My good friend here in Arkansas, Earl N5ZM, would agree with you Tom!!
On 2021-01-18 14:29, Tom Holmes wrote:
> Hi Joel..
> Regarding " (hey we both have an amazing callsign suffix!)"
> I think you both missed having a great call sign suffix by a little 😊.
> Tom Holmes, N8ZM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: VHFcontesting <email@example.com>
> On Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 4:19 PM
> To: Terry Price <email@example.com>
> Cc: VHFcontesting@contesting.com; VHFcontesting
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] ARRL VHF Test 3 Band Category - long rant better
> The original intent of the 3-band category was to entice the hams who
> owned an FT-847 or similar bare bones radio (no amplifier) they had
> purchased as an HF radio but never used it on 50, 144 and 432 to get on
> VHF, especially in a contest. It was a excellent concept with one
> exception - the intended target audience couldn't care less about a
> contest, much less getting on VHF beyond repeaters. So it never did
> create the visionary excitement imagined and nothing was done to focus
> on this group beyond creating a contest category for them!
> That's all I have to say about that because I'm not going to touch Rover
> rules!! The last two times I made an attempt while involved with ARRL I
> got skewered worse than serving meat at a vegan party by the VHF
> community! I'll just say I agree with Terry (hey we both have an amazing
> callsign suffix!) but the battle lines are equally drawn for and against
> on rover rules, for whatever reason.
> Aside from that, it was good to work everyone who made it in my log this
> weekend. On another topic, I missed about 25 or more 6 meter FT8 Q's
> because the path collapsed before we could complete. I went up to 50.318
> three times for about 20 mins each time and called CQ on FT4. I never
> did "see" or hear anyone there so I drifted back down to .313 and
> rejoined the "crowd".
> Anyway, regardless of all the issues, perceived or otherwise, I enjoyed
> the weekend on the radio. I do support continued discussion about
> contest rules so we can forward.
> 73 Joel W5ZN
> On 2021-01-18 13:50, Terry Price wrote:
>> This brings up a long time complaint about the ARRL/CAC or whomever decides
>> rules and categories.
>> I've only been VHF contesting since the late 70's, was too busy auto racing
>> and motocross racing before that but I don't understand the thought process
>> they go through. I'm sure it's a "good old boys club" much like our
>> Congress, but they do things that completely defy logic.
>> There should a LP and HP for all the categories like the 3 band and the
>> limited multiop. It won't hurt participation it would help. Instead of
>> folks thinking it's useless to compete against the big boys and go watch a
>> football game, they might stick it out knowing they have a real chance.
>> It's a lot of work to do a limited multiop from a portable location and
>> adding high power just makes it worse. If it's a money thing having to send
>> out more plaques, hell I'll pay for more than we do now just to get more
>> While on the subject of activity, FT8. FT8 is great to work someone that is
>> 500 miles away that is just below your capability to work but just to sit
>> on 144.174 or 50.313 and work the next grid over is just plain CRAZY!!! Do
>> you ever see the MS guys just sit on MSK144 and work the next grid, NO !!!
>> It's a tool and they use it like it should be. Do I operate FT8 more than I
>> should, heck yes because i'm a contester and the object of a contest is to
>> score the most contacts and grids and if it takes FT8, FM, cell phone,
>> FEDEX or UPS I'll do it but it's hurting the upper bands by limiting the
>> ability to move people. I think the biggest draw to FT8 is the folks with
>> limited antennas or no antennas have found that they can make contacts by
>> using FT8. Or the HF'ers that have a radio with 6m but load it up on their
>> tri-bander and the only way they can be heard is using FT8. I don't have an
>> answer for that but IMHO it's hurting VHF contesting more than it's
>> helping. Moving people to other bands is harder and I think rovers are most
>> affected by that and as a rover, it won't take muck of that to turn Andy
>> and I off from roving. Spending two LONG days driving hundreds of miles
>> isn't worth it if everyone is stuck on FT8
>> Last is the rover scoring. I understand there was a loop hole and someone
>> exploited it to pad their clubs score. The knee jerk reaction was to hurt
>> the rovers which was WRONG then and it's still WRONG now!!! Each time a
>> rover goes to a new grid, they should start their long over and at the end,
>> it all adds up. This gives incentive to activate more grids. To get around
>> the club loop hole is easy, rovers can't use their logs to help their club
>> score. But if you think about it, they already have helped their club just
>> by making more contacts for their members. Rovers should compete against
>> themselves and whatever scoring scheme is used should promote activity not
>> diminish it!!
>> Thanks to everyone that was on this past weekend for the contest. K8GP
>> (K1RA and I) were operating from my new location in FM09 @2300 ASL with
>> very limited antennas. I hope to have the big K8GP multi-multi going again
>> soon from the new location.
>> Sorry about the long rant but I feel much better now !!!
>> Terry Price - W8ZN
>> Directive Systems and Engineering
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting mailing list