[CQ-Contest] re : Inverse Distance Based Scoring Proposal

Jeffrey Clarke ku8e at bellsouth.net
Sat Jun 25 14:11:02 PDT 2011

.and contrary to KU8E's post we are not talking
about changing the VHF?UHF tests either...we are simply talking about
the ARRL DX.....

NQ4I isn’t considering the big picture because he is only a DX contester.

Yes it’s true that the CAC is only studying ARRL DX right now
.  But let’s
say the ARRL rules committee decides to go to a new formula.  Precedence
will be set. What’s stopping someone else from suggesting that the rules for
the other ARRL contests are unfair as well ?  The same scenario we are going
thru for ARRL DX could happen for SS , ARRL 160 or the VHF contests.  Those
pushing for changes in those contests could say “Well you did something to
make ARRL DX fair.. why can’t you do the same for contest XYZ ???

I have no chance to ever win in ARRL 160 (unless I had a mega station like
W8JI) because I get the same amount of points for working EU as the east
coast. Also, for years and years the ARRL VHF contests have be dominated by
stations on the east coast. Some years ago a group of W6’s came up with an
great idea rovering with a pack of 5-10 stations. They equipped each rover
station with every VHF/UHF band possible and they would work each other in
every grid square they went thru. The end result is they dominated the rover
category top ten and had scores that rivaled the top single operator and
multi-operator scores. I'm sure this was a big deal for the VHF contested
oriented contest clubs that are mostly on the east coast.

See http://www.arrl.org/results-database?event_id=20718

There are now the following rules in the ARRL sponsored VHF contests:

   3.3.5. All Rovers are encouraged to adopt operating practices that allow
as many stations as possible to contact them.
   3.3.8. A rover may not make more than 100 QSOs with any other one rover.

Now who do you think pushed for this rule change ?

Jeff KU8E

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list