I am told the original reason for 2 points for CW and 1 for SSB was a good
phone operator could make twice as many QSO's per unit of time as a CW op
and the differential leveled the playing field. If we used this logic
digital modes would be worth more points, not fewer. This proposal seems
be directed at discouraging new technology and encouraging two modes that
are between 50 and 100 years old.
Okay by me but sooner rather than later we are going to have to accept that
the digital modes are here to stay.
Johnny
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 21:42 N12614--- via VHFcontesting <
vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
> I am primarily a 2m kind of guy and when I first read this I was intrigued
> and after thinking about would like to propose something similar but a
> little different.
>
> I like the three contacts per station on each band.
>
> I like the different points for digital and nondigital modes but, as
> someone
> else said I would count voice and CW contacts similarly since I also have
> made many cross-mode contacts. For argument sake lets pick 1 point for a
> digital mode contact and 4 points for a non-digital mode. The point
> differences are significant enough to encourage switching off of digital
> during band openings since the value of the contact goes way up.
> Unfortunately, I can't think of a simple way to separate MS and EME from
> other digital modes at this time so they would still count as digital. I'm
> sure someone smarter than I will come up with a way.
>
> My other change would be to grant multiplier credit by mode-grid instead of
> just by grid.
>
> Work me CW, SSB, and MS on 2m in EM04 and get 9 QSO points (4+4+1) and 3
> multipliers for a max score of 27 points on 2m.
>
> Maybe we can try this during the Fall Sprints as a test run.
>
> Looking forward to the discussion.
>
> Don, AC5D
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting-bounces+n12614=aol.com@contesting.com>
> On
> Behalf Of Bob, W3IDT
> Sent: Monday, 16 March, 2020 18:19
> To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Fwd: VHF Contests Rules Discussion and Proposal
>
>
> I have sent the following discussion and proposal for VHF Contest Rule
> Changes to appropriate ARRL and CQ contest personnel. If you are interested
> in the future of VHF contests, please read carefully and offer your
> considered opinions and alternate recommendations.
>
> Please forward to your local contest and vhf clubs.
>
> [A copy of this email with a PDF version attached for ease of
> re-distribution is somewhere in the email system; it may or may not appear
> in VHFcontesting.]
>
> TO: Distribution List
> at bottom of this memo.
>
> FROM: Robert F. Teitel, w3idt
> for the Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators
> VHF contest club, W3SO
>
> And while this proposal is NOT an official
> Potomac Valley Radio Club (PVRC) position,
> it does represent what appears to be a
> consensus of a number of our VHF operators.
>
> RE: VHF Contests Rules Discussion and Proposal
>
>
>
> CONTEXT:
>
> The Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators VHF club (operating first as W3YOZ
> then as W3SO in Western Pennsylvania) has participated in almost every VHF
> contest for the past 25 years.[*]
>
> We usually produce among the top scores in the limited multi-operator
> class.
> Thus we are in a position to comment on VHF contesting from long and
> extensive experience.
>
> [*] Only exception has been four January contests when we had snow and ice
> so bad that operating was simply not possible. This past January
> 2020 contest, after a couple of hours of operation, we lost the rest of
> Saturday due to ice, and had to wait until at least some of the ice melted
> on Sunday to resume operation. Such is life contesting from a mountaintop
> in
> Western Pennsylvania in the winter. The rest of the year it's usually very
> nice!]
>
> SUMMARY:
>
> 1. We don't need to research detail numbers of contest participants or
> number of QSOs to know what has happened to VHF contests in the past year
> or
> so: CW and SSB participation is WAY down, and activity on 222 and 432 has
> almost disappeared. Oh yeah, a huge continent-wide Eskip opening does bring
> some participants, once the word gets out. But that does not represent
> normal contest activity.
>
> In short, Marshall, K5QE, - who manages another major limited
> multi-operator
> class station - stated the essence of the problem in his
> 3830 post with his results from the January 2020 VHF contest:
> "NOT A SINGLE SSB CONTACT ON 6M".
