[Fourlanders] Fw: [VHFcontesting] VHF/UHF subcommittee report
Jim Worsham
wa4kxy at bellsouth.net
Mon Jul 19 21:27:39 EDT 2004
FYI
73
Jim W4KXY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Frenaye" <frenaye at direcway.com>
To: "VHF Contesting" <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:42 PM
Subject: [VHFcontesting] VHF/UHF subcommittee report
>
> The work done by the VHF-UHF Contests/Awards Subcommittee has been
completed. The written report and along with some some in-person
additional comments were given during the ARRL Board's Program & Services
Committee meeting on July 15th (just before the ARRL Board meeting on July
16-17). The P&SC did not take action on the report and will study it
during the next several weeks. In the mean time, the P&SC agreed with me
that the report should be posted here for your information and it will be
sent to the Contest Advisory Committee for information and possible comment
(three CAC members were on the VHF/UHF subcommittee).
>
> What will happen from here? The P&SC will work with the Membership
Services Department in Newington to take the recommendations any further.
Some may result in rules changes, some may not. Except for possible
changes to the 2004 EME contest, I don't believe you'll see any contest
changes until 2005. Some recommendations (primarily awards-related) may
have to wait until budget resources are made available. The full ARRL Board
does not normally get directly involved in contest rules issues - contest
rules are usually not policy matters.
>
> We really do appreciate the input received when the various proposals were
made several months ago. It revised our thinking in a number of areas. As
you will see from the report, though, we don't feel that we have done enough
to develop recommendations for increasing the amount of activity in VHF+
contests. That represents a continuing issue that will have to be
addressed in the future - and I hope the VHF+ community will continue to
work on it as well.
>
> -- Tom/K1KI
>
> PS: for KE3HT - I've tried to e-mail you several times in the last few
months, but the messages always bounce back.
>
>
>
> Date: 14 July 2004
> To: Programs and Services Committee
> From: VHF-UHF Contest/Awards Subcommittee
> Subject: Final Report
>
> Our original task:
>
> (Jan 2002) Minute 65. "On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Roderick,
it was unanimously VOTED that the Membership Services Committee review
existing VHF, UHF, and Microwave contest and awards programs and make
recommendations on ways to increase interest and participation."
>
> Starting in the mid-90s, activity in the VHF+ contests has dropped.
Activity in the Jan/Jun/Sep contests peaked in 1996-97 and has dropped 25%
since then. The EME and UHF contests have seen an even greater decline
(50%), while the 10G and Up contest has seen some modest increases.
>
> The MSC established a subcommittee (in May 2002) consisting of K1KI
(chairman), W5ZN and N7NG. N0AX (Contest Advisory Committee member) was
added a few months later, and N1ND contributed input from the Contest
Department. An ARRL web survey was circulated in the Fall of 2002, and
resulted in input and ideas from more than 250 VHF+ operators.
>
> Survey results were tabulated and analyzed during early 2003. An initial
set of recommended changes were approved by the Membership Services
Committee in January 2003.
>
> It was obvious from the survey comments that the subcommittee would
benefit from some additional members with experience in VHF+ contesting. As
a result the subcommittee was expanded to include K1JX, K2UA(CAC), W3ZZ(QST
VHF Editor), AA7A(CAC), and KM0T.
>
> We had several months of extensive discussions through e-mail and several
conference calls, then a period of relative inactivity while engaging in
discussions on e-mail lists, operating several VHF+ contests, and continuing
to think of ways to improve VHF+ activity.
>
> In February 2004 we released a set of draft recommendations to the VHF+
community for their review and comment. While many of the recommendations
were supported in the 200+ responses, a number of the key (and major)
changes were not. As a result we have not included them in this report.
As might be expected, most of the comments came from the most serious
competitors. While they didn't like some core proposals in our draft, they
generally did not offer alternative ideas for boosting activity.
