[UK-CONTEST] Re VHFNFD

[John Simkins g8iys]

Folks. I promised not to post again, but there have been several 
subsequent posts which show that various hares are running, many of 
which ever been remotely considered by the CC, yet alone worked into a 
draft paper of proposals and much less into any thing like a finalised 
product. Bob has just come closer than anyone else to what was intended. 
I would much rather this information was being presented as part of a 
consultation paper in a few months time when a bit more flesh has been 
put onto a bone structure, but needs must.

Firstly, I must apologise to Stewart who was on the receiving of my 
vitriolic outburst. He did not deserve that treatment from me and I 
sincerely and publicly withdraw my remarks and accusations which were 
directed at him.

The next part may seem like post-hoc justification, but I would like to 
offer the following explanation for what led to my behaviour. I 
perceived my contribution was being interpreted in a way diametrically 
opposite from my intention. I hope you can stay with it until the end.

At the CC conference last autumn, a very basic set of proposals was 
floated with a view to getting more UK portable stations onto the air 
for VHFNFD.

Over the intervening six months, this was worked into a second 
preliminary paper, which was presented to the Spring 2012 CC conference. 
More work remains to be done and when a viable set of proposals has been 
formed, this will be presented for consultation with the broader 
contesting community. The mechanics of that have also to be worked out, 
but done it will be.

In my yesterday note of reassurance that there would be no change to the 
VHFNFD Rules effective in 2012, I thought it prudent to signal that some 
change is being considered by the CC for 2013. I did not wish to offer 
more than a broad scoping of what the eventual draft might contain, 
because it would have been presumptuous given it is work in progress. I 
do not know either what structure the CC will have in a few months time 
and indeed who will be presenting proposals - if at all. I was clumsy in 
some of its construction and overly brief - leading to misunderstanding.

Let me kill one of the hares straightaway. There have been NO complaints 
from anyone or any group occupying any position in the VHFNFD results 
tables regarding treatment of those at the lower levels of the tables. 
No complaint, no special pleading, no approaches whatever have been made 
to the CC on this topic. So firstly the why and then more on the what 
might form at least a starter structure:

The why: Even the most cursory study of the results tables will reveal 
substantial numbers of single or two-band entries occupying the lower 
half of the Restricted and Low Power tables. They need to be retained, 
encouraged to grow and become more competitive. Of much greater volume 
are the UK based home-QTH active callsigns which appear at least once in 
the overall accumulation of entrant's logs for VHFNFD. This number 
exceeds 1000. Clearly, if only 10% can be encouraged into the field, 
then that would be a substantial level of growth which would benefit 
both the new and the seasoned entrant.

Now the how (first cut):

The first requirement is to leave the existing structure as much as it 
exists as possible. While it is important to secure growth from new 
participants, it is also important to leave undisturbed those for whom a 
new sector/section is unappealing.

More work needs to be done to drill down to reveal how many bands each 
fixed station was active on, numbers and proportions of multi band 
VHF/UHF /SHF transceivers or multi-transverters used and how viable 
their antennas/masts might be for portability. Numbers of people 
operating each callsign also needs to be determined, but may not be an 
enormously important factor - see later. Asking them all individually 
for inclinations re going /P might be a bridge too far

Initial thoughts are that a new section might be created to get many of 
the people into the field for the first time. but cognisant of the 
probability that the first few bites might test their limited field 
resources. All the normal rules re power, antenna, operating times 
relevant to the existing 4 sections would apply. However, the key 
difference would be that only one QSO on any of the available bands 
would be permitted at any one time ie QSOs must be consecutive. 
Band-concurrent working would not be permitted.  Gut-feel, no more than 
that, is that this would not be appealing to Open section entrants 
per-se, but might be as part of a Mix & Match entry.

So this is a much longer hand version of what I only sought to allude to 
yesterday. As I hope will be evident, there is no question of giving 
away a certificate just for turning up. This proposal, appropriately 
developed could offer a challenging and rewarding first step into /P 
multi-band contesting.

Like I said earlier, much remains to be done before a 1st cut draft can 
be offered for comment. I hope that the concept can now be seen in context.

73. John G8IYS.



On 21/04/12 14:12, Rob Harrison wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry I'm a bit late with this post, only just read through all today's
> mail.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clive GM3POI"<gm3poi2 at btinternet.com>
> To: "'John G3UUT'"<UK-Contest at grebe.plus.com>;<uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 10:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Re VHFNFD
>
>
>> John,
>> Nothing at all wrong with that, but they should not be moaning about
>> the fact they are where they are.
> Where in all these recent threads re VHF NFD has mention been made of
> moaning by contesters at the bottom of the pile?
>
> John is only trying to encourage those that are entering the restricted
> section to continue to enter and thereby keep the numbers active high, and
> hopefully lead them on to the Open section at a later date. If giving a
> certificate out for that gets the necessary result then great. If I've read
> his post correctly, no mention was made of the Open section, which some
> correspondents seemed to go off at a tangent on.
>
> Whilst we all strive to be winners, some will never reach that goal, that's
> life. But not to encourage improvement at all levels is not the way to go.
>
> 73 Bob G8HGN
>
>
>
>
>
>> Without improvement they WILL just get left behind and end wanting rigs
>> consisting of 807s and AR88 or the modern equivalent.  73 Clive GM3POI
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>