[VHFcontesting] ARRL VHF+ contest proposals: input invited
Ed Kucharski
k3dne at adelphia.net
Sun Feb 22 23:36:15 EST 2004
First, thanks to the members of this subcommittee to give this subject the
attention that it needed. It is obvious that there are many different
opinions and ideas on this subject - their task was difficult at best and
impossible to please everyone.
There was one subject that the subcommittee didn't address - others have
already - which is the removal of line scores from QST. Lots has already
been said on the subject and I believe that seeing your call listed in QST
is an incentive not only to op a contest but to submit a score. I suggest
to leave the top 10 boxes with complete line scores and an abridged
write-up in QST and shift the longer detailed write-up and more of the
pictures to the web and keep the on-line scores as present to stay web
based. QST will still save space with the abridged write-up and less
pictures and we get the line scores back in QST and keep the flexibility of
having the web based scores.
I will add my comments on the proposals below in bold type.
73,
Ed K3DNE
>1) Change Rover Rules
>
>After considerable discussion about the impact of the present rover rules
>and comments from both rovers and non-rovers, we have recommended
>reverting to the rover scoring rules originally established in 1991. The
>text of the original rule is "The final score consists of the total number
>of QSO points from all bands times the total number of multipliers from
>all grid squares in which they operated." This change would encourage
>rovers to go to rarer and more distant grids instead of staying closer to
>metropolitan areas.
I lived through the rage associated with the change in the original rover
rules - it wasn't pretty. Many rovers stopped roving because of this rule
change - I'm all in favor of re-establishing the original rover rules.
>Because rover scores can be so large under the original rover scoring
>rules, they can distort the club competition scores. To solve this major
>problem with the original rules, we propose that rover station scores
>should not be counted towards club competition scores. Rovers would
>continue to contribute substantially to increasing the scores of club
>members by providing numerous QSO points and activating new grids.
Rovers who are club members should have their score count towards club
competition. Not allowing rover scores to count for club competition is a
dis-incentive to rove. We should be supporting reasons to rove NOT
promoting reasons not to rove. Multi-ops scores are also (often)
disproportionately large compared to single-op scores - should they not be
allowed to count for club competition too? SOHP scores are usually larger
than SOLP scores should they not count for club competition? Where does it
stop? At the very least having rovers scores count for club competition
may lead to more club sponsored rovers and more Q's for everyone.
>Finally, we believe it is time to be more definitive and state
>unequivocally that grid circling and captive roving are highly undesirable
>practices and that no rover station should engage in them. We recognize
>that due to the great disparities in population and geography, hard and
>fast analytical tests for these activities may not be possible but both
>these practices are well understood.
>
>Grid circling has been observed quite clearly under both the original and
>present rover rules two or more rovers congregate at the intersection of
>four grid squares and then circle each other around that corner making
>short distance QSOs with each other. Operating practices that look like
>grid circling are easy to detect and will result in review of the log by
>the contest managers.
>
>The term "captive rover" refers to stations whose primary activity is to
>increase the score of one fixed station either single operator or
>multi-operator, and who never, or seldom, work anyone else in the
>contest. These may or may not be people who are part of the same team or
>group. Again, this is easy to detect during the log checking process and
>will attract the attention of the contest manager.
I agree that both grid circling and captive rovers are not consistent with
the spirit and intent of vhf+ contesting and that they should be
discouraged. However, some type of objective parameters needs to be
determined to police and enforce any rule that "forbids" those activities
more than the subjective overview of the log checking process by the
contest manager.
>2) QSO Point changes
>
>The current rules provide for increasing QSO points as contacts are made
>on higher bands plus additional multipliers on each band for each new
>grid. We propose to change the values for QSO points for all three
>contests. Regardless of band you would receive two points for QSOs with
>your own grid and any adjacent grid, and three points for each QSO beyond
>that. QSOs with rover stations would count one QSO point each, regardless
>of distance.
>
>This change would reward those who can make more distant QSOs, and it
>would make a volume of short range microwave QSOs somewhat less critical
>to the final score although microwave grid multipliers would still be
>crucial to an all band entry. It would also tend to make QSOs with casual
>participants and newcomers more appealing than constantly running from
>band to band.
I have long been a proponent of a distance scoring scheme and I applaud the
subcommittee for integrating the concept into vhf+ contests. However, I
never thought that all 3 ARRL VHF+ contests would be changed to a distance
scoring scheme and I don't think it is a good idea. The June contest is
often associated with sporadic-E propagation and the use of a distance
scoring scheme in that contest would essentially make it more of a 6 meter
contest than it already is. I would propose to consider changing the
September VHF QSO Party to utilize a distance scoring scheme and leave the
June and January contest scoring as is - consider changing the QSO points
in the January SS to 6 points per QSO (instead for the present 8 points per
QSO) for QSO's on 2.3 GHz and higher.