>
> This leaves us with the real risk that the proposed changes are not
sufficient to generate the needed boost in VHF+ awards and contest
activities. The expected move to an HF entry-level license will likely
contribute to a decline in VHF+ activity. It is very important that the
ARRL work to boost interest and activity in VHF+ spectrum. The current
occupancy and trends in activity on VHF+ frequencies leave us at great risk
to the future loss of some spectrum.
>
>
> SUMMARY
>
> Changes Already Implemented
> --------------------------------------------
> Allow digital QSOs in the EME contest. Approved by MSC 1/2003.
> Status: implemented for 2003 contest, working fine.
> Work to establish an Internet template for entry of small and medium sized
logs.
> Status: announced 1/2004 for all ARRL contests
> Add a club competition to the June VHF QSO Party. Approved by MSC 1/2003.
> Status: implemented for 2003 contest, working fine.
> Work to find good authors and to encourage more regional reporting of VHF+
contest results.
> Status: implemented, staff working hard to identify authors and has
been successful so far.
> Encourage Logbook of The World development to be supportive of VHF+
awards, like the VUCC.
> Status: implemented 9/2003, working fine.
> Encourage the development of a high-quality grid square map of the United
States.
> Status: very nice laminated, color grid square map covering North
America released 6/2003.
>
>
> Further recommendations
> ----------------------------------
>
> Awards
> ----------
> Change the entry-level steps for VHF+ awards so more people will be able
to get started in the VUCC, WAS and DXCC using VHF+ frequencies.
>
> Consider changing the steps for different level awards to a smaller
increment.
>
> Establish a VUCC challenge-type award, similar to the one used by DXCC.
>
> Create a new award or awards to appeal to entry-level or rover/portable
operation, such as a grids activated or miles per watt award. Consider GCR
certification rather than card checking.
>
> For VUCC awards on 50 through 1296 MHz and Satellite, all contacts must be
made from a location or locations within the same grid locator or locations
in different grid locators no more than 200 kilometers apart. (Currently
they have to be made from the same grid same grid.)
>
> EME contest
> -------------------
> The Contest department should work to establish dates for the EME contest
as early as possible, and include them with the contest calendar as the
yearly summary is released.
>
> Change the multiplier to include US states and Canadian provinces instead
of call areas.
>
> Stop requiring that stations operating outside of their traditional call
area sign portable.
>
>
> VHF Sweepstakes + June/September QSO Parties
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Establish a new Limited Single Operator category designed with the
newcomer in mind. Operate on no more than four bands with low power only.
>
> Simplify the limit for low power operation to 150w for 50-144-222-432 MHz.
>
> Eliminate the rules that allow Multi-Operator stations to work their own
operators on 2.3G and up.
>
> Strengthen the rules to minimize the rover practices known as grid
circling and captive rovers.
>
> Offer plaques for the January and September contests, in addition to June.
Work to find individual, club or corporate sponsors. Otherwise offer
plaques to national and regional leaders at their own cost.
>
> Make sure the rules indicate certificates are awarded for low power
entries in January, and for top DX entries.
>
>
> Promotion
> ---------------
>
> Promote suggested times and frequencies for "activity hours" on each band.
>
> As changes are made to the Contest and Awards sections of the ARRL web
site, give more visibility to VHF+. The number of HF contests and awards
tends to overwhelm the VHF+ offerings.
>
> Work harder to support and encourage smaller VHF+ contests sponsored by
other organizations.
>
> Provide more information on which contests logging programs fully support
ARRL contests.
>
> Continue the work to report on contest results by region. Find ways to
showcase existing VHF+ stations and VHF+ contest operating techniques.
>
> Work to make sure that administration and promotion of VHF+ contesting
events are given equal status with HF contests.
>
> Explore ways to offer "trinkets" for VHF+ contests. Pins have not been
successful, plaques work for top scorers, perhaps something like mugs or
T-shirts would be attractive.
>
> Utilize the e-mail addresses from those submitting contest entries to
alert them to the availability of online contest results.
