Marshall.. /R Class 'whatever'.. I think they 'All Should be Issued a
Certificate for Participation'.. Listing the Grid Squares they Worked,
etc.! That was a 'Lot of $' put out for everyones else's benefit.. !
Even put on it.. 'For Your #? Place Finish' ! Those Mag./Clubs that put
those contests on.. have more money than..well..us! And a Cheap
Photocopy of a Certificate.. and a $1 for postage.. seems like a
'slight' "Thank You" for Participating..!
Sorry I missed you guys again this one..! 'Next One, eh !'
Jerry VE6CPP
DN39or
Marshall Williams wrote:
> Hello to all on the list....I was one of those that proposed the 3 tier
> rover class system that we have today. When I proposed what became the
> "Limited Rover Class", I proposed that it be ONLY 6M, 2M, and 432.
> Since I do not spend all my time thinking of how people will abuse the
> system, I did not propose power limits at that time, but later proposed
> that the class should be 6M/100W, 2M/50W, and 432/35W.....this would
> work with all the radios that we are familiar with....the ICOM 706/7000,
> the Yaesu 857D/897D, the Yaesu 736R, and the TS2000(yes you would have
> to turn the power down slightly for the the TS2000, but that is easily
> done in the menu system). This would have been perfect AND would have
> presented a level playing field for everyone. NO amplifiers, NO
> transverters, NO extra bands, NO BS.
>
> What did we get??? We got a class with the big three and
> 222(eventually) and power limits that make no sense. Some on the VUAC
> were very strong on the inclusion of the extra band.....I cannot imagine
> why. Beginners will NOT go out and try something new, work their butts
> off, and spend a lot of money on gas, food, and lodging, when they KNOW
> in advance that they have no chance. Any "beginner" type rover knows
> that a team with 4 bands and the maximum power allowed in the class is
> going to beat them with their bare ICOM 706 or ICOM 700.
>
> I tried to get the ARRL to issue First, Second, and Third certificates
> for the rovers in each Division. No luck there either. Certificates
> are really cheap.....especially compared to the effect that they
> generate. A "newbie" who won Third Place in the Delta Division or the
> Roanoke Division would be hooked for life. But now, the newbie gets
> ABSOLUTELY NOTHING until he wins First Place in his Division.......
>
> Creating a special class, the Unlimited Rover, for those folks that are
> using "special techniques" did not work either. For some reason, known
> only to them, the grid circling/pack roving/coordinated rovers/whatever
> view the Unlimited Rover Class as the "penalty box" and will not compete
> in the class created especially for them. In typical ARRL fashion, the
> rules did not require those using "special techniques" to actually be
> placed in the class specifically made for them.
>
> Anyway, another June contest is in the books. We at K5QE did well on
> 6M, fair on 2M, and poor on the rest of the bands. Propagation was way
> down, except for 6M and that was pretty darn good.....I hope everyone
> did well and enjoyed the contest.
>
> 73 Marshall K5QE
>
> James Duffey wrote:
>
>> The log submission has closed for the 2010 June ARRL VHF QSO Party and
>> claimed scores have been posted on the ARRL site. It was a successful
>> contest with 1107 Cabrillo logs submitted and if previous years are any
>> indication, another 100 or so paper logs with 10 of them being rovers will
>> be added.
>>
>> Overall activity appears to be strong and comparable to previous years, so
>> the contest is healthy, if not growing slightly. Widespread sporadic E over
>> much of the country during most of the contest kept interest up and people
>> at their operating position. The widespread and lengthy Es made roving very
>> effective and productive. Good Es activity usually results in lots of logs
>> being submitted.
>>
>> Below are the preliminary 2010 results tabulated with previous years. As I
>> am primarily interested in the Rover class, this table only goes back to
>> 1991, the year the Rover Category was instituted. The Rover category as a
>> whole appears to be healthy, if down a bit from previous years, but when
>> paper logs are submitted, the total fraction of rovers will probably be
>> pretty close to historic values. The price of fuel was reasonable this year,
>> so that had little effect on rover activity.
>>
>> Year Entries Rovers % total Notes
>> 2010 1107* 88* 7.9* *No paper logs
>> 2009 1152 102 8.9
>> 2008 1074 96 8.9 New Rover categories
>> 2007 860 98 11.3
>> 2006 1047 96 9.2
>> 2005 840 92 11.2
>> 2004 766 91 11.9
>> 2003 818 92 11.2
>> 2002 672 84 12.5
>> 2001 680 61 9.0
>> 2000 749 62 8.3
>> 1999 701 75 10.7
>> 1998 865 72 8.3
>> 1997 837 74 8.8
>> 1996 923 72 7.8
>> 1995 837 52 6.2 Rules Change
>> 1994 781 68 8.7
>> 1993 818 63 7.7 Rules Change
>> 1992 840 64 7.6
>> 1991 710 50 7.0 Rover class initiated
>>
>> Below is a table with the breakdown by Rover category since 2008, the first
>> year multiple Rover categories were used. Due to ambiguities in the Cabrillo
>> tags, I suspect that there are really only 5 Unlimited Rover entries this
>> year and that the other four belong in the Limited Rover or Classic Rover
>> classes. There are similar ambiguities, although not as many, in the Limited
>> Rover entries, but I suspect that will get sorted before the results are
>> finalized. If you are a rover, you may want to check your entry in the logs
>> submitted page on the ARRL Site and drop KX9X an e-mail with the correct
>> entry class if you have different categories in the Category and Type
>> Columns listed on the logs submitted page.
