[VHFcontesting] Re: VHFcontesting rules - hmmmm!

Tue Sep 3 10:17:30 EDT 2002

I think that the ARRL used to have it correct.  Under
the old rover rules, you started counting multipliers
over again whenever you entered a new grid square. 
That encouraged people to activate as many grids as
possible.  Then they changed the rules to only
counting grids once, regardless of the grid you were
in.  You could work the same station again as you
changed grids, though.  

Can anyone inform me as to why the rule change?  It
definitely seems to discourage activating as many
grids as possible.  Now if I go to a different grid, I
can work a few more stations, and get one more
multiplier for activating that grid, but it probably
won't be worth it if if forces me to operate from a
location that is not as optimum as the location I am
currently in.

73s John NE0P EM04to

--- paul goble <goblefam at swbell.net> wrote:
> Ev said, "'Limited Multioperator' should be in
> existance to foster growth of
> stations into the Unlimited arena...not structured
> in such a way as to get
> Unlimited-capaple stations to "dumb down" their
> activity to a lower category....."
> 
> EXACTLY!!
> 
> So limit "limited multi" to <300W transmitter power,
> or give bonus points for Qs
> made at "low" (level to be defined) power levels, 
> or some such - not that this is
> THE solution but, clearly, the rules have created
> some problems which, given the
> amount of contesting experience and history out
> there, should have been anticipated
> and addressed - perhaps east coast HF'rs aren't the
> know-it-alls they think they
> are?  Not that there is anything wrong with them;
> just a group I've seen blamed for
> everything from crowded bands to empty bands, so why
> not this?
> 
> Another area which could use a rules change to
> promote more activity is rovers.  I
> know a BUNCH of folks who would "rove" if they
> didn't have to compete with
> ABCD9EFGHI (and more) special high dollar rover "big
> guns"!  There are a lot of 6m,
> 2m and 70cm radios out here which would create a LOT
> of rover activity on those
> three bands if there were a category just for them!
> 
> Additionally, speaking of rules which cause
> undesired effects on activity, having
> activated a record 35 grids in the Sept 2k contest
> (a record which is unrecognized
> to date) and taken a poor third to 13 and 14 grid
> efforts centered on portable
> operations overlooking large northeast population
> centers (a condition which will
> never change as long as the rover rules stand
> as-is), perhaps a "portable rover"
> versus a "mobile rover" breakout would be helpful. 
> Since "rover" by definition is
> meant to  recognize movement, not necessarily merely
> flitting from one portable
> location to another, change the rover rules to
> (suggestions, not demands):
> 
> 1.  Emphasize number of unique grid square
> combinations, instead of mere Q totals.
> Perhaps employ a graduated multiplier scale for 
> number of grids activated (e.g, 1
> for each of the first 10 activated, 2 for 11 thru
> 15, 4 for 16 thru 20, 6 for 21
> through 25, etc. - I just picked these numbers as
> examples to illustrate "graduated
> multiplier scale" - smarter folks than I could
> devise a better scale, no doubt).
> 
> 2.  Make two rover categories (MOBILE and PORTABLE);
> limit amount of time and
> number of stops allows for each 10 grids activated
> for "mobile rover" category -
> anyone in excess of either time limit or number of
> stops limit would fall into the
> "portable rover" category.
> 
> 3.  Allow more than two operators for rovers
> activating more than 20 to 24 grids
> (again, arbitrary numbers to be adjusted by smart
> folks).  If one is on the move
> for an entire 33 hours of contest, more than two
> allowed would enhance both safety
> of vehicle operation AND efficiency of operating
> (three of us - one dedicated
> driver and two operators - were REALLY shot after 35
> grids in Sept 2k!).  Perhaps
> limit to only two transmitters going at any one time
> (a rather practical limitation
> for MOBILE rover ops, anyway!)!
> 
> 4.  Use band-limited categories, e.g., based on the
> number of bands used, AND ON
> THE FREQUENCY of same - using the fixed station
> limited multi problem to
> illustrate, we don't want to limit rovers to the
> bottom three or four bands above
> 50MHz, so  have a category for any four bands (or
> five), a category for however
> many bands under 900MHz, another for bands above
> 900MHz but not above 10GHz, one
> for bands from 222MHz through 1300MHz, another for
> 10GHz and up (oops, that's
> covered by other contests, right?), or whatever -
> here, again, examples for
> illustration only; smarter folks than I could
> generate a better breakout, for
> sure!  Don't forget the special "appliance operator"
> category noted above!!  Hey,
> don't get your panties all in a knot about appliance
> operating; it's still
> operations and activity, right?  So, if I don't have
> the time nor test equipment to
> build, I should stay off the air?  What's wrong with
> being an appliance operator -
> better than not operating and losing the bands to
> inactivity, right?
> 
> OK, so there is a lot to consider - it would seem
> obvious that folks from different
> parts of the country, who operate under different
> terrain and population density
> conditions, should get together and work out a set
> of rules which actually meet the
> need.  Ah, but this would mean cooperation, and this
> doesn't happen except on
> sesame street, right?  Too many people with their
> own empire to protect.....sigh.
> 
> Just my 2 cents - a thought-provoking issue,
> contesting rules, right?
> 
> 73 to all, and to all a GN, Paul ND2X/5
> 
> "Ev Tupis (W2EV)" wrote:
> 
> > > I can tell you that it is very frustrating to
> work one mountain top station
> > > after another and keep hearing "Sorry we aren't
> on 1296 (or 10 Ghz, or
> > > whatever) anymore. We are limited multi now."
> > >
> > > We used to encourage microwave activity, now we
> discourage it!  BAH!
> >
> > I can't agree more strongly.  "Limited
> Multioperator" should be in existance to
> > foster growth of stations into the Unlimited
> arena...not structured in such a
> > way as to get Unlimited-capaple stations to "dumb
> down" their activity to a
> > lower category (which is what these rules do).
> >
> > In fact, "Limited" should not be by bands.  This
> is in direct opposition to
> > everything the ARRL stands for (using the bands).
> >
> > Limited should be by number of operators (max of
> two?).
> > Limited should be by RF output (same standards as
> limited single operator?)
> >
> > Both of these (if invoked) would encourage the
> Limited M/O category to be a
> > training ground for graduation into the Unlimited
> Category.
> >
> > Ev, W2EV
> >
> > ------
> > Submissions:                   
> vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu
> > Subscription/removal requests: 
> vhf-request at w6yx.stanford.edu
> > Human list administrator:      
> vhf-approval at w6yx.stanford.edu
> > List rules and information:    
> http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
> 
> ------
> Submissions:                   
> vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu
> Subscription/removal requests: 
> vhf-request at w6yx.stanford.edu
> Human list administrator:      
> vhf-approval at w6yx.stanford.edu
> List rules and information:
http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com