Thanks for sharing Jon.
All this proposal appears to do is discourage people who want to operate 7
or more band rovers and work other rovers with that many bands. Sure, it'll
force the grid-circlers into the Unlimited category, but it will also sweep
up the individual multi-band rovers and their friends too, unless they're
careful not to make more than 30 contacts with another rover.
You're basically creating a situation where it would BENEFIT a rover like me
to become a circle-jerk, and to convince all the local rovers with lots of
bands to do the same -- if we're going to be forced to compete head-to-head
with the Californians, we might as well really COMPETE, instead of whining
like babies.
I sent a note to the multi-op guys that got me started that my gear's going
up for sale. Maybe someone can complain that the multi-op is using my free
radios to make contacts instead of home-brewing them out of two toothpicks
and a Dixie cup or something. I don't care anymore.
The Blue Angels are coming to town the weekend of the June contest this
year, and my wife's never seen a military jet demonstration team in person.
We'll be at the airport listening to the Sound of Freedom...
Have fun in 2009. I'm outta here. Also unsubscribing to the list, and I
really don't care to get off-list comments other than from friends. You
know who you are.
You know what else I predict? No matter what you guys do to the rules, the
Californians will continue to dominate the rover scores. They'll adapt and
COMPETE and the same voices on the list will continue to whine and moan and
do nothing to form their own teams or win.
Meanwhile, you just lost a 7-band rover. See ya.
Got better things to do with my time than try to get through to people that
this contest is about getting on the air on anything you can get your hands
on above VHF.
Thank you once again to the team at W0KVA for the great time. I'll keep
operating with you guys, but this rover rules changing every couple of years
is ridiculous.
Nate WY0X
-----Original Message-----
From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of jcplatt1@mmm.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:16 AM
To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Subject: [VHFcontesting] VUAC proposal to ARRL
Hello fellow VHF contesters. As you may know, I am the Dakota Division
VUAC representative. A full list of who is your ARRL Division VUAC
representative can be found at http://www.arrl.org/contests/vuac.html .
Just prior to the ARRL's January board meeting, your VUAC made the
following proposed VHF contest rule changes to the ARRL's Program &
Services Committee (PSC) whom we report to.
Rover rules. Change the General VHF Contest Rules to read:
2.3.8. Any rover making more than 30 contacts with any one other rover, or
more than 50% of its total contacts with other rovers, will be placed in
the Unlimited Rover category.
2.4. Limited Rover. Same as the "Rover" class above but participates with
no more than the four lowest frequency bands that are defined for any given
contest. Their output power is restricted to the same power levels as
those defined for the Single Operator Low Power category (2.1.1)
Minimum distance rule. Modify the General VHF Contest Rules to read:
1.10 While no minimum distance is specified for contacts, equipment shall
have been demonstrated to be capable of communications at a range of at
least 1 km.
Add club competition to the August UHF Contest. Modify General Contest
rule 8.1.9 by adding the following section:
8.1.9 (August) UHF Contest.
In addition to these three proposals, there was a fourth proposal that
dealt with proposed rule changes to the EME contest .... I didn't not copy
those here as most of the discussion has been around the rover rules. For
the Rover category you can see that we tightened the number of
rover-to-rover contacts without being overly prescriptive and while still
allowing for this type of fun contesting as a Unlimited Rover. We also
refocused the Limited Rover concept on "Joe- 706" by stating its the lowest
four bands, not any four bands you want. The minimum distance rule was
slight strengthened to insure that equipment can indeed work at least 1 km.
I think there are 16 VUAC members, so as you would guess we have wide
ranging discussions before this compromised was reached. Its my
understand that the VUAC proposal was passed on to the ARRL's Award
Committee which is a part of the process that all of this takes.
I may have stuck my neck out a bit as presenting work in progress .....
these proposed changes may or may not take affect .... but based on the
recent discussion here it seemed reasonable to keep fellow VHF contesters
informed.
73, Jon
W0ZQ
_______________________________________________
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
|