>>
>> Year Classic Limited Unlimited Total
>> 2010 37 42 9 88
>> 2009 60 37 5 102
>> 2008 61 26 8 95
>>
>> The migration of operators from the Classic Rover category jumps out at one
>> from this table. It appears that many are going to the Limited Rover
>> category. As of now it appears that the Limited Rover entries will outnumber
>> the Classic Rover entries for the first time since the categories were
>> introduced. Even if all of the remaining logs to be submitted are Classic
>> Rovers, this will still be a significant drop in Classic Rover activity.
>> This cannot be healthy for contest microwave activity. I suppose that this
>> migration from Classic Rover to Limited Rover is to be expected as a similar
>> migration was seen from Multi to Limited Multi years ago. The growth in the
>> Limited Rover category appears to be healthy, but it is not due to
>> attracting new operators with 706 class rigs as was envisioned when the
>> category was created, but rather appears to be coming at the expense of
>> Classic Rovers. So the question remains unanswered, what do we do to attract
>> Joe-706 pack to VHF contesting
?
>>
> T
>
>> he Unlimited Rover category continues to languish with only 9 (and perhaps
>> as few as 5) entries and, as far as I can tell, only KR0VER/r and N0LP/r
>> used it was envisioned when the category was created. Can this category
>> continue without more activity or a rules change to encourage more
>> participants?
>>
>> There were several big, for the category anyway, scores put up in the
>> Limited Rover Category. And, with a single exception, these scores were put
>> up by Limited Rovers operating alone, without the benefit of coordination
>> with other rovers at grid boundaries. K5HN/r put up a score of 92,738
>> topping the Limited Rover category with no apparent coordinated activity
>> with other rovers. Ironically, this was for the North Texas Microwave
>> Society.:^)= NO5LA/r, whose claimed score does not appear on the ARRL web
>> page with his log submission, but who posted a claimed score of 86,339 on
>> the 3830 site, also appeared to operate without coordination with other
>> rovers. Less than 2000 points separate the apparent 3rd, 4th, and 5th place
>> finishers in the Limited Rover Category, showing that this is indeed a
>> competitive category. Interestingly enough, W6YLZ/r may have been
>> handicapped by his participation with the Southern California Contest Club
>> coordinated rovers as his claimed score is si
g
>>
> ni
>
>> ficantly down from his score last year when he roved solo. There appear to
>> be 8 limited rover scores above 50,000, which, over the past couple of
>> years, several on this list declared was impossible without coordinated
>> roving. Well, seven of those scores appear to be done with no coordination
>> with other rovers. In the past it has also been said on this list that
>> Limited Rovers who did not engage in coordinated roving techniques such as
>> pack roving and grid circling could not be competitive with those that did
>> partake in those practices, even with lots of Es. This year's contest
>> clearly shows that is no longer the case. Limiting the bands to the lowest
>> four and the number of QSOs with rovers seems to have had its effect in the
>> Limited Rover category.
>>
>> The Southern California Contest Club coordinated rovers have the 6 top
>> claimed scores in the Classic Rover category and, with two other Southern
>> California Contest Club rovers who did not submit claimed scores, appear to
>> have the top 8 Rover spots nailed down. Coordinated roving is an effective
>> strategy for winning the club competition, especially when bolstered by even
>> modest fixed station contributed scores from other club members. I wonder
>> though, if the domination of the Classic Rover category by the Southern
>> California Contest Club pack rovers is driving some Classic Rovers to the
>> Limited Rover category to where they perceive that they can be more
>> competitive.
>>
>> With the 10 vehicle rover pack from Southern California well ensconced in
>> the VHF and UHF contests, and perhaps several more from around the country
>> whose similar activities do not rack up such large scores, and probably a
>> similar number of captive rovers who do not submit logs, it dawns on me that
>> this activity, which I lump under coordinated roving, has reached 15% or 20%
>> of the total rover activity in ARRL contests. When one thinks about it, this
>> is a relatively large number compared to the total number of rovers.
>> Political Scientists, for example, cite this number as what is generally
>> required to support significant social change. There are pluses and minuses
>> to this activity and many of the pros and cons have been discussed on this
>> list before, but the number of rovers who participate in coordinated roving
>> is becoming significant and the impact of their activities continues to
>> grow. As an example of one impact, It appears to me that one cannot
>> currently win a contest
c
>>
> om
>
>> petition in the medium category without at least a modest contribution from
>> coordinated roving.
>>
>> When one ponders it, having ten-10 band stations that can be deployed at 75
>> mph essentially anywhere within a 175 mile circle in any of several
>> categories, not just the rover categories, is a powerful tool. Those
>> stations will have a significant impact in a contest, even if their use is
>> restricted in the Rover categories.
>>
>> Some thoughts. I will update this assessment when the results are final. -
>> Duffey
>> --
>> James Duffey KK6MC
>> DM65tc
>> Cedar Crest NM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
--
"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world, doesn't mean you are
any wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar." ---Edward R. Murrow
ve6cpp@rac.ca
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|