You make and have made some good points here Jim.
The multiple entry/operator is an anomoly that could easily be eliminated.
So long as you use an entirely separate station the rule should be the same
as it is for the HF SS.
Rule 1.2 is a sticky wicket. Beyond the hamfest situation it prevents a bus
full of operators using a single rover station to pile up points for a
friend - or a club for that matter. I don't see a way around that unless the
rules allow an exception for demonstation purposes such as you have
suggested.
I have no problem with manufactured QSOs so long as the mode demands it like
MS with FSK441. Small station EME schedules might be another such instance.
But I just don't like schedules on modes that don't need them like cw and
ssb tropo contacts. Or EME contacts between stations with sufficient antenna
and power now that we have various forms of MAP65. For that matter
essentially ALL ol our contacts above 2 meters are manufactured from
schedules on 2 and 6 meters. The last time I looked at a counter from K8GP
on 432 I saw less than 20 contacts as the result of over 4000 CQs and I had
well over 250 Qs total that weekend.
_____
From: Jimk8mr@aol.com [mailto:Jimk8mr@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:52 PM
To: ezimmerm@erols.com; vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Activity in the ARRL VHF Contests SInce 1991
I think we all agree that getting the IC-706 or K3 kind of HF guy into VHF
is critical. And while we can all beg and plead to our friends to get on,
we are stuck with an old rule in the ARRL contests that is counterproductive
in the quest to get those guys on the air. That is the rule (General VHF
Rule 1.3) that limits an operator to one entry. That precludes a very
effective way to show guys what VHF is - an experienced VHF guy going to a
newbie's QTH and showing him in person what his station can do. (Sure, we
could do it and not send in an entry, but if his station is on the air why
not get his call into the results?)
I have asked over the years, and nobody has ever been able to come up with a
rationale for this rule. Does anyone care to try again?
A related rule - VHF rule 1.2 - also limits a transmitter, receiver, or
antenna to being used under only one call. I understand a reason for this
rule - cases such as the guys at a big hamfest back 10 years, who had a flea
market spot with a yagi pointed towards a distant multiop hilltop QTH,
inviting guys to hook up their HT's and work that multi. But at the same
time if I could take a couple of antennas and a couple of bands of radios
(essentially a rover station) to a friend's place, and show him in person
what can be done on VHF, along with a running explanation of VHF contesting,
that would be a far more effective approach than hoping he gets on and can
figure it out on his own.
I've been doing multiple station, multiple entries for years in the HF CW
SS, and nobody minds the extra qsos. What is the hangup on VHF? Also, if
necessary, could a different approach be used to prevent manufactured qsos,
so that one could demonstrate VHF contesting in real life?
73 - Jim K8MR
In a message dated 3/2/2010 2:28:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ezimmerm@erols.com writes:
Duffey
You are quite right about the June contest which shows increased activity in
SPITE of the rules. I would guess that if you looked at the bands used in
June you would find that June 2006 was just spectacular conditions. But if
you look at 2008 and 2009 you would find the same core of multiband stations
and a new group of six meter only and/or 6 and 2 stations using HF/VHF
relative;y high end radios. These newcomers were particularly noticable this
last January - at least two dozen new locals who had only 6 or at best 6 and
2. Probably another dozen like that 150-300 km away. That's all to the good.
But they won't migrate past June if they have no way to compete within their
own restrictions.
Let's face the fact that VHF is a new world for these guys and they are not
going to either spend the money or even initially have the technical
capability to build 10 band stations. We have a good example of a
flourishing domestic VHF contest - the CQ VHF July contest which does ONLY 6
and 2 meters and allows single band competition. Even last year with
dreadful conditions it maintained a good part of the activity it sees with
lots of Es. In any case it has 3x the logs it had 10 years ago when it
started. Because of the geography, east coast stations are at a severe
DISADVANTAGE in the CQ contest. It's much like the HF SS except that the
west coast does not do as well comparatively because there is usually less
Es out there.
There are several things we can do. For one we can start with distance
scoring in at least one of the ARRL contests - probably September is best
because it will not be impacted as much by Es. We need to reconsider a
limited single op category perhaps limiting it to 6, 2 and 432 and allowing
single band competitions within it. In any case we need to cultivate these
new HF/VHF ops instead of driving them away with a scoring system that
emphasizes microwave contacts and trivializes contacts on 6 and 2 meters.
Tell me how well the HF contests would be doing if we required a competive
entrant to have 10 acres, 5 200 foot rotating towers with stacked arrays on
10-40, 80 and 160 meter foursquares and half a dozen 550 foot beverages
along with a mature SO2R station driving solid state legal limit amplifiers.
Or at least two 100 ft+ towers and several acres of low band receiving
antennas even in order to turn in a score that wouldn't embarrass you.
That's the equivalent of what the VHF contests require. Old timers have
heard this from me before and nothing has happened. I suspect nothing will
happen this time either.
--Gene W3ZZ
-----Original Message-----
From: James Duffey [mailto:jamesduffey@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 8:34 PM
To: Eugene Zimmerman; VHF Contesting Reflector
Cc: James Duffey
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Activity in the ARRL VHF Contests SInce 1991
Gene - Thanks for the kind comments on the data. I have included some more
in this post, incorporating your % of max participation.
Looking at The January contest is interesting in that it was the first VHF
contest, followed by the September and June contest. Of even more interest
is the fact that activity in the January VHF contest peaked in 1961. There
have been local peaks since then, the most recent in 1996 as you point out.
Here is a table with the activity for all the ARRL VHF contests, with a
percentage of the mid 90s max, 1996 for January and June, 1997 for
September. While the January and September contests show the trend you note,
that is that activity has been more or less constant in this decade and down
from the mid 90s peak, the June contest has shown significant growth over
the decade and is higher than the mid 90s peak. In fact the 2006, 2008, and
2009 contests set all time highs for entries in the June contest.
Table - VHF Contest Activity since Rover Class was introduced in 1991
Year Jan %1996 June %1996 Sept %1997
2010 759 62 NA NA NA NA
2009 649 53 1136 123 594 79
2008 709 58 1074 116 482 64
2007 778 64 860 93 561 75
2006 793 65 1047 113 531 71
2005 712 58 840 91 629 84
2004 834 68 766 83 558 74
2003 798 65 818 89 520 69
2002 802 66 672 73 535 71
2001 790 65 680 74 553 74
2000 820 67 749 81 583 78
1999 966 79 701 76 606 81
1998 1075 88 865 94 617 82
1997 1182 97 837 91 751 100
1996 1219 100 923 100 700 93
1995 1171 96 837 91 686 91
1994 1013 83 781 85 687 91
1993 1036 85 818 89 621 83
1992 958 77 840 91 591 79
1991 710 77 415 55
Why is the June contest healthy and the January and September contests
pretty much holding their own? As you note, I suspect that the presence of
those HF rigs with 6M introduced in the last decade coupled with lots of
E-Skip and hence lots of activity in June have a lot to do with that. The
FFMA supplying another award to chase is certainly another. It is all easier
to grasp if you cut this table out and paste it into a spreadsheet and graph
it.
W9KGA is probably the guy who should be doing this analysis, he has a much
better understanding of the ebbs and flows of VHF contesting activity since
its inception than I have.
I agree with you that VHF contesting needs to be made more attractive and to
do this, as you say, we need to find a way for the guy with a limited
station to have fun and rack up a reasonable score. How do you propose we
accomplish this? - Duffey
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|