The last time this came up, I asked the experienced rovers how often they had
ever made uncoordinated contacts with other rovers. One guy said his maximum
was 30 but that was only once and never happened again. It was a very strange
set of circumstances that lead to it. Beyond that single person, none could
find a log or even a vague memory of making more than 10 to a single other
rover. It could happen, but the chances are very slim. If the number were 10
for Limited and 30 for Classic, I doubt you'd ever have a case where a rover
had to make a field decision about making the QSO and submitting in Unlimited
or not making that 11th or 31st contact.
I'll also point out that being moved to Unlimited is not punishment! It just
means you're going to be compared to different guys than you thought. No big
deal.
Steve
K4GUN/R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Evans" <dan.evans@insightbb.com>
To: "VHF contesting list" <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 6:53:13 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Rover stuff
I put Rover in the subject so all of those subscribed to the reflector
who don't like receiving email can easily delete it :-)
>This is where I have a "problem" with limiting the number of QSO's with
>another rover station to some arbitrary number, unless the formula for
>determining
>this rule can be made to be understandable to the participants without
>unnecessarily modifying the "normal" behavior of "uncoordinated" rovers who
>happen across other rovers during the contest.
I don't like this idea either. I believe this is likely why the number was
set so high in the current rules [100].
Here is an arbitrary scenario:
Rover A is northbound in EM77 and hears Rover B. Rover B is southbound in
EM79. They run their 10 bands for the first 10 QSO's. As both enter EM78,
they run another 10 QSO's, 20 total so far. When A hits EM79, and B hits EM77,
they run again and now have 30 each. And this could likely hit 50 or 60 QSO's
for each Rover in an "un-circled" meeting. I don't like the idea of penalizing
Rover A and B in this scenario.
I don't like the idea of restricting the "re-activation" of grids either, but
it may be the solution that hurts the least...
Here is a thought:
Drop grids as mults. Give one multiplier for each unique call sign
contacted.... Did I come up with this, or did someone else already propose it?
We have been over this ground so many times I can't remember... Sorry, I
haven't had my coffee yet this morning...
73
Dan
--
K9ZF /R no budget Rover ***QRP-l #1269 Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
<http://www.qsl.net/n9rla> List Administrator for: InHam+grid-loc+ham-books
Ask me how to join the Indiana Ham Mailing list!
>
_______________________________________________
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
|