VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] Comments sought for new ARRL UHF Contest in May

To: VHF Contesting Reflector <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Comments sought for new ARRL UHF Contest in May
From: Mark Spencer <mark@alignedsolutions.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:15:16 -0700
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Here are some draft comments re the "new" UHF contest proposal that I am happy 
to share with the list before  pass my final comments onto the ARRL.


My only real issue with the "old" UHF contest rules was the short (24 hours 
iirc ?) operating time.  

This appears to be un changed in the new proposed rules.   I'd be happier with 
a longer operating period so stations on both the west coast and east coast 
could operate during both the early mornings and evenings on Saturday and 
Sunday.   

As an alternative if the organizers want to limit the contest to 24 hours I'd 
suggest moving to operating times based on local time vs UTC.   In my view that 
would help level the playing field from a propagation perspective, between the 
east and west coast.

I don't see the point of a weekend VHF plus contest being capped at 24 hours.   
Other groups already sponsor sprints that provide for shorter contests.

I'll have to ponder the implications of moving to distance based scoring yet 
banning EME contacts.   (I realize there are EME contests.) I suppose there is 
some logic to this as I can see EME stations that are able to work on the 
higher bands being able to "clean up" if distance based scoring was combined 
with EME.   I'd be happier without distance based scoring while allowing EME 
contacts but that is not a huge issue for me.  

The "Band Factors" seem to be heavily skewed towards microwave operation vs low 
to mid "UHF" operation.   Not a huge issue for me though.

I'd also be much happier with a contest date in the mid to late summer for a 
variety of reasons including better access to higher altitude sites, summer 
propagation, nicer weather etc. 

The comments made by others about  date conflicts with other contests are well 
founded and are yet another reason to keep the original date in August.

I'll be curious to see the impact of the new rover rules.

All the best

Mark S
VE7AFZ
Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 14, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Keith Morehouse <w9rm@calmesapartners.com> wrote:
> 
> Per today's 'ARRL Letter', the League is looking for comments on the
> proposed rules for the replacement UHF test.
> 
> Proposed items include:
> 
> *Held in May, over Mothers Day weekend.
> 
> *No EME QSOs.
> 
> *Team contesting.
> 
> *Scoring highly skewed toward microwave bands.
> 
> Comments due by first week in June.
> 
> Jay W9RM
> 
> Keith J Morehouse
> via MotoG
> _______________________________________________
> 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>