I strongly feel that there should be additional points awarded for
microwave contacts. When this subject has come up in the past on the vhf+
reflectors I had suggested that QSO's on 903MHz and above be rewarded with
a higher QSO point value. For example, on 50 thru 450MHz count 1 point for
any QSO in your grid or any grid that touches your grid and 2 points for
QSO's in more distant grids. On 902MHz and up count 2 points for any QSO
in your grid and any grid that touches your grid and 3 points for QSO's in
the more distant grids.
DO NOT limit contacts with rovers to just 1 point regardless of
distance. This just doesn't make sense and is another dis-incentive for a
rover to rove. I have often said that rovers have been the best thing for
my score as a single-op than any station enhancement I have made. What
make a 500 mile 2.3 GHz contact (or any QSO for that matter) with a rover
worth LESS points than with a fixed station???
>3) June VHF QSO Party 50-1296 MHz only
>
>It seemed to us that at least one of the "big three" VHF+ contests ought
>to emphasize the VHF bands. We thus recommend that the June VHF QSO Party
>be limited to 50-1296 MHz only. June is often the time for sporadic E
>openings on 6 meters - as was the case in 2003. We would discontinue the
>Limited Multi category in the June VHF QSO Party only.
NO, NO, NO! Whatever happened to the "use it or lose it" concept that we
have been hearing for years? Or the advise that is constantly given that
the best way to increase your score is to add a new (microwave) band? Many
of us (single-ops, rovers, unlimited multis) have added bands at
considerable cost and energy and now we can't use it in the June VHF QSO
party? This proposal is just not logical to promoting activity on the
microwave bands. It would also further skew the results of this contest
due to sporadic-E 6m propagation. As an east coast single-op (yes I know
us east coasters are blessed with the population density advantage) I rely
on the microwave bands to counter the big 6m scores that are often reported
from stations in the mid-west or south. The 2003 June VHF QSO Party was a
good example - I had some sporadic-E 6m Q's but not nearly to the extent
that stations in FL or TX had. Without the 2.3 GHz Q's I made I would not
have finished in the SOHP top 10. I will be adding 3.4 GHz in June and
part of that reason is to stay competitive in the June contest. Microwave
QSO's in the June QSO Party is an excellent antidote for the lack of
sporadic-E propagation which can happen anywhere (not just the east coast,
of course) in the June contest.
If the ARRL is to drop the UHF contest why not replace it with a 50 -
450MHz contest instead of messing with the June contest.
>4) New categories in Jan/Jun/Sept
>
>Getting started in VHF+ contesting can be a bit daunting, and we wanted to
>find ways to attract the many people who have purchased multi-band
>transceivers that include VHF bands like the IC-706 and others.
>
>We recommend the establishment of a new Limited Single Operator category
>designed with the newcomer in mind - 50-144-432 MHz only, with low power
>operation only.
Don't neglect 222MHz! We already lost 2 MHz of the this band - lets
encourage activity there even if it is on 223.5MHz FM. Make the LSO
category 50 - 450MHz.
>For those who are "real estate challenged" because of antenna restrictions
>or topography, we also recommend a new 6-hour QRP Hilltopper
>category. This latter category should also be appealing to QRPers with
>radios like the FT817, one of the more rapidly growing segments in Amateur
>Radio.
Good idea.
>5) Other recommended changes (Jan/Jun/Sept)
>
>a) Simplify the limit for low power operation to 150w for
>50-144-222-432 MHz.
How about 200 watts to accommodate the brick amplifiers available in this
power range.
>b) Allow DX-to-DX contacts for QSO point and multiplier credit, but
>the DX station must make at least one QSO
> with W/VE on each band for which QSOs are submitted.
Sure - allow DX-DX contacts - anything to promote activity on vhf+. Keep
DX in a separate category.
>c) Eliminate the rules that allow Multi-Operator stations to work
>their own operators on 2.3G and up.
Absolutely! Great proposal.
>d) Offer plaques for the January and September contests, in addition
>to June. Work to find individual, club or corporate
> sponsors. Otherwise offer plaques to national and regional
> leaders at cost.
>e) Make sure the rules indicate certificates are awarded for low
>power entries in January, and for top DX entries.
>f) Resume promoting suggested times and frequencies for "activity
>hours" on each band.
>
>
>New Microwave contest based on 10 GHz Cumulative - UHF contest dropped
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>We recommend expanding the format of the successful 10G and Up microwave
>contest and expand it to cover from 2.3 GHz and up. The August UHF
>Contest would be discontinued after 2004. It never reached a critical
>mass of support and entries.
>
>1) Add one more weekend in April or May to the existing two-weekend
>cumulative contest.
>2) Include 2.3G, 3.4G and 5.7G bands.
>3) Have four basic categories - 2.4/3.4/5.7G, 10G only, 10G and up,
>and all band (2.4G and up). Each major category would
> include portable and home-based categories.
>4) Perhaps call them the X-band contests to increase interest.