>
> The cause is, of course, the tremendous increase in the use of FT8.
>
> 2. We do NOT have anything against FT8 (or FT4).
> Its use for weak signal contacts on HF and VHF has been a tremendous
> advance, especially for the increasing number of hams living in antenna
> restricted communities. We also don't object to appropriate use of FT8 in
> VHF contests (though we wish more stations would make use of the more
> contest oriented FT4).
>
> 3. There has been much discussion lately, in the VHF contesting reflector
> and among VHF operators, concerning what should be done to increase
> activity
> on the VHF bands during contests.
>
> The following are among the major suggestions:
>
> A: Banning DIGITAL operations in general, or FT4/FT8 specifically, in VHF
> contests.
> We do NOT favor this approach.
>
> B. Allocate DIFFERENT point values to the (SINGLE) contact per station made
> with CW, with VOICE, or with DIGITAL modes in general or with
> FT4/FT8 specifically.
> We do NOT favor this approach.
>
> C: Change the various VHF contests to have different rules; that is, for
> example, have the ARRL January contest be ALL FT4/FT8; the ARRL June
> contest
> have different point values depending on the contact mode; and the
> September
> contest a multi-mode contest (and let the CQ contest committee and VHF
> contest manager make a choice among various options for the July contest).
> We do NOT favor this approach.
>
> D: Add more competitive classes, such as an "FT4/FT8 only" class to
> complement the current "FM only" class.
> We do NOT favor this approach.
> In fact, we would favor the removal of the "FM only" class.
>
> E1: Permit MULTIPLE contacts with the same station using different modes,
> CW, VOICE(AM,SSB,FM), and ANY DIGITAL, with the SAME contact value for each
> contact.
> We MILDLY favor this approach in general, but have some concerns regarding
> specific rules.
>
> E2: Permit MULTIPLE contacts with the same station using different modes,
> CW, VOICE(AM,SSB,FM), and ANY DIGITAL, with DIFFERENT point values to
> contacts in different modes.
> We STRONGLY favor this approach in general, but again have some concerns
> regarding specific rule (as discussed below).
>
>
> DISCUSSION:
>
> on A: Banning DIGITAL operations in general, or FT4/FT8 specifically.
>
> Stations not near densely population areas rely on Meteor Scatter (MS) and
> Earth-Moon-Earth (Moon-Bounce or EME) modes to work grids outside their
> immediate vicinity; we certainly do NOT want to ban such activity; in fact,
> it should be encouraged.
> [We, at W3SO, do very little MS or EME, not that we are near high
> population
> areas - we definitely are not - but for whatever reason none of our
> operators has so far been interested.]
>
> Trying to craft rules prohibiting FT4/FT8 and/or similar "simple and fast"
> digital modes yet permitting / encouraging "complex and slow" MS and EME
> modes would be difficult, though possible. Hence, in order to protect MS
> and
> EME modes, we have to accept FT4/FT8 as a valid DIGITAL modes. As noted
> earlier, we have nothing against FT4/FT8. It is simply another mode of
> communication.
>
> A major limitation of FT4/FT8 for VHF contesting is the inability to
> request
> the availability of other bands and to pass a FT4/FT8 station to other
> bands. By using FT4/FT8, operators make the choice not to pass callers to
> other bands. [The developers of FT4/FT8 are aware of this problem.]
>
> We do NOT favor banning DIGITAL operations in general, or FT4/FT8
> specifically.
>
> on B: Allocate DIFFERENT point values to the (SINGLE) contact per station
> made with CW, with VOICE, or with DIGITAL modes in general or with FT4/FT8
> specifically.
>
> There are two problems with this approach for VHF contests.
