[VHFcontesting] No Data+only annecdotal speculation=wrong solution

[k4rxr at att.net]

> 1.  There are large groups of folks with the CAPABILITY of working one or 
> more VHF/UHF bands and perhaps a bunch of different strategies are needed to 
> motivate each of these potential contestants (e.g. the HF packers w/ 
> FT-817's, 2 mtr FM'ers, HF contesters, etc.).

>From my perspective on the outside looking in, as it were, I think this is a 
very salient point.

I've been reading this thread and took note of the messages from the big guns, 
the guys with the high power amps, huge antenna arrays, and esoteric microwave 
equipment. I understand their concern about "dumbing down" the contest. Unless 
there is a reason for these folks to explore the limits of technology, then 
nobody will bother to do it. Part of the contest needs to cater to this kind of 
operator. And if the contest rules change to take away all of their advantage, 
then they have a legitimate gripe that their investment will have been dumped 
in the toilet.

On the other hand, if I ever pry open my wallet and get off my lazy butt, my 
entry into VHF contesting is going to be with a IC-706/FT-100 type of rig and 
simple antennas for an ABD rover type of operation. My concern is that if I try 
that approach to contesting only to have my scores pale by comparison to the 
big guns, then I'm not likely to pursue contesting any further. I don't think 
I'm the only one in this boat.

As much as I hate the idea of a creating a lot of classes with little 
participation in each class, to an extent, that approach may increase total 
participation. That's the goal, isn't it? And the only way to know is to try 
it. Add a class for the IC-706/FT-100 guys and see if it has any impact on over 
all participation. If that doesn't work, drop it and try something else. The 
point is that the contest rules have to evolve even if that means taking away 
some of the advantage that the big guns currently have.

Bob...