I would suggest to include 902 and 1296MHz and have the first category
902MHz/ 1.2/2.4/3.4GHz. The next category 5.7/10GHz only then 10GHz and up
and the all band category would be 903MHz and up.
I hate to lose the UHF contest but I understand it hasn't been popular
recently. I would suggest replacing it (rather than leaving a vacancy in
it's spot) with a 50 - 450MHz contest of a similar duration (20 - 24 hours
or so) utilizing many of the new rule proposals.
>EME Contest
>-----------------
>
>1) The Contest department should work to establish the dates for the
>EME contest weekends as early as possible,
> and include them with the contest calendar as the yearly
> summary is released.
>2) Change the multiplier to include US states and Canadian provinces
>instead of call areas. The report remains the signal report.
>3) Drop the requirement that stations operating outside of their
>traditional call area sign with a portable designation.
>
>
>Changes Already Implemented
>-------------------------------------
>
>1) Allow digital QSOs in the EME contest. Implemented for 2003 contest.
>2) Work to establish an Internet template for entry of small and
>medium sized logs. Implemented in January 2004.
>3) Add a club competition to the June VHF QSO Party. Implemented for
>2003 contest.
>4) Work to find good authors and to encourage more regional reporting
>of VHF+ contest results. This had been in place for more
> than a year now. Staff is working hard to identify
> authors and would welcome volunteers, particularly experienced contesters
>5) Encourage Logbook of The World development to be supportive of
>VHF+ awards, like the VUCC. Implemented in September 2003.
>6) Encourage more activity by developing a high-quality grid square
>map of the United States. A very nice laminated, color grid
> square map covering North America was released in June 2003.
>
>
>Awards
>----------
>
>1) Change the entry-level steps for VHF+ awards so more people will
>be able to get started in the VUCC, WAS and DXCC
> using VHF+ frequencies. Consider changing the steps for
> different level awards to a smaller increment.
>2) Establish a VUCC challenge-type award, similar to the one used by
>DXCC.
>3) Create a new award or awards to appeal to entry-level or
>rover/portable operation, such as a grids activated or miles per
> watt award. Consider GCR certification rather than card
> checking.
>4) For VUCC awards on 50 through 1296 MHz and Satellite, all contacts
>must be made from a location or locations within the
> same grid locator or locations in different grid locators
> no more than 200 kilometers apart [the approximate distance between
> the corners of a grid square]. (Currently they have to be
> made from the same grid square or from distances no more than
> 50 miles apart.)
>
>
>How we got here
>---------------------
>
>The number of logs submitted to ARRL VHF+ contests has generally been
>decreasing for several years and the perception is that activity is not
>increasing in spite of the advent of commercial HF/VHF/UHF radios. After
>a number of discussions, ARRL Board members voted (January 2002) to have
>the Membership Services Committee review the existing VHF, UHF, and
>Microwave contest and awards programs and make recommendations on ways to
>increase interest and participation. The MSC established a subcommittee
>of K1KI N0AX W5ZN and N7NG.
>
>The early work included a survey in September 2002. The survey, intended
>as a way to gather ideas, not to measure exact opinion on issues, was a
>great success. Some 250 people provide valuable input. Initially, the
>subcommittee produced recommended changes for the VHF+ awards. That
>progress report was given at the January 2003 meeting of the MSC.
>
>At this point, to increase the expertise relating to the VHF+ contests it
>was recommended that the MSC-VHF subcommittee be expanded to include
>several knowledgeable VHF+ contesters. The subcommittee was expanded
>(K1JX K2UA W3ZZ AA7A KM0T and N1ND were added) and started work in April.
>Over the past several months the original discussions were reviewed and
>new ideas culled from discussions with friends, from the major VHF+
>reflectors and from participating in on the air contest activity lead to
>modifications and new recommendations. The recommendations detailed above
>are the result of this process.
>
>Again, we'd like to hear from you about the proposed changes. Please
>send any comments to vhf-contest-proposal at arrl.org - we'd like to have
>your input by March 7th.
>
> -- Tom Frenaye/K1KI
>
>MSC VHF-UHF Contest and Awards Subcommittee
>
> Tom Frenaye, K1KI, chairman
> Clarke Green, K1JX
> Joel Harrison, W5ZN
> Rus Healy, K2UA* (Atlantic Division Contest Advisory Committee member)
> Mike King, KM0T
> Wayne Mills, N7NG (Membership Services Department manager)
> Ward Silver, N0AX (Northwest Division CAC member)
> Ned Stearn, AA7A (Southwest Division CAC member)
> Gene Zimmerman, W3ZZ (also QST VHF column editor)
> Dan Henderson, N1ND (Contest Department manager)
> * unable to participate for the last few months
>
>=====
>e-mail: k1ki at arrl.org ARRL New England Division
>Director http://www.arrl.org/
>Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
>
>_______________________________________________
>VHFcontesting mailing list
>VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
More information about the VHFcontesting
mailing list