>
> The first is that it does virtually nothing to ameliorate the basic VHF
> contest problem: Lack of CW and VOICE activity. We seriously doubt that
> FT4/FT8 stations would suddenly gravitate to CW (assuming it is the highest
> valued mode). A few normally VOICE/CW operators might come back, but that
> doesn't increase the total number of participants.
>
> The second is how to assign the point values. That CW operating skill is
> greater than VOICE operating skill is universally acknowledged in amateur
> radio; hence, its usual higher point value in mixed mode contests (or in
> non-contest Field Day). How would "simple and fast"
> digital FT4/FT8 contacts be valued relative to VOICE, CW, or "complex and
> slow" digital MS and EME contacts?
>
> We don't want dismiss different point values for different mode contacts as
> such, even though there might be considerable controversy over the actual
> point values.
>
> We do NOT favor allocating DIFFERENT point values for SINGLE contacts made
> with different modes because it would do very little to increase CW or
> VOICE
> participation.
>
> On C: Change the various VHF contests to have different rules; that is, for
> example, have the ARRL January contest be ALL digital or ALL FT4/FT8; the
> ARRL June contest be a differential point value contest; and the September
> contest a multi-mode contest (and let the CQ contest committee and VHF
> contest manager make a choice among all the options).
>
> Hard to predict how this would be received by the VHF community at large.
> Since we are NOT in favor of at least two of the choices, we could hardly
> be
> in favor of such an approach. The UHF/Microwave community would certainly
> object, as there would now be one whole contest without the possibility of
> moving stations to higher bands (or "running the bands").
>
> We do NOT favor vastly different rules for the different VHF (and
> UHF/Microwave) contests.
>
> On D: Add more competitive classes, such as an "FT4/FT8 only" class to
> complement the current "FM only" class.
>
> We think of the available modes as being CW, VOICE (AM,SSB,FM), and DIGITAL
> (RTTY, any WSJT or similar mode). Fragmenting participation in various
> sub-modes is not the direction we need in VHF contests, just the
> opposite: We need more general participation, not less.
>
> We do NOT favor adding additional competitive classes.
> In fact, we would favor the removal of the "FM only" class.
>
> ON E1 and E2.
> E1: Permit MULTIPLE contacts with the same station using different modes,
> CW, VOICE(AM,SSB,FM), and ANY DIGITAL, with the SAME point value for each
> contact.
>
> E2: Permit MULTIPLE contacts with the same station using different modes,
> CW, VOICE(AM,SSB,FM), and ANY DIGITAL, with DIFFERENT point values to
> contacts in different modes or submodes.
>
> Both these options provide the ultimate goal: Increase activity in VHF
> contests. If today, some station typically works 200 contacts, rule changes
> E1 or E2 could provide up to 600 contacts depending on specific
> implementation.
>
> Increased use of CW and VOICE contacts provide the ability to move stations
> to other bands.
>
> We lean to DIFFERENT point values for contacts in the three modes, CW,
> VOICE, and DIGITAL. But recognize the problems creating equitable point
> values for the different modes and, especially, distinguishing between
> "simple and fast" digital FT4/FT8 contacts with one point value, and
> "complex and slow" digital MS and EME contacts another value, as noted
> above
> in the discussion of option (B:).
>
> In addition, "manufactured contacts" are one of our major concerns. We
> certainly do NOT want a pair of stations finishing a VOICE contact to then
> send "dit-dit" to each other and count it as a CW contact. This concern
> leads to a secondary issue: How many contacts in which modes on which
> bands?
>
> The latter issue is complicated and based on operator (radio) band
> capability, FCC band segment allocations, and current practice, keeping in
> mind that the goal is increased participation in VHF contests.
>
> On 6m, the "complication" doesn't exist: Most current radios have 6m
> capability, there is an exclusive CW band segment, and current practice is
> to have true CW contacts in that exclusive band segment. THREE contacts,
> one
> CW in the exclusive CW band segment, one VOICE, one any DIGITAL, with or
> without different point values would increase activity considerably, and
> might even draw in normally HF contesters.
