[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] ARRL VHF Test 3 Band Category - long rant better del

To: "vhfcontesting@contesting.com" <VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] ARRL VHF Test 3 Band Category - long rant better delete!!
From: Jay RM <w9rm@calmesapartners.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:26:05 -0700
List-post: <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Re: Distance based scoring - how's this going to work when guys are
routinely using EME to pad their mults on 2 and 432 ??  Are we talking
about sending EME Qs in VHF contests back to where they belong  - in EME
contests ??

I could throw my support behind multi-mode Qs with various point values,
but I think a BETTER way would be to make ONE of the ARRL VHF contests
digital free.  June would be the obvious choice, as the proliferation of Es
QSOs on 6 (and maybe 2) would offset the obvious advantage WSJT modes have
under weak signal conditions and possibly entice those digi-only ops over
to traditional modes when they hear the overwhelming phone activity a June
contest used to develop.  On the other hand, it's highly unlikely that the
all-digital crowd would bother to make Qs on SSB, even for extra points.
It appears to me that they are mostly non-contesters.

I would miss the challenge and mult production of digital meteor scatter in
June if it was all-analog, but..it's June and we're going to work most of
those 6m Qs on Es, anyway.

Heck - make January and September digital-only.  They pretty much default
to that now.


Keith J Morehouse
Managing Partner
Calmesa Partners G.P.
Olathe, CO

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 2:58 PM Terry Price <terry@directivesystems.com>

> Well I certainly wasn't trying to blast any past or present members that
> are contesters, I'm sure they feel the same way albeit they may not be able
> to share their true opinion!!!
> Of course the easiest way to "fix" the FT8 situation is to remove digital
> modes but that isn't right either. We've operated for many decades with the
> understanding that SSB is faster but when signals got weaker you went to
> cw. For MS, we used tape recorders to be able to spread the burst out to
> decode what we heard or on SSB you leaned to talk REAL fast!!! When the
> digital modes were introduced, the MS community adopted it first along with
> the eme community. As I've said before, FT8 is just another tool in your
> toolbox of VHF operating but you don't use a 5 lb sledge hammer to hang
> your wife's picture on the wall. The only solution I see is a weighted
> point per QSO like others have suggested where cw and SSB get more points
> and you allow multiple contacts per band but different modes. That would
> certainly help with the "Sunday afternoon doldrums" making sure you've
> worked everyone on as many modes as you can. Distance based scoring would
> also help the folks in the middle of nowhere that regularly make 300 to 500
> mile Q's count more than the Q's to the next grid.
> Terry Price - W8ZN
> Directive Systems and Engineering
> 703-754-3876
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 4:19 PM <w5zn@w5zn.org> wrote:
> > 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
> > activity.
> >
> > 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
> > 703-754-3876
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>