Unfortunately, I have no idea what the specifics of CQ's proposed rule
changes are, only what I can read in the article. I'm eager to read it for
myself, but have to believe that any rule change that allows assistance is
going to be positive in terms of total number of contacts. Contacts = Fun in
my book!
I also share your concerns about moving out of the lower 4 categories. Right
now, I have 902 and 1296 as well...but it's hard for me to justify spending
the additional money to get into the Microwave bands. Even as a rover, it
just doesn't make a lot of sense with the current rules.
One suggestion I heard today was to make the ARRL September event limited to
432 and lower. That's intriguing, and might help to make that contest more
popular.
73,
Les Rayburn, N1LF
EM63nf
121 Mayfair Park
Maylene, AL 35114
6M VUCC #1712
Grid Bandit #222
Life Member Central States VHF Society
-----Original Message-----
From: David All
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:18 PM
To: Les Rayburn
Cc: VHF Contesting Reflector ; w1xx@cq-amateur-radio.com ; Sean, KX9X Kutzko
; Greg Sarratt W4OZK
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF Contest Rules Change
I dont get CQ Magazine, can you detail what "passive assistance" is. Thanks
for making those of us in the contesting world who dont subscribe to this
Fantastic Magazine aware of what appears to be some good rule changes.
I have been racking my brain for a reason to invest 600+ dollars per band to
upgrade out of the lower 4 category. But at 600 and no longer even being
competitive in that new category, I ask what is the incentive to me or any
one else out there to make the investment. Are there suggestions for rule
change proposals that would make it worth the investment to jump out of the
4 band category.
There are so many bands in the VHF/UHF/Microwave spectrum that breaking the
list of bands into blocks like they did with the lower 4 as a class.
Granted if 2 additional classes are made from the UHF/Microwave spectrum if
you want to be competitive it will mean you will eventually need to purchase
equipment for all the bands in that class.
So you number crunchers out there, how competitive are the people who
competed with 3 bands against the ones who had all 4 in the lower 4 class.
Dave N3XUD/R FM19rw
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Les Rayburn <les@highnoonfilm.com> wrote:
The February 2011 issue of CQ Magazine includes contest results for last
year's "CQ WW VHF" contest, and an explanation of their decision to allow
"passive assistance" starting with the 2011 event. Complete details of the
rules change are promised in the June Issue.
This change better reflects the normal modes of operation on VHF, and
recognizes the inherent differences between VHF and HF contesting. The
articles specifically cites that "VHF usually demands antennas with narrow
beamwidths which must be pointed directionally to make the contact. This
capability is enhanced by utilizing information posted on the cluster with
logging programs that simply allow a mouse click to find the contact".
As usual, CQ Magazine seems to lead the way with common sense solutions to
VHF Contesting issues without the baggage of HF contesting bias, or a world
view that seems to think that VHF operation around the world is exactly the
same as it is in the Northeastern part of the United States.
For most of us in the rest of the country, the combination of weak signals
and highly directional antennas simply means that stations spend a lot of
time, like ships, "passing in the night" without either station being aware
that the other is even on during the contest period. This means fewer
contacts and a lot less fun.
I'd love to see the ARRL take a more enlightened viewpoint in regards to
assistance in VHF Contests, allowing for passive assistance. I suspect it
would make little or no difference as to who wins or loses the events (and
most of us casual contesters are not that concerned about winning anyway)
and would put a lot more new ones in the log. For many VHF Men, that's the
whole point of contest operation. It's basically an oversized "activity
night" for bands that are normally very quiet.
The topic ends by saying, "We think this will not only keep the CQ WW VHF
Contest up-to-date with present technology, but will also put more QSOs in
your log. That has to be a good thing. We hope you approve."
I can only speak for myself, CQ Magazine, but this is one VHF Contester who
certainly does! BRAVO!
73,
Les Rayburn, N1LF
EM63nf
121 Mayfair Park
Maylene, AL 35114
6M VUCC #1712
Grid Bandit #222
Life Member Central States VHF Society
_______________________________________________
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
|