Hi Duane
I agree with you. Leveling the playing field is certainly not the issue and
distance scoring may or may not help. I do think it would help get the
rovers off the roads and back to using higher gain directional antennas and
operating more from good locations which would in turn save them time and
gas. I just can't imagine the future of rovers if the gas prices don't come
back down. To get people to move up the bands when 6 is open is to increase
the points per contact. Currently, the qso points are the same in June for 6
and 2 meters. Since 6 was open for so long, the only incentive last weekend
to move to 2 meters was to get a new multiplier, set up higher band contact,
or listen for the e skips possibilities as the MUF came up.
After operating VHF contest for over 30 years, I can tell you that the 6
meter opening last weekend was out side of the normal band conditions for
the June contest. Building more capable stations for DX and working more
bands should be the goal for everyone. Using 6 digits is not necessary but
helps to determine the direction of a station especially for the microwave
operators. I think using 6 digits should remain optional and not required.
A (true contester) goes to the band where he can make the most score for the
time spent. A (VHF DXer) is looking for new grids activated in the contest.
A (VHF newbe) is just wanting to get on and work someone to learn about the
bands and meet other people. We have a lot of people that get on in contest
for many different reasons but the bottom line is to have fun. I think
striving for distance contacts (DX) on any band by any station fits many
operator profiles regardless of the individuals motivations. Distance
scoring is certainly going to enhance the reason to make further contacts.
Sooner or later the newbe will eventually move to one or both of the
other categories mentioned.
Ron W4WA
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Duane - N9DG <n9dg@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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 conundrum.
>
> 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.
>
> Duane
> N9DG
>
>
> --- On Fri, 6/20/08, David Olean <k1whs@metrocast.net> wrote:
>
> > From: David Olean <k1whs@metrocast.net>
> > Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] 6meter
> > To: "Ron Hooper" <w4wa@alltel.net>, "Gabor Horvath, VE7DXG" <
> ve7dxg@rac.ca>
> > 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
> > competitive,
> > 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
> > many.
> > 2. Big antennas They are unfair too. I can't swing a
> > big antenna in my
> > yard.
> > 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
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|