>
> The high bands, 222/432MHz, 902/1296MHz, and 2.3GHz/higher, are really used
> only by serious VHF contest operators (who might also be serious HF contest
> operators), and do not have an exclusive CW band allocation; they can
> easily
> have a common set of multiple contact rules. So, how to prevent
> "manufactured contacts"? Three potential contest rules:
> 1) Require a minimum frequency change between those contacts (similar to HF
> Sprints),
> 2) Prescribe an "exclusive CW segment" (similar to some HF contest
> specified
> band segments), or
> 3) Require a minimum amount of time between those contacts.
> We lean to (2): An exclusive CW band segment prescribed by the contest
> rules.
>
> 2m is the most complicated from a multiple contact rules perspective:
> Few radios have 2m built in, so drawing the HF crowd to 2m contesting is
> more problematic; and there is an FCC designated exclusive CW band segment,
> but current practice is to have CW contacts in the SSB band segment.
>
> So, should the 2m rules follow those of 6m, or should the 2m rules follow
> those of the higher bands?
> 1) Following the 6m rules implies CW contacts in the FCC designated
> exclusive CW segment, contrary to current practice. But many "current
> practices" would change in a MULTIPLE contacts per band environment.
> 2) Following the higher band rules implies (per our view stated above) a
> contest rule designated exclusive CW band segment. What better exclusive CW
> band segment than the one already designated by the FCC?
>
> The discussion above leads to 6m and 2m having the same rules.
>
> [On all bands, a mixed CW/VOICE contact should count as a VOICE contact
> only, and the rules should make "manufactured contacts" impossible.]
>
> CONCLUSION:
>
> We are advocating a partial set of new rules for VHF contests:
>
> 1a. To permit up to THREE contacts per station, one each with CW, with
> VOICE
> (any of AM, SSB, or FM), and with DIGITAL (RTTY, any WSJT or similar mode),
> in all VHF contest bands, and
>
> 1b. That CW contacts be initiated and completed solely in the FCC allocated
> exclusive CW band segments on 6m and 2m, and in contest rules specified
> band
> segment on the higher bands.
>
> 2a. That DIFFERENT point values be assigned to the contacts in the various
> modes ONLY IF an equitable system of point value assignment can be be
> developed recognizing the distinction between "simple and fast"
> digital and "complex and slow" digital contacts.
>
> 2b. For an initial discussion on point values, we would suggest
> 1) ONE point for "simple and fast" DIGITAL contacts such as FT4/FT8,
> 2) TWO points for VOICE contacts, and
> 3) THREE or FOUR points for CW or "complex and slow" DIGITAL contacts, such
> as MS and EME.
>
> This proposal does NOT address issues such as DIFFERENT multipliers for
> contacts on different bands (CQ's ONE for 6m, TWO for 2m; ARRL's ONE for 6m
> and 2m, TWO for 222/432; FOUR for 902/1296; EIGHT for 2.3 of higher).
>
> It also does NOT address Entry Categories.
> It also does NOT address Assistance rules.
> It also does NOT address Rover-related rules.
>
> SUPPORT
>
> This proposal has been discusses with a number of major VHF contest
> participants within the Potomac Valley Radio Club (PVRC) (of which we are
> members - but is NOT a formal PVRC position), and with other major VHF
> contest participants well outside the mid-Atlantic area.
>
> There is rather unanimous agreement that
> a) current VHF contests are "broken", and
> b) that multiple contacts on different modes per band would invigorate VHF
> contest operations by generating much more activity and, perhaps,
> attracting
> HF contest operators, at least to 6m.
>
> There is not unanimous agreement on some of the operational details,
> including the number of contacts, in which modes, on which bands, and with
> what differential point values, precisely for the reasons discussed at
> length above.
>
> We have not listed the calls and names of those who have provided
> contributions and constructive criticism to this discussion and resulting
> recommendations in order to preserve their ability to issue public comments
> with or without acknowledgement of their previous participation.