>
>
> COMMENTARY
> -----------------------
>
> Some additional explanation and comments about each recommendation are
included below.
>
> Awards
> -----------
> ** Change the entry-level steps for VHF+ awards so more people will be
able to get started in the VUCC, WAS and DXCC using VHF+ frequencies.
Consider changing the steps for different level awards to a smaller
increment.
>
> The actual number of VUCC awards issued is relatively small. We think
that offering an entry point requiring fewer grid squares, or offering a
"pre-VUCC" award would be a good way to get more people interested in trying
to work longer distances on VHF+ frequencies (i.e. try something besides
repeaters and simplex FM operating). [This will likely generate a new
award, not a revised VUCC]
>
> ** Establish a VUCC challenge-type award, similar to the one used by DXCC.
>
> The current VUCC awards are all single band awards. One of the things
that has made DXCC so popular over the years was the 5BDXCC, and more
recently, the DXCC Challenge (and DeSoto award). It would provide a
continuing challenge for VHF+ operators to go beyond the basic VUCC on each
band. Administration of the VUCC is not as well support as DXCC is by
software programs, so this may be something that has to await some
additional resources.
>
> ** Create a new award or awards to appeal to entry-level or rover/portable
operation, such as a grids activated or miles per watt award. Consider GCR
certification rather than card checking.
>
> A lot of VHF+ activity is made possible by those who operate while mobile
(rovers) or go to hilltops. An award that rewarded their activity in
putting remote grid squares on the air would encourage even more activity
during contest and non-contest times.
>
> ** For VUCC awards on 50 through 1296 MHz and Satellite, all contacts must
be made from a location or locations within the same grid locator or
locations in different grid locators no more than 200 kilometers apart.
(Currently they have to be made from the same grid square.)
>
> The current rules restrict the location to one grid square. For some
people that includes nearby hilltops, for others it doesn't, so we're
recommending that the location be expanded to include locations within 200
km (about 125 miles). After all, for DXCC you can include contacts made
anywhere in the 48 states.
>
>
> EME contest
> -------------------
> ** The Contest department should work to establish dates for the EME
contest as early as possible, and include them with the contest calendar as
the yearly summary is released.
>
> Dates for the EME contest need to be set to maximize the opportunity for
EME QSOs, and that depends on moon and sun locations. It would be very
helpful to have the dates set earlier than they have been in recent years.
>
> ** Change the multiplier to include US states and Canadian provinces
instead of call areas.
>
> This change should boost participation from the US and Canada, and the
interest for DX participants.
>
> ** Stop requiring that stations operating outside of their traditional
call area sign portable.
>
> Though a long-time requirement, this rule has never been followed by
participants, nor enforced.
>
>
>
> VHF Sweepstakes + June/September QSO Parties
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ** Establish a new Limited Single Operator category designed with the
newcomer in mind. Operate on no more than four bands with low power only.
>
> In the past ten years there have been a large number of HF radios sold
that have also include one or more VHF bands. Most VHF+ operating starts
with only a couple of bands, and then expands as interest, time and
resources permit. A limited band category should attract a lot of interest
from the newer VHF+ operators, or even those who have no interest in
expanding to the microwaves.
>
> This proposal was originally to have a category for 50-144-432 but while
there was strong support for the concept, many wanted 222 to be added to the
mix. We felt it even better to propose a 4-band low power category.
>
> ** Simplify the limit for low power operation to 150w for 50-144-222-430
MHz.
>
> The low power limit is 200w on 50 and 144 MHz, and 100w on 222 and 430
MHz. We believe setting the limit on all four bands should be 150w,
consistent with the typical HF+VHF transceiver, or a transverter and "brick"
amplifier. (We know the CAC is considering a 100w limit for HF contests but
believe 150w is more appropriate for VHF+ events.)
>
> ** Eliminate the rules that allow Multi-Operator stations to work their
own operators on 2.3G and up.
