Although I look for and call using SSB & CW on 1296, I have worked far more
terrestrial Q65 and FT8 contacts on 1296. I use Q65 exclusively for 1296
EME
K3SK
-----Original Message-----
From: VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting-bounces+k3sk=buckwalter.co@contesting.com>
On Behalf Of Zack Widup
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 7:33 PM
To: VHF Contesting Reflector <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: ***SPAM*** Re: [VHFcontesting] [NEWSVHF] Here's a Proposed Solution
for Digital/Analog Operating
I suspect there isn't much digital activity on 1296 or above in VHF+ contests.
When I've gotten someone to run up the bands with me, I don't recall anyone
asking if it would be digital or SSB/CW. I know there are WSJT modes used on 10
GHz to work EME, but I have not encountered any for terrestrial communication.
Zack W9SZ
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 6:10 PM VE3KH via VHFcontesting <
vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
> This thread is kind of funny ... but sad
>
> Fact ... the average age of a Ham is quite high ... the older we get,
> the less likely we are to change or be persuaded by others attempts to
> get us to do what they want.
>
> Back in the good old days
> ... I didn't like VHF Contests allowing FM QSO's ... stations in big
> cities that were willing to put up vertical antennas got lots of
> points for arranging / working local handhelds ... stupid I thought
> because the point was DX and farther grids ... I wasn't going to do that just
> to win.
> ... I personally don't operate much digital now ... I did some EME
> that way but it just isn't the same reward as hearing it with your ears.
>
> I agree the VHF bands seem dead on CW/SSB ... disappointing as many of
> you have pointed out ... but I don't think any rule changes are going
> to fix the split between Digital and Analog ... people are going to do
> what makes them happy.
>
> BUT ... consider this ... the 10GHz & Up Contest is this weekend ...
> not really any digital up there (yet) ... and 10GHz is AMAZING ...
> there are now quite a few modest stations that have worked 50 Grids or
> more. Back in the good old days we used to arrange 10GHz contacts on
> 2m ... I'd need a KW & 18 element yagi or more to make the contacts we
> routinely make on 10GHz.
> So come on up ... maybe this is the solution you are looking for !!!!
>
> 73 Kevin VE3KH
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: VHFcontesting
> <vhfcontesting-bounces+ve3kh=icloud.com@contesting.com>
> On Behalf Of Steve Hewlett via VHFcontesting
> Sent: September 17, 2025 12:44 PM
> To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [NEWSVHF] Here's a Proposed Solution for
> Digital/Analog Operating
>
> From WA2TEO's post:
>
> "Lastly, boycotting to make a point is , I believe self defeating.
> Imagine being on for your first contest and finding dismal activity
> because lot's of guys don't operate to make a point. It's really hard
> to find new blood in vhf contesting. Turning any new ops off isn't a
> good way to succeed. If we're frank about it, one of the issues since
> FT8 is that quite a few long term ops stopped operating since they
> didn't like it. Essentially they have been boycotting. I believe that is a
> contributor to lower analog activity.
> Why not just get on and have fun any way you enjoy? It's a VHF truism
> - activity breeds activity. A number of times this weekend I was on 6
> or 2M ssb and didn't see any other stations on that mode."
>
> The above paragraph sums up the problem from my perspective. I only
> operate the traditional analog modes and have no desire to expand my
> horizons to computer-centric modes. I am not computer-phobic; I spent
> my career primarily as a language level computer programmer. In my
> spare time years ago I dabbled in machine language programming as
> well. By the time I retired I was really tired of staring at a
> computer screen and rarely use our home computer, mostly just for
> emails. As FT8 began to siphon available contest contacts away from
> the traditional analog modes I simply stopped participating starting
> in January 2020. My attitude towards FT8 is that I prefer to do the
> work of making contacts myself and want at least some personal involvement in
> the actual QSO.
