Ron - You wrote:
"Perhaps a simple letter to the contest sponsors should be the next
step. To make this happen, someone from this group has to step up to
the plate and prepare it. The letter should include how distance based
scoring will benefit the contesting events. The letter should also
include examples of current distance base scoring and how it has been
successful. "
Here is a letter I recently wrote to my ARRL Director, N5ZGT, Brian
about several VHF/UHF contesting issues. I wrote this before I knew of
the VUAC's current recommendations, so some of it is redundant. It
does contain a simple and short proposal for distance based scoring in
the UHF contest. While I have no qualms about others using this letter
to send to their directors or the ARRL, I think it is more effective
if you write to your director in your own words and tell him what you
want. It may be different than what I want.
I don't think the problem is that the ARRL has not received adequate
proposals for distance based scoring. The problem lies elsewhere, and
I am not quite sure what it is.
Here is my letter to my Rocky Mountain ARRL DIrector, N5ZGT:
Brian - I note that the January Board of Directors meeting has come
and gone without further action on the VHF and UHF contest rules. Is
there any action on these rules being considered for the July BOD
meeting? Or any time before that?
As you know, an effective loophole to the 100 QSO rover limit has been
exploited in recent contests by limited rovers to effectively dominate
the category. While that in and of itself does not concern me nearly
as much as it does others, I am concerned that rules changes that may
be proposed to plug this loophole may impact rover activity and other
areas of the competition adversely. The rover class is a small but
active and critical subset of the VHF contesting community and I am
concerned that rash action could deplete its ranks.
I have provided input before on this and other rover issues to you. I
suspect that further limiting rover to rover contacts is the solution
that will be proposed. Maybe 30 is a more reasonable number? Or 100
total with all other rovers? I have no great opposition to this, but I
wonder if this recurring need to tweak the rover rules is an
indication that we should look elsewhere for a solution.
And that elsewhere is the 10 GHz contest. The majority of the
participants in that contest participate in rover packs that work
cooperatively . Yet there is no outcry against this by other
contestants. Why is this so? Well, the reason is that the scoring
does not benefit grid circling and pack roving as it does in the VHF/
UHF contests, because there are no multipliers. Pack roving benefits
all competitors.
As a trial, I suggest that we revamp the rules for one or more of the
VHF/UHF contests to follow the rules similar to the 10GHz contest.
Perhaps the easiest one to start with is the UHF contest. There are
only 200 or so active participants, so there are fewer people affected
by this change. The 10 GHz rules may need to be tweaked a bit, but I
think they form a good basis for effective change:
1. Exchange 6 digit grid squares.
2. 100 points for each unique call sign worked.
3. 1 point for each kilometer of distance worked per QSO calculated
from the 6 digit grid squares.
4. Add up the points for the total score.
5. Set a minimum QSO distance of 1 kilometer for QSOs with portable
(rover) stations
6. Allow stations to work again if they have moved a reasonable
distance, say 50 to 80 kilometers.
It might also make sense to use this or some derivative of it in the
January contest where propagation is typically flat.
There is no reason for all the VHF/UHF contests to have the same rules.
I am also interested in rule changes that allow all participants in
the VHF/UHF contests to use APRS location only data from rovers fed
from Find-U and similar pages on the internet. Currently the use of
this information is limited to multi op entries only. The original
VUAC recommendation was that all classes be allowed to use this data,
not just the multis. I think that in some quarters it was mistakenly
thought that frequency information was also sent and hence it was self
spotting, but only location could be sent and used during the contest.
As you know, I actively rove in all the VHF/UHF contests, enjoy it and
find it immensely rewarding. That is the origin of my concern about
this matter and this input.
I am copying several others to this e-mail, including Lauren, W0LD,
Rocky Mountain representative to the VUAC, K0BJ, chairman of the
Program and Services Committee, whom I believe has the final say on
these things, and Sean, KX9X.
Thanks for taking the time to consider this. - Duffey
Feel free to express similar sentiments to your director. The action
really starts with them.
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|