[VHFcontesting] VHF Contest Rules Revisions - Part III

Wed Apr 30 11:10:09 EDT 2003

Part III – Comments on Specific Problems and Proposals
of VHF Contesting.  Here are a few of my thoughts
concerning some specific proposals that I have read
about to date.   

“De facto” microwave contests.  I think this was an
excellent observation made in the April 2003 QST
column.  I do not feel there is anything immediately
wrong with de facto status for the microwaves,
however. We should encourage their use. 

Specialty contests.  I suggest that we already have
lots of specialty contests. Let’s not destroy the
existing system of the three majors. Let us just add
more specialty contests into the existing mix,
assuming there is such interest in the first place. I
suggest that we should encourage the continual
development of specialty events, but only after
fleshing out a real need for such events. 

Vary the Format. This is similar to the specialty
contest idea, but only with a greatly varied format.
We should try a varied format, if only to find out
what survives and what does not. Call it a popularity
contest for the VHF Contests, if you will. But the
existing majors and specialties should not be
extensively revamped in the process, as much as adding
to the mix with greater variety.  Seriously
restructuring the existing contests may have the
undesirable effect of turning folks away from the “old
reliables”.  We do not want to destroy the good
existing events in the name of creating new but
unproven contests. 

A 222 “Specialty” mentality.  One such specialty area
that I feel is in dire need of help is the 222 band.
The manufacturers are quite capable of putting their
phase lock loop transceivers on this band, but do not
do so for the most part. I feel we should critically
push this band, or else commercial interests may grab
the rest of it.  It is a great band, too! I know there
is a 222 night for the Sprints, and that 222 counts as
a band in the August UHF.  But what about a separate
contest just for 222, or perhaps extra QSO Points for
this band in the regular VHF tests.  We must protect
and use this band, or we may yet lose the remaining 3
MHZ that we still have.  

Rovers.  Despite two separate rules changes on the
rovers in the mid-1990’s, rovers are still having the
effect of distorting both the unlimited multi category
and the club competition. The only unlimited multis
that are now competitive are those with the
where-with-all to sponsor three, four, or even more
rovers at a time, all with microwave capabilities. We
should consider reviewing the rules to prevent the
artificial manufacturing of contacts by rovers. This
brings up the old rover debate all over again, and may
reduce rover activity in any event, so I have mixed
feelings on the matter. If we prohibit sponsorship by
the multi’s, are we also to prohibit sponsorship or
point production by rovers for SO or QRP sponsors? 
How is “sponsorship” to be defined? 

Limited SO.  This idea has much merit.  Possibly, over
80% of all VHF hams have 4 or fewer bands, with modest
antennas, and almost always with solid state bricks
(another technological innovation that lead to lots of
bigger signals getting on the air in the early
1990’s).  Encouraging a SO limited, similar to the
Multi limited, may marginally improve log submissions
since this rules change would positively impact the
large bulk of the VHF community.  Instead of a SO High
power versus a SO low power, I suggest an SO unlimited
high power versus a SO Limited low power (under 200
watts).  This would remove the de facto microwave
problem for the vast majority of the contesters out
there.  Participation could still occur on more than 4
bands but only the best 4 bands would be submitted for
point credit, just the same as the limited multi.  The
distinction of high versus low power could be
preserved, but only with a limited proviso added to
the SO low power category. 

Under no circumstances do I favor however limiting the
June VHF to only four bands.  We should not destroy or
drastically alter proven success stories. If we wanted
a VHF only contest, we could certainly create another
separate contest in July, still in time for the E skip
and enhanced tropo season. Limiting the June VHF to 4
bands may only prove to be the undoing of a great
contest. I therefore request that we have a VHF only
concept develop into either a SO limited idea or into
its own separate contest. 

One QRP Portable, two hilltops. This category is
currently pitifully small as it is.  I feel that a two
hilltop proviso will not serve to add to the ranks of
this interesting category. It will only serve to
divide the few existing brave souls (myself included)
in this category into two camps: The one hill crowd
and the two hill crowd. This is another example of a
well-meaning thought generating adverse unintended
effects. What little I understand of this suggestion,
I do not yet support.  

Distance Points.  This idea has continued to enjoy
support over the years.  The reason why distance
points have not caught on over the years is obvious: 
we already have a distance system in place, that of
the grid squares.  The quick and almost universally
accepted use of grid squares beginning in 1983
demonstrates that an easy way to informally measure
distance – that of the grids – has been deployed
successfully for 20 years.  I see no reason to change
to something that is bound to be more complicated than
the existing system, and in which the concept has
historically been attempted but quickly abandoned when
the grid squares came along.  Its continued use and
acceptance in the 10 Gig shows its applicability in
microwave events where sub-grid distinctions become
critical. I would rather use distance points in
existing or new specialty microwave contests. 

The Robot.  Some are critical of the automated robot,
arguing that this may be a supporting reason for the
log declines.  I share the general frustration over
the robot, as I also have run into problems with it. 
But so what?  Every new technology has its bugs and
eccentricities. Surely, the robot should not be seen
as a major impediment to the situation.  Besides, I
have confidence that the Robot will get better and
better (and so will our use of it).  We may end up
scoffing at such comments within just a very few
years.  

Elimination of the Line Scores in QST.  I too
generally feel that contesting is impliedly being
given a back seat to the absurd human interest
pictures that keep popping up in QST.  But not let’s
cover old ground.  I think this is essentially an
argument over the current state of print technology
being impacted by a disruptive and superior new
technology.  The entire argument over line scores, in
any event, is rather beside the point: bringing the
lines scores back will do nothing for log entry
improvements.  It was only with the publication of the
2002 June VHF in the January, 2003 QST edition that
line entries on any contest were first deleted. The
decline in the number of log entries has been going on
and off for many years (and indeed for many decades)
before the recent elimination of the line scores from
QST.  

Reinstatement of the Full Rules in QST.  I am more
concerned about the loss of the Rules within the pages
of QST than I am about the loss of the line scores. 
If people are not continually reminded of the
contests, they will wander off to other things.  I
seriously doubt if a marginally interested ham will go
to that same web-site to learn all about the many and
varied nuances of VHF contesting.  It sure looks like
all contests, both HF and VHF, are being given short
shrift here. It is appropriate to at least have the
full rules set out in the magazine, I request the
reinstatement of the full rules back into QST. 

In my next part, I want to address some club-oriented
ideas.  

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com