>
> This wasn't a conscious decision to "boycott" on my part; VHF
> Contesting just wasn't that much fun anymore for me. I did give the
> January 2022 Contest a go as an FM Only entrant for the first time, on
> 2 meters and 70 cm, on a limited basis. Predictably, my QSO count was
> quite limited. I did enjoy it though to some extent. My next effort
> was a very short one on the Sunday evening of the June 2024 contest. I
> had finished up with a 2 meter net around 8:00 pm and for the heck of
> it tried calling CQ Contest on
> 146.52 which netted me two QSO's, one with an operator fairly local to
> me and one with a contest participant quite a ways from me (in FM
> terms) in a different grid. Since then I've been participating in each
> VHF contest as an FM Only entrant. For the most part the pace is
> leisurely to say the least but I am enjoying it. I call CQ fairly
> often on each of the 4 bands I now operate and in between monitor while
> reading a book.
>
> I don't know what the ideal mode scheduling compromise would be.
> Clearly lots of people are unhappy with the current state of affairs.
> Since amateur radio is dependent on showing use of the frequencies
> available to us to justify our frequency allocations, an important
> variable to consider is overall activity levels when trying to arrive
> at an optimum solution to the mode scheduling problem. Another
> important consideration is attracting new operators to VHF contesting.
> Most newly licensed operators are going to have a radio and antenna(s)
> and that is about it. Getting them into the traditional analog modes
> for contesting seems to be the easiest way to attract their attention
> for the most part. Also, being patient and courteous with new
> contesters is important. I heard some very poor operating practices
> from a few people who should know better in regards to setting a good example
> for new contesters during the last weekend's contest.
>
> 73, Steve W1NIV
> On Wednesday, September 17, 2025 at 11:09:43 AM EDT, wa2teo---
> via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
>
> I think Ed, K3SK and K1DS are on the right track. Same timeframe,
> digital and analog with perhaps extra points for analog. Or not. I
> believe we all agree that the goal is to increase activity in what has
> been a declining activity. By allowing contacts on digital and analog,
> it encourages the digital guys to work analog stations. My concerns
> about other approaches :- making it a 48 hour contest is going to
> negatively impact rovers. How many can stay out that long? I don't
> find many out in the middle of the night. So we are basically limiting
> the time they are on for all practical purposes. And many rovers I
> work are only analog. So basically they are down to one day of
> operating, so fewer grids they can hit. On a different note, I see on
> 3830 in most contests I operate more hours than most single ops. Yeah, as my
> xyl says I'm a bit obsessed, hi.
> But even I would not feel enthused about a 48 hour vhf contest. We
> just don't have enough ops these days.
> - We had a great experiment with separate mode events this summer in CQWW.
> In fairness, 6 meters was not good either weekend from what I can tell
> (I had very limited operating in the Analog weekend). I operated the
> digital and it was really slow. And there was no option to go analog
> to reduce the lack of digital stations. And vice versa for the analog
> weekend. So I don't think having separate operating modes accomplishes
> anything since it further thins an already thin herd.
> - I worked about 140 Q's this weekend on 902 and up. All were analog.
> I don't currently have digital on those bands but I am working on
> that. Even so, it would take a lot of time to work what I did on
> digital and the only advantage would be I might add some further out
> Q's. So, by having separate operating times by mode, I think you would
> end up with very limited results on 902 and up. Basically the digital
> only session becomes primarily a lower
> 4 bands contest. Many of my microwave contacts were with rovers who
> don't currently operate on digital. So back to the top. I think the
> goals are met by allowing an analog Q and a digital on the same band.
> If need be, weight the analog to push activity there. It's a
> disappointing reality that we might need this. I'm old enough to
> remember when I worked more stuff than I do now on Analog only. But
> that ship has sailed and we should stay focused on how to best run all
> modes in the future to increase activity. We all need that to keep it
> interesting and fun. And given current activity levels, I don't think
> we will be overwhelmed using both. We definitely would need help from
> the contest programs so it doesn't become messy. Right now to run the
> sprints that allow both modes, I go back to the future and use a check
> sheet to remember who I worked on which mode, hi. Lastly, boycotting
> to make a point is , I believe self defeating. Imagine being on for
> your first contest and finding dismal activity because lot's of guys
> don't operate to make a point. It's really hard to find new blood in
> vhf contesting. Turning any new ops off isn't a good way to succeed.
> If we're frank about it, one of the issues since FT8 is that quite a
> few long term ops stopped operating since they didn't like it.
