard from the VUAC.
73
Jim, W4KXY
-----Original Message-----
From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave Agsten
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:10 PM
To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Missing Rover Response
I've had quite a few guys wonder what I was referring to when I mentioned
rules changes, so here I go. No more stuff about a VHF contest being a real
VHF contest but let's call it a 50Mhz and up contest. Enough on that.......
First, I too wonder what Black Hole the VHF survey from quite awhile ago
disappeared into??? ( Part of the reason for the "deaf ears in Newington"
comment) The VHF guys tried to suggest things the way the "Radio Politics"
in Newington seem to dictate, but nothing much has been heard from them or
the VHF/UHF Advisory Panel. ( Or whatever they call themsleves)
As far as rule changes go, here are a few that I'd like to see:
1) A single op rover category......they do it for high and low power fixed
single ops. A single op rover is at a real disadvantage over a two man team.
We don't really need the high/low power thing for rovers.
2) Use of APRS for rovers to transmit their positions. I don't see where
this would be much different from a fixed station knowing where to point
antennas towards another fixed station. It shouldn't change the operating
class for the fixed stations or rovers that use it either.
3) Perhaps some single band or group of bands categories to level the
playing field for those who can't afford or have the room/capability for 10+
bands. I'm thinking that there are some competitive guys out there,
interested in VHF or VHF/UHF contesting, but figure they can't compete with
stations that have SHF+ frequencies. Think about all the TS-2000, IC-7000,
IC-706, FT-736, etc. radios out there. I'm guessing a lot of them never get
on the low end of 2 or 432. If we want to build up the number or
participants in the VHF and above contests, we need to make it appealing to
those folks.
Pretty simple changes if you ask me. There were others too that sounded
good, but the survey seems to have disappeared.
73 to all,
Dave N8AG, ex W4TXS/R, ex KK4QY/R and ex WB1CJT fixed station de NH,
early 80s
PS: Also, how about QST devoting a couple of pages to publish full contest
results like they use to? No just for VHF+ contesting, but all ARRL
contests. They could still get all of their advertising in.........
---------------------------------
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
_______________________________________________
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
|