>
> It surely will take time for the contest committees to sort this all out,
> and make appropriate changes to the contest rules.
>
>
> Respectfully submitted.
>
> Robert (Bob) F. Teitel, w3idt
> for the Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators
> VHF contest club, W3SO
>
> W3IDT:
> 60 year ARRL membership pin.
> Very long time ARRL Life Member,
> so long that I don't remember
> w3idt@arrl.net
> w3idt@comcast.net
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> To other VHF contest operators:
>
> If you support these arguments for rule changes, please raise you voice
> by writing to your ARRL (and CQ) contest and administrative
> representatives. Either formulate a proposal in your own words, or
> simply state that your support this proposal.
>
> If you do NOT support this proposal, please let that be known to the
> appropriate sponsors AND please send me a copy of your alternative
> suggestions.
>
> The list of the ARRL Board Program and Services Committee below is
> complete (taken from the ARRL website early February 2020). This
> committee tasks the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee with any study of
> rule changes for ARRL contests.
>
> A list of the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee is available at the
> following website: ARRL Contest Committee:
> http://www.arrl.org/arrl-staff-cac
> Select your committee representative.
>
> A list of the ARRL Division Directors and Vice directors is available at
> the following website: ARRL Division Directors:
> http://www.arrl.org/divisions
> Select your Division representatives.
>
> A list of the ARRL Section Managers is available at the following website:
> ARRL Section Managers:
> http://www.arrl.org/divisions
> Select your Section manager.
>
> The email addresses of ARRL Headquarter personnel, and the CQ VHF
> Contest Manager are the same for all correspondents.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Distribution list:
>
> ARRL Board Program and Services Committee:
>
> Matt Holden, K0BBC, Dakota Division Director, Chairman
> k0bbc@arrl.org
>
> Mickey Baker, N4MB, Southeastern Division Director
> [The website says N4MB@arrl.org.
> But a "copy email address" produces "gsarratt@arrl.org"
> The N4MB@arrl.org is probably correct.]
>
> David Norris, K5UZ, Delta Division Director
> k5uz@arrl.org
>
> Mike Ritz, W7VO, Northwestern Division Director
> w7vo@arrl.org
>
> Rod Blocksome, N0DAS, Midwest Division Director
> k0das@arrl.org
>
> Ed Hudgens, WB4RHQ, Delta Division Vice Director
> wb4rhq@arrl.org
>
> Bob Vallio, W6RGG, 2nd Vice President (Officer Liaison)
> W6RGG@arrl.org
>
> Norm Fusaro, W3IZ, (Staff Liaison)
> w3iz@arrl.org
>
> ARRL Regional Officers:
>
> Chas Fulp, k3ww, k3ww@fast.net
> Contest Advisory Committee
> Atlantic Division
> Tom Abernathy, w3tom, w3tom@arrl.org
> Atlantic Division Director
> Bob Famiglio, k3rf, k3rf@arrl.org
> Atlantic Division Vice Director
> Joe Shupienis, w3bc, sm@wpa-arrl.org
> WPA Section Manager
>
> ARRL HQ:
> Bart Jahnke, w9jj, w9jj@arrl.org
> ARRL Radiosport and Field Services Manager.
> Paul Bourque, n1sfe, n1sfe@arrl.org
> Contest Manager
> Kathy Allison, ka1rwy, ka1rwy@arrl.org
> RadioSport Associate
>
> CQ VHF Contest Manager:
>
> John Kalenowsky, k9jk, k9jk.cq@gmail.com
> CQ WW VHF Contest Director
>
>
>
> --
>
> .............................
> . Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT .
> . .
> . W3IDT@arrl.net .
> . W3IDT@comcast.net .
> .............................
>
> --
>
> .............................
> . Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT .
> . .
> . W3IDT@arrl.net .
> . W3IDT@comcast.net .
> .............................
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|