> Essentially they have been boycotting. I believe that is a contributor
> to lower analog activity. Why not just get on and have fun any way
> you enjoy? It's a VHF truism - activity breeds activity. A number of times
> this weekend I was on 6 or 2M ssb and didn't see any other stations on that
> mode. My .02 cents. Jeff K1TEO
> On Wednesday, September 17, 2025 at 03:17:08 PM GMT+1, Ed
> Kucharski via VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
>
> Not if there are rules in place to prevent this ("mode hopping").
> Something like: QSO's may only be made on recognized digital/analog
> frequencies/portions of the bands and a digital and analog QSO can not
> be made back-to-back on the same frequency (or similar wording of no
> back-to-back analog/digital QSO's maybe similar to the HF NA sprints...).
>
> I've been a proponent of a change in the contest rules similar to the
> format of the ARRL 10m contest and have submitted a couple of
> proposals to ARRL and heard crickets in return. Analog Only, Digital
> Only and Mixed categories allowing 2 QSO's (one analog and one digital) on
> each band.
> After reading others ideas, I also think additional encouragement may
> be needed to further promote analog operation - perhaps making analog
> QSO's worth additional points? But is that enough to get the digital
> operators off digital and explore analog?
>
> There were a couple of times last weekend where I went an hour without
> making a QSO (4 bands, KW+ power on 6 and 2m, 100w on 222/432). I
> called CQ on 6 and 2m SSB on the top of many hours and self-spotted
> making only a couple QSO's that way, worked only a few multi-ops and
> just one (and only
> one) rover on 1 band from 1 grid. Chat rooms got me a only a couple
> more skeds and QSO's. It was beyond boring (thank goodness I could
> watch football on my iPad while operating). Trying to get stations to
> QSY on FT8 to other bands was also a challenge and I had a higher
> failure rate than success rate.
>
> 73,
> Ed K3DNE
> EM94
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 09/17/2025 9:27 AM EDT David R Buckwalter via VHFcontesting <
> vhfcontesting@contesting.com mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you allow working a station both Digital and Analog on each band,
> > all
> you will do is create “Mode Hopping’ …… “QSL the FN99, switch to FT8
> and call me right here again, then we can move up a band and do it again”.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Ed Parish <k1ep.list@gmail.com mailto:k1ep.list@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 7:30 AM
> > To: Terry Price <terry@directivesystems.com
> > mailto:terry@directivesystems.com>
> > Cc: K3SK@buckwalter.co mailto:K3SK@buckwalter.co; NEWS
> > <NEWSVHF@mailman.qth.net mailto:NEWSVHF@mailman.qth.net>; VHF
> > Contesting <VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > mailto:VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NEWSVHF] [VHFcontesting] Here's a Proposed Solution
> > for Digital/Analog Operating
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, if you go for a 48 hour contest, 24 analog and 24 digital, how
> about splitting it 12/24/12 to encourage people to work both modes and
> stick around? Instead of having people on for the first 24 and QRT or
> just get on for the second 24?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ed Parish, K1EP
> >
> > k1ep@arrl.net mailto:k1ep@arrl.net <mailto:k1ep@arrl.net
> > mailto:k1ep@arrl.net>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 20:38 Terry Price <terry@directivesystems.com
> mailto:terry@directivesystems.com <mailto:terry@directivesystems.com
> mailto:terry@directivesystems.com> > wrote:
> >
> > Well, I said make the contest a full 48 hrs, 24 digital and 24 analog.
> > Comments about too many modes is kinda correct, you don't know where
> > to
> go.
> > You call CQ on SSB/CW and you miss FT8 folks, go to FT8 you miss
> > analog folks. That's why I think having two segments really fits well.
> > Both modes get evening, morning and day. If someone is opposed to
> > digital, they operate whichever segment is analog. This also would
> > reduce the "Sunday afternoon blues" when you'll do anything to work
> someone.
> >
> > So right now, there is SOLP and SOHP and analog only, for the folks
> > that only want to work digital, there is no digital award only that
> > I am aware of. Yes, it may be creating another category but it's not
> > just so "everyone wins" Digital isn't going anywhere and to think
> > the league will remove digital from VHF contests is not realistic.
> > Anyone who has contested for a while knows that FT8 is NOT a contest
> > mode, yes you can dig out folks that are too weak for cw or folks
> > that don't operate cw, but neither is Q65,
> > MSK144 for that matter but folks don't abuse those.
> >
> > I for one see nothing wrong with an analog only, digital only and
> > for us guttens' both modes - and awards, I personally would love a
> > 48 hour VHF contest as long as there is activity to keep me awake. I
> > couldn't make the CQ VHF analog but I did operate the digital and if
> > the results are correct I was #1 in the US. I operated two K3's, one
> > on 6 and one driving a transverter for two. The challenge was
> > keeping both going and trying not to miss anything. It wasn't the
> > same fun as analog and recognising someone by their voice or fist
> > but it wasn't that
> bad.
> >
> > I've been contesting since 1978 when I worked with WA8LXJ in Kentucky.
> > I've singleop'ed, multiop'ed, and roved. I loved roving but getting
> > folks to QSY is difficult on FT8 and you miss a lot when folks are
> > hanging out on FT8 all the time so dividing the contest into two
> > sections would also help rovers and hopefully spur more to get on.
> > Is the idea perfect, of course not, what in life is perfect?
> >
> > Terry
> > Terry Price - W8ZN
> > Directive Systems and Engineering
> > 703-754-3876
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 4:43 PM David R Buckwalter via VHFcontesting
> > < vhfcontesting@contesting.com mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com
> mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > Here is my 3-1/2¢ on using analog and digital modes for the ARRL
> > > VHF contests.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is an easy solution. Just read on ===
> > >
> > > First, it is not just about FT8. Some operators use other digital
> > > modes as well. This past weekend’s contest I logged CW, SSB, FT8,
> > > MSK, Q65 and
> > > JT65 contacts.
> > >
> > > Separating the contest for either analog or digital format is dumb.
> > > There are already too many things going on in life to worry about
> > > dedicating another weekend for contesting. Splitting the same
> > > weekend into slots for analog and digital is a bad idea. Which
> > > format gets the morning tropo time slot? What format gets the
> > > daytime Sporadic E? Does MSK144 for meteor scatter get assigned to
> > > the mornings, evenings, night, or afternoon? What about those like
> > > myself that add multipliers using digital modes to work EME? Do we
> > > get to use digital when the moon is available at our location?
> > >
> > > Over the past 3 to 4 years there has been much discussion on this
> > > subject and the one significant point made is Analog operators
> > > (SSB & CW) will not work digital stations. In most cases the
> > > analog stations don’t even own digital equipment or software.
> > > However, whether they choose to or not, Digital operators have the
> > > ability and many do work ‘Mixed Mode’, both digital and analog.
> > >
> > > Considering this, the most logical thing to do is change the rules
> > > for scoring and operating categories. Keep the current operating
> > > categories including ‘Analog Only’. Then, add a new ‘Digital Only’
> > > category. Create a points incentive for analog contacts. As an
> > > example, use the current point values for digital modes, then add
> > > 1 point to those values for each analog contact. A 144MHz now 1
> > > point, will be 2 points if an analog contact is made, a 222MHz
> > > contact is now 2 points and will be 3 if it is for an analog
> > > contact. This provides an incentive for ‘Mixed Mode’ stations to
> > > seek out and work analog contacts. Still permit only one valid
> > > contact per band with any station. If a station is previously
> > > worked digital and then is later worked analog, allow the higher
> > > point analog contact, letting the previous logged digital contact
> > > to become the ‘DUPE’. ‘Digital Only’ are competing with other
> > > ‘Digital Only’ even if they work a ‘Mixed Mode’ station. It’s the same
> > > for ‘Analog Only’ stations.
> > > There is no downside to this method of scoring.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I know the logging software will need to be revised. But
> > > that’s got nothing to do with making everybody happy and increasing
> > > activity.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FWIW – I have been VHF contesting since 1980
> > >
> > > Dave - K3SK - FM07
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > > VHFcontesting@contesting.com mailto:VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > > <mailto:VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > > mailto:VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> > >
> > >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > NEWSVHF mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/newsvhf
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:NEWSVHF@mailman.qth.net mailto:NEWSVHF@mailman.qth.net
> > <mailto:NEWSVHF@mailman.qth.net mailto:NEWSVHF@mailman.qth.net>
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this
> > email
> > list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com mailto: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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|