>
> This is a rule that was originally created to insure that activity on 2.3
GHz and up happened during contests. It was much more difficult many years
ago than it is today. Today, those QSOs are not as difficult to make and
an exception for multi-op stations to work their own operators on the
microwave bands is not needed.
>
> ** Strengthen the rules to minimize the rover practices known as grid
circling and captive rovers.
>
> Grid circling is the practice of pairs rovers going to the junction of 4
grid squares and working each other at short distances while moving through
each of the grids. This can mean 16 QSOs per band for 10 or more bands,
and can generate huge scores (millions of points) while not encouraging
contacts with other contest participants. Requiring a minimum distance for
rover QSOs would help to minimize this type of activity.
>
> A captive rover is a station that only (or primarily) works one
multi-operator station during the contest. This may be the norm in less
populated areas of the country because there is little other activity, but
in populated areas it can generate considerable angst among competitors.
The practice that generates the most heat is a rover that only works one
multi-op and does not work others in the area. Many of them never submit
logs. Because the rovers are usually going to rare grids and have
microwave equipment on multiple bands, their efforts can really boost the
scores of those they work. The current rules are fairly weak in their
attempt to encourage rovers to operate in a way that gives a chance to all
stations in the area to work them and should be strengthened.
>
> ** Offer plaques for the January and September contests, in addition to
June. Work to find individual, club or corporate sponsors. Otherwise offer
plaques to national and regional leaders at their own cost.
>
> The plaque program has been reasonably successful in the June VHF Contest
and we think it should be expanded to cover the other two major VHF+ events.
There is some administrative burden in handling plaques but the price we
charge for plaques generally covers our costs.
>
> The plaques we offer in the June contest are awarded (when sponsored) to
the top entrants in these categories:
>
> Top 10 Single Operator (both High and Low Power) scorers.
> Top 5 Single Operator QRP Portable scorers.
> Top 5 Rover scorers.
> Top 10 Multi-Operator scorers.
> Top 5 Limited Multi-Operator scorers.
>
> Instead of focusing on plaques for national winners, which is really not a
fair way of comparing VHF+ scores across the country, plaques should focus
more on regional competition.
>
> ** Make sure the rules indicate certificates are awarded for low power
entries in January, and for top DX entries.
>
> While not a major issue, this topic generated a surprising number of
comments. Certificates are issued for these categories but the printed
rules have not been clear.
>
>
> What isn't included in the recommendations?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There were several key proposed changes that were not well-received. The
subcommittee was not 100% supportive of proceeding with them so we are not
proposing them at this time.
>
> ** Reduce the large emphasis on microwave contacts in the Jan/Jun/Sep
contests.
>
> Microwave QSOs make a huge difference in the total scores that can be
made. The subcommittee felt that the incentives, while useful to generate
microwave activity when they were instituted many years ago, provide too
much of an incentive today. This tilts the core of VHF+ activity towards
the microwaves and away from working those who are casual participants or
newcomers. Making one microwave QSO is generally more valuable that making
10 QSOs on 6 or 2 meters, for example.
>
> We proposed to change the point value for all QSOs to a 1-2-3 point system
for all bands (one for rover QSOs, two for QSOs in your own grid and those
that touch it, and three for QSOs with distant grids). No one seemed to
like the 1 point for rovers proposal, and most who commented did not like
the reduction in QSO points for microwave contacts. A majority of the
subcommittee favored a change to a simple two point per QSO scoring formula
but without stronger support it didn't make the final cut in our
recommendations.
>
> ** Since Jan/Jun/Sep contests are nearly identical, convert one to a pure
VHF/UHF contest (no microwaves).
>
> We proposed to change the June contest to a 50-1296 MHz event. Many
commenters saw this as a decrease in ARRL commitment to microwave
frequencies. A large numbers spoke of "use it or lose it" regarding
microwave activity. It appears that a considerable portion of existing
microwave activity happens during the six ARRL VHF+ contests - that is cause
of concern.
>
> ** Eliminate the UHF contest, expand the 10G and Up contest to include
2.3/3.4/5.7 GHz.
>
> The UHF contest has never "taken off." The contest began in 1978 with
118 entries and attracted 159 the next year. It peaked at 249 entries in
1994 and 250 in 1999, and was down to 140 entries last year. While the UHF
contest has declined, the 10GHz and Up contest was started in 1986 with 52
entries and has steadily grown to 141 entries last year. Our draft
proposed dropping the UHF contest and expanding the 10G and Up contest to
include the 2.3/3.4/5.7 GHz bands. Again, this was received in a similar
fashion as was described in the previous item.
>
> We believe further work needs to be done to find ways to improve the UHF
contest.
>
> ** Revert to the old rover scoring rules.
>
> Despite the many years of comments by some people that the old rover rules
were preferred to the current ones, the general consensus of those providing
input to the draft proposals was split fairly evenly. It does not appear
that going back to the old rules is merited.
>
>
> What are the key trends and information in the data analyzed?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Decline in entries
>
> As noted earlier, activity in the Jan/Jun/Sep contests is down 25%, and
activity in the EME and UHF contests is down 50%. Changes are needed.
There were some start-up issues in moving towards electronic logging, though
they happened several years after the decline began. It has never been
easier to log VHF+ contest QSOs and to submit the log electronically. Paper
logs are still accepted, though electronic ones are encouraged.
>
> Attachment #1 has additional details on entries for VHF+ contests.
> (the attachment is not included by shows the number of logs in VHF+
contests since around 1975. Send me an e-mail if you'd like a copy - K1KI)
>
> Logs vs activity
>
> An analysis of VHF+ logs indicates that the number of logs received is a
good estimate of the total amount of activity, as it is with HF contests.
> An analysis of VHF+ logs indicates that the number of logs received is a
good estimate of the total amount of activity, as it is with HF contests.
Looking at log data from the last several years shows that there are about
4500 active stations in the three major VHF contests (but only about 500 in
the UHF contest), and that the amount of activity can be calculated from the
number of logs received. The number of callsigns comes from the actual log
QSO database.
>
> Average Average
> Contest Entries Calls Ratio
>
> UHF-01-02-03 148 506 3.4
> Jan-01-02-03-04 803 4014 5.0
> Jun-01-02-03 728 5277 7.2
> Sep-01-02-03 536 3253 6.1
>
> Core of microwave operators
>
> In each VHF+ contest there are a fairly small number of stations that make
QSOs above 1.2 Ghz. September 2003 was typical with only about 100
stations out of more than 500 entries making microwave QSO, and more than
half of them were multi-ops or rovers. Many of the top single operator
stations use microwaves, especially in the densely populated areas, but 80%
of the entrants do not. Most of the contest activity (97% of the QSOs)
takes place on 1.2G and below, but microwave QSOs can double the score of
the stations.who invest in them.
>
> Final thoughts
>
> There are two pools of people we believe should continue to be focused on
to generate additional interest and activity in VHF+ awards and contests.
Those who already operate VHF+ but generally use FM and repeaters as their
major focus are one group, and the other is the large number of people who
have purchased one of the many HF+ radios that include one or more VHF
bands.
>
> Reconciling the strong preference for those "at the top" for extra rewards
(QSO points and multipliers) for microwave QSOs, with the desire to
encourage more activity is difficult. That was the fundamental issue we
struggled with.
>
>
> Committee members:
>
> Tom Frenaye, K1KI, Chairman
> Joel Harrison, W5ZN
> Wayne Mills, N7NG
> Ward Silver, N0AX
> Clarke Greene, K1JX
> Rus Healy, K2UA*
> Gene Zimmerman, W3ZZ
> Ned Stearns, AA7A
> Mike King, KM0T
> Dan Henderson, N1ND
>
> * participation limited after 9/03
>
>
>
> =====
> e-mail: k1ki at arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director
http://www.arrl.org/
> Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
More information about the Fourlanders
mailing list