[VHFcontesting] Limited Multi Class/contest rules revisions

[Ed Kucharski]

It is good to see this topic come up on the reflector again and to have a 
civilized discussion about something we
all apparently feel strongly about.  As Yogi would say:  "it is like 
deja-vu all over again".

In March of 1999 I posted a long message on the vhf reflector about my 
support for a distance scoring scheme
in vhf+ contests that was based on my excitement generated by an article in 
CQ-Contest (March 1999 issue)
written by W3ZZ;  Distance Scoring:  Time to Change the Rules?  A reprint 
of my post appeared in the Pack Rats
newsletter; Cheesebits sometime in the spring of that year and it is 
probably hiding in an archive somewhere online.
I counted around 75 subsequent posts on the subject, of which 34 gave an 
opinion on whether distance scoring should
or should not be used in vhf+ contests.  I counted 25 posts in favor of 
distance scoring and 7 opposed.  Based on the
posts I've seen on the reflectors today there still appears to be a lot of 
interest (maybe more than ever?) in
a distance scoring scheme in vhf+ contests.

I'm still in favor of using a distance scoring scheme in vhf+ contests - 
probably not in the June VHF QSO party
however, where 6m sporadic-E propagation would tend to skew the results 
(should a station on the east coast
really be rewarded with a 4 or 6 point QSO for a double-hop QSO with a 
station on the west coast - probably not).
The September and January contests would be better candidates.  The W3ZZ 
scheme was to use a concentric ring
model for distance scoring where contacts with stations in your own grid or 
the ring of grids that touch your grid to
be worth 1 point, the next ring of grids outward count for 2 points, 
contacts with stations in the next ring AND beyond
worth 3 points.  Points are the same on all bands.  It isn't as complex as 
it sounds - the author of VHFTEST (WG3E)
added this distance scoring scheme to his vhf+ contest logging program (he 
has since deleted it since interest in
the idea faded).  My distance scoring scheme is similar to the W3ZZ 
approach except it gives additional credit for
contacts above 902MHz.  I, like some others who have posted, feel the need 
for additional points for microwave
contacts to stimulate more microwave activity.  I feel this way even though 
there is commercial (plug n play) gear available.
Just adding a new microwave band to an existing station can be somewhat 
technically challenging.  I have found making q's on
the bands above 432MHz is more difficult than making q's on the "bottom 4" 
- otherwise my microwave qso and grid totals
would be the similar to 222 and 432MHz and they definitely are not.  For 
qso's at 902MHz and above I propose 1 point
for q's in your own grid, 2 points for q's in any grid that touches yours, 
4 points for q's in the next concentric grid ring
outward and 6 points for q's in the next concentric grid ring AND 
beyond.  My intent is to still reward additional points
for microwave q's and to limit the advantage of captive rovers.  With this 
scoring scheme, a multi-op (or single-op for that
matter), which wants to utilize captive rovers for the 4 point (or 6 in the 
January contest) microwave q's, would have to
send that rover a long way out - no longer could a captive rover start 
working the mother station in it's own grid or the grids
touching it's grid for the 3 or 4 point q's presently rewarded for q's on 
902MHz and above (they would now be worth 1 or 2 points).
Something similar using 6 digit grid squares would work just as well.

I also feel there are other rules enhancements needed.  Most notably, as 
others have stated, the need to change the
Limited-Multi category to encourage microwave activity.
Adding club competition to the June contest (it is already in place in 
September and January) may increase activity in
that contest and add an incentive to send in a log for that contest.
I too, am concerned about adding too many new categories/classes - we must 
be careful about what we ask for because
we might get it!
Fix whatever rover rules that need fixing to encourage more rover activity 
(personally, I think rovers have been the best thing for
vhf+ contesting, and my score, since sliced bread)!

We have the attention of the present chairman of the Contest Advisory 
Committee (Ned - AA7A) and it appears the time is right
to suggest what changes we want (see part of AA7A's post below).  If we 
really want changes lets not let this opportunity slip
away!

73,
Ed K3DNE


At 05:49 PM 9/2/02 +0000, Ned Stearns wrote:

>Let me tell you how to make this happen.
>
>1. Email your Division Director (email address is listed on the ARRL web
>site and inside QST) and tell them that this issue is important to you and
>needs to be addressed by the MSC as soon as possible. (The 15 Division
>Directors run the run League...everyone in Newington does what these folks
>tell them to do)
>
>2. Contact your CAC representative and tell him/her that you would be glad
>to provide inputs and or advice on VHF contesting issues (email address for
>your division listed on ARRL website in Contest area).
>
>3. Respond, if asked, to participate on an ad hoc group that will
>undoubtedly be assembled to support the study of VHF contest rule revisions
>in the near future.
>
>My tenure as CAC chairman is about to lapse. This assignment is only for two
>years and I am ready to do something (anything) else. However, I am about
>the only experienced VHF contested on the committee and I may be asked to
>hang around on the committee and participate on this project. My hope is
>that the MSC moves out soon with the project.
>
>Thanks for reading this.
>
>Ned Stearns
>AA7A
>SW Division CAC
>Chairman CAC