I too am a long time proponent of distance based scoring. Not so much for the
notion of "leveling the playing field", whatever that is. But instead to
build-in more incentive for all of the participants to want to build more
capable stations. More stations that there are that can make the long haul Q's,
then the more Q's there is for everybody. The way it is now there is
comparatively little incentive for people in the denser population centers to
build better stations to pick up just another dozen Q' on 2M or above when they
can make nearly 100 closer by with fairly modest antenna systems. Also with the
current emphasis on Q counts over distance we get silly things like grid
circling by rovers and rovers clinging to population center. Rovers would want
to do that simply because that's where the Q's are, that's understandable.
Although fuel prices now may be the biggest disincentive long haul roves.
A 6 digit grid exchange based distance based scoring system would not
necessarily break the ability to compare new score with old scores because
extracting Q counts and 4 digit grids is a piece of cake. Calculating scores by
the contest sponsor is no challenge either with computerized log checking.
At this point the single biggest challenge of distance based scoring is how to
handle 6M. Simple distance based scoring will turn almost every VHF contest in
to a 6M only event. Today even with a decent 6M opening the ops that score very
well overall also show a strong presence on the higher bands. It is somewhat
rare for 6M only op to win a VHF contest even with a wide open band all
weekend, though they can make a real good run at it. But trying to scale 6M
Q/distance values destroys the value of 6M Q's if there is no Es at all. I
really don't know what the answer is for the 6M distance based scoring
And if I'm not mistaken don't many of the EU VHF contests use distance based
scoring? And from what I can tell they have high levels of participation.
--- On Fri, 6/20/08, David Olean <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> From: David Olean <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] 6meter
> To: "Ron Hooper" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Gabor Horvath, VE7DXG" <email@example.com>
> Cc: VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> Date: Friday, June 20, 2008, 7:31 AM
> Hi Ron,
> I am with you, but anytime the concept is brought up,
> the complaints
> start flying. The fact is that contest stations are built
> to accomodate the
> conditions in the geographical area of that station. I
> live in a remote
> area far away from most VHF active population centers. The
> only one I can
> take adavntage of is the Boston Area, about 100 miles away.
> Philly is 350
> miles. NYC is 250 miles away. Needless to say, a seven
> element two meter
> yagi would be a waste of time here. If I lived between
> Philly or NYC I might
> be very happy with a seven element yagi. I could be
> contestwise, as the numbers of stations I could work would
> be high. Here in
> rural Maine, I would work about 25 stations.
> The complaints revolve around the unfair advantage
> gained from:
> 1. Running high power VHF amps cost too much and are not
> affordable for
> 2. Big antennas They are unfair too. I can't swing a
> big antenna in my
> 3. Towers cost way too much money. I can't compete
> without a big tower.
> 4. Running too many bands. Transceivers are too expensive
> making it
> impossible to compete.
> Still it would be fun to have distance scoring. It
> removes the
> advantage, to a small extent, of stations in high
> population areas. I think
> it levels the geographical playing field a bit.
> Dave K1WHS
VHFcontesting mailing list