[CQ-Contest] possible changes for CQ VHF Contest

[rjairam at gmail.com]

I think it would be worthwhile to compare participation pre and post FT8.

I suspect a lot of those who are using the FT8 mode are not really the
ones who were using CW and SSB before.

>From what I head these modes actually increased participation and many
who use these modes wouldn't otherwise be able to participate.

The only constant is change and there are things that come along that
knock us down a peg or two. For me on HF it's commercial remote
operation. I can't see how someone who builds their own station can
compete against someone who rents airtime on a pre built mega station
in Maine. But that's the reality now. On VHF the game has shifted
heavily toward weak signal digital modes.

The game has changed. So I play differently now. Different categories,
different goals and different expectations.  I tried (team) roving
last year for ARRL VHF and I liked it. However, time for a rove is at
a premium, and my roaming partner (K2EZ) has work schedules that may
place her in Texas or somewhere else so it's a hit or miss.

I suspect resistance will be futile. Putting the digital modes in its
own contests basically says that we don't want these new modes and we
prefer to compete the same old way against the same old (and getting
older) guys. You also only have so many weekends per year.

Let's go back to a basic question:

What are you measuring with contesting? Skill? Station? There are a
lot of variables. And it's not as easy as sitting and punching buttons
on FT8/FT4. To begin with the rate is lower. You also have to consider
that sometimes a station will abandon you to move on to someone else.
And it takes 15-60 seconds to realize that. On CW and SSB you can tell
right away if someone faded away or simply dropped the QSO.

Not offering a solution one way or the other here. I realize that this
issue has passions on both sides. I'm firmly on the "let's change it
up and try new things" camp. However, I draw the line at full
automation which I think is reasonable.

70% of ham traffic is now FT8. That's the reality. However, fully
automatic operation will not be (and should not be) allowed for credit
contesting and DXing. Honor system and obvious automation is easy to
spot.

But I may be willing to try removing the FT/JT modes from these VHF
contests as an experiment. I suspect participation will drop off as
the digital stations will just stay on digital and work the band
openings.

73
Ria
N2RJ

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 13:00, Dennis McAlpine <dbmcalpine73 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> GM John,
>
>
>
> I enjoyed the past weekend and the CQ VHF Contest quite a lot.  For once,
> there was propagation from SC to most areas East of the Mississippi both
> afternoons.  I, for once, actually thought I had done pretty well
> considering that I only run about 400 watts into an H-Doublebay antenna with
> the top at about 35' above ground.  I ended up `with 326 QSOs and 120 grid
> squares for a score of 39,120, all on 6M.  I have not used FT8/FT4 in
> contests since I think it is against the principle that these contests are a
> test of operator skill as much as equipment savy.  I was a bit surprised
> when I filled in the 3830 score submittal that it did not request a
> breakdown by mode into CW, SSB, digital but then there was no separate
> category within the contest either.  All was fine until I started seeing
> other scores coming in.
>
>
>
> It fast became obvious that unless one used the digital modes, they would be
> banished to the lower echelons of the standings and my score quickly slid
> down the rankings.    So, I started looking at the top scores for 6M.  I was
> amazed at how many digital QSOs these scores contained.  For example, K1TO
> had 150 FT8 QSOs out of 715 in total, which was 21%.  Similarly, N4BP had
> 194 digital out of 673 total (29%); W5PR had 157 out of 564 (28%); KU8E had
> 88/508 (17%); N4PN 212/312 for 68%; WQ5L 103/445 (23%); and W4PV 124/193
> (64%).
>
>
>
> Even more important was the much higher number of grid squares worked.  It
> would appear that digital added 20-80 grid squares to the total mult.  I
> can't break it sown further because the summaries do not ask for such a
> breakdown in the submittal.  Again, there are no numbers to back this up,
> but how many EU stations did you work on CW or SSB?  Probably not many (I
> had none and heard none) .  But, I bet the top digital scores were loaded
> with DX QSOs that other modes never heard or had a chance of hearing.  No
> wonder the mult totals were so high.  I never worked anyone west of the
> Mississippi so I was really sucking wind.
>
>
>
> In looking at the total scores, I saw one very startling fact.  Of the top
> three scorers, K1TO had 6 CW QSOs, N4BP had 1 and W5PR had 1.  To say they
> ignored the CW mode is an understatement.  It is evident from these numbers
> that CW is an endangered species when it comes to the CQ VHF Contest.  If I
> wanted to use digital modes, I would certainly ignore CW in the future if I
> wanted a higher score.
>
>
>
> I respectively request that you consider the following proposals.  First,
> require submittal forms to include a breakdown of CW, SSB, Digital (maybe
> broken down into FT-4 and FT-8) QSOs and mults.  I think these are easily
> found on logging programs like n1mm+.  This would probably require that
> mults be counted per mode and that QSOs could be made with the same person
> on different modes.  Then, valid comparisons could be made.  Second, allow
> mode entries.  A competitor could submit multiple logs, i.e. one for CW, one
> for SSB, one for digital and one for combined.  It would make the log
> checkers job easier.  Think of how tough it was to make QSOs when conditions
> were not as good as they were last weekend.  Allowing QSOs per mode would
> triple the number of possible QSOs and keep the contest from being a real
> drag.
>
>
>
> Let's adapt the rules to the situation before it becomes too late and CW
> sinks down into the mud, never to raise its head again.
>
>
>
> 73,
>
> Dennis, K2SX
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest