VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] Endorse Rover Rules Revisions EXCEPT the 30 Q Limit

To: Mike Metroka <VHFRover@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Endorse Rover Rules Revisions EXCEPT the 30 Q Limit
From: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:47:18 -0500
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Mike,

I see and understand your point, but I think the CA group has shown that
they can't be trusted with a long leash.  I'm also a solo rover but as
Limited one meaning I only have 4 bands.  The chances of me hitting the same
other rover for 30 Q's is remote.

Because of my frustration with the CA group, I was and remain willing to
lower the limit to 4 for Limited Rover and 10 for Classic Rover.  Yes, that
would mean I had to stop making Q's with some stations, but its a sacrafice
I am willing to make.  The only reason I think 30 is a good compromise is
because of the new 50% rule.  Were it not for that, I think 30 would still
mean Wayne and the Lunchbox Brigade would make a mockery of the system.

I like the proposed new rules.  I hope they are adopted.  I would encourage
them to allow Limited Rovers the option of 1.2 GHz, but even that one
doesn't affect me.

With similar levels of respect,
Steve
K4GUN/R

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Mike Metroka <VHFRover@aol.com> wrote:

> Some, including rovers who I really respect, apparently haven't thought
> through the many varied ways that rovers operate before proposing to limit
> rover-to-rover Qs from the old unlimited level to the present 100 and now
> to
> 30 Qs. It appears that they have their blinders on. I suspect that their
> rover plans take them through relatively low population areas which also
> have low rover activity. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they experience
> very low rover-to-rover Qs. There just aren't many rovers out where they
> choose to operate! I encourage rarer grid rover plans (I have done them
> myself) as it offers fixed stations rare grid opportunities but don't think
> that every rover participates in the same manner.
>
> By choice I am a solo rover (no buddy in the car to help drive, log or
> operate). I rove because my home QTH stinks for fixed VHF/UHF operation in
> all but one direction (See my poor results in the last January contest!). I
> live in a high population area (Chicago suburbs) and have done everything
> from 2 grid roves up to 12 grid roves while running up to 6 bands. Any
> rover
> will tell you that a 12 grid rove takes a lot of planning, time, effort and
> a little financing. As a result, many rovers including myself cannot afford
> to make big rover trips every time out.
>
> So my typical rove covers 6 grids in the Milwaukee/Chicago area. On
> Saturday
> I hit EN53va (2.5 hrs) & EN63ab (1 hrs) then head south to EN62ad (2 hrs)
> where I operate until heading home though EN52 for the night. The next
> morning I head out again and operate from EN52xc (3 hrs), move to EN51xr (3
> hrs), stop at EN61ax (1 hrs), then double back to EN62ad (2.5 hrs) until
> the
> end of the contest. I do very little operation in between my stops.
>
> Now if one of several active Chicago area rovers also participates in the
> contest, runs common bands and hits all 4 local grids as they move through
> the area, it is easy for the two of us to exceed the proposed 30 Q
> rover-to-rover limit (no coordination involved). To exceed the 30 Q limit I
> don't have to do anything special other than stick to my schedule and move
> to just one other grid while the other rover is still working the local
> area.
>
> The VUAC is trying to level the rover playing field but I hope that you see
> that the proposed 30 Q limit is going too far. During most contests I would
> have to turn down what I consider to be good, legitimate non-trivial
> distance Qs with another rover. In my mind this runs against the
> foundational guideline of stations working as many other stations as
> possible. The new proposed 30 Q limit would encroach on the operation of a
> modest rover station. Let's think things through before making rule
> changes.
> Reject the proposed 30 Q rover-to-rover limit and maintain the present 100
> Q
> limit. I have no issues with the other proposed rule modifications.
>
> Sorry for being long winded.
>
> Respectfully,
> Mike WB8BZK/R
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>