Hello Les and everyone else....I was the one the proposed the Simple
Rover Class. It was to be 6M, 2M, and 432 only. The VUAC did not like
my name and called it the Limited Rover Class....well that is OK, it
sort of goes along with other class names that they have. I did not
care about the name anyway.....it was the CONCEPT that was important.
Somehow, there were members on the VUAC that just INSISTED that 222 be
put in there.
I tried to explain that Johnny Joe706pack would not go out with 6M, 2M,
and 432 if he knew that there would be people out there with those bands
AND 222. He would understand immediately that he had no chance since
the rovers with 222 would rack up 8, 10, or more extra multipliers. The
VUAC still insisted that 222 needed to be there. And, sure enough, the
number of Limited Rovers is low....in fact, the number of such rovers is
VERY low compared to the number of guys that have an IC706, and IC7000,
a Yaesu 895D or 897D, or other such rigs. There are literally thousands
of those out there.....there certainly are not thousands of Limited Rovers.
Adding a 3-band class to the Rover category is just an added
complication, that further splits up the entries. The Limited Rover
class should be 6M, 2M, and 432 only. However, getting the VUAC to
admit that they made a mistake here is almost assuredly an impossible
task. No one wants to admit that they were wrong. IF the Limited Rover
class were to be re-defined as 6M, 2M, and 432 with the power limits
being set at 100W, 50W, and 35W then anyone with one of the above rigs
would be able to slap a couple of loop antennas on the top of their car
with mag mounts and go out to rove. We would all benefit from a lot
more rovers out, even if they are "simple rovers". Simple is what the
VHF rookies need. Everyone would be on the same footing....band wise
and power wise. It would be a very fair class....and people would know
that it was fair. No 8877s in the mobile ambulance van and no "extra
band". Just everyone out with the same gear and power levels.
This is another one where continued lobbying from members all around the
country might fix this problem.....
73 Marshall K5QE
On 1/22/2013 7:48 PM, Les Rayburn wrote:
Some encouraging news and discussion here regarding the new "FM Only"
Category. Also very interested in the "Three-Band" Category which also
looks like a winner.
Going the next step, I've seen several good ideas here:
1.) Adding similar categories to the Spring and Fall Sprints. (Club
sponsors, are you listening?)
2.) Creating state-wide contests, perhaps "nestled" inside larger ARRL
events that awarded certificates by Zip Code. (Great idea, giving a
lot more opportunity for small stations to be competitive)
3.) Perhaps adding an "FM Only Rover" and/or "Three Band Rover"
category to encourage more rover activity.
I'll be looking forward to the results from this event eagerly. I even
questioned what category I should enter in myself, perhaps FM or three
band only---leaving my SSB/CW contacts to be counted only as a check log.
For a station operating with indoor antennas, it would be nice to feel
like you were being competitive with someone besides just yourself.
I'm even thinking of trying to add a longer vertical beam to the
shack--currently FM is limited to four elements and 50 watts. Can't
wait to see the logs.
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|