[VHFcontesting] ARRL VHF+ contest proposals: input invited

[Keith Thomas]

I (Keith, KB3ILS) and in much the same situation as Buck. I am a fairly new ham and maybe a contester.  I am antenna restricted due to where I live, but have some of the same concerns Buck does.  I operate a small home station and for the Jan contest put up some temporary antennas. I have read all of the emails on this and often see references to people with the new HF/6/2/440 setups.  That is me and my Icom-706 so I thought I would toss my 2 cents in about how to encourage people like to participate.
 
1.  I was intimidated when I heard the first UHF/VHF contest.  I figured all the other more experienced ops with more power would just consider me as getting in the way with my small setup.  I made a few contacts and enjoyed it but was still not comfortable.  That was last June.  Since then I have been reading the various contesting reflectors and learned that all contacts are worth points and that all the big stations work each other every contest.  By working the other smaller stations like me, they get add more points that someone else might not...especially later in the contest.  That made me much more comfortable jumping into the January contest.  I threw up a temporary 6 meter beam in the back of the townhome on a mast that I built.  Had a blast and gave out some points on three bands.  I think that educating radio ops and making them feel comfortable jumping in is more important than restricting bands etc.  Take away the intimidation factor and more will jump in.  I ag
 ree that
 the ARRL does a miserable job of educating people on using SSB and other modes on the UHF/VHF bands.  I looked and found very little. I have been educating myself via the Internet...but it takes a lot of time to do it that way.  Some people dont have the time for that.
 
2.  Don't take away any options for the little guys to make contacts and have an incentive to expand their stations. I don't think that restricting bands is a good idea.  During the contest I hear people talking about the other bands and moving to them etc.  I could not make the changes to the higher bands, but did not think it made the contest a waste of time. Instead, I started thinking about how I can add one or two (plan to start by adding 220mhz) and join in on the fun.  Learning new things and adding to your radio setup and skill set is a part of the amateur way.  If we restrict the contest to what is available on the mass market, then the desire to expand is reduced.
 
3. I also do not think it is fair to penalize the guys with a lot of bands just because I do not.  They invested the time and effort into their stations and should be able to use them.  These are the same people that are running the UHF/VHF nets that I have started to listen to and learn more.  (Packrat nets etc.).  Why penalize the people who are the best at it and take away their incentive to participate?
 
4.  Don't make rovering too hard.  A lot of people live in areas that it is tough to put up antennas and could get into contesting through small rover operations with the new all in one radios.  If this is too complicated with all the rules, they won't do it and contacts will be lost for all.  I think we need to encourage rovering and giving out as many contacts as possible.  I have seen the debate over captive rovers etc......and don't really have an opinion.  I am not sure why anyone would want to be a captive rover...but it is a free country.
 
5.  Contesters should encourage the use of these bands and modes during non-contest time.  I often listen to 2 meters and 6 meters SSB and don't hear much. I will toss out some CQ's and hear nothing.  Then during the contest....I hear a ton of people who all live close by (I am in FN20) and I wonder where they are during the non-contest times.  Participating in this last contest is what caused me to start looking for UHF/VHF nets and I checked into my first one this past Sunday.  (East Coast VHF Society by K2SMN). These nets give us new ops a chance to adjust/test our antennas and setups throughout the year and not just at contest time.  If you are new and learning, this is important.  There are other benefits as well.  K2SMN encouraged the people listening to send in their logs to show that people are using the bands.  I had not done that...but due to his net I sent in my first log.
 
In summary, keep the rules simple for the new people like me with small stations, but don't penalize the guys who put forth the effort to build a big station.
 
Keith - KB3ILS
Newtown PA
 
 
 
 


Buck Calabro <Buck.Calabro at commsoft.net> wrote: 
My name is Buck Calabro, KC2HIZ. I am a fairly new ham, contester and rover. I have no place to put antennas at home, so my station is mobile. I started out with an HT and now have an Icom IC-706mkIIG in the car with a Hamstick and dual band Comet vertical for 2m/70cm. It would seem that this discussion is about people like me, rather than the well established stations. Here is a reaction from someone who seems to fit the profile of the person you want to participate in VHF+ contests. 

>Our recommendations had several basic goals. Changes to the 
>contest rules and awards programs should: 
> 1) encourage more people to work more other people 
> 2) encourage QSOs made over longer distances 
> 3) encourage more people to join in and participate

>January VHF SS and June/September VHF QSO Parties
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>1) Change Rover Rules
>
>"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.

Now this is an interesting item. I stay pretty close to metro areas because that's where the hams are. With a little station and puny antennas, there are precious few stations I can work from the outback. There's a really interesting tradeoff between traveling to a new grid and staying put to work people where I am now. Points vs. multipliers. This will bear more weight as I add beams to the rover setup, because the longer it takes me to drive, set up and tear down, the less time I have to operate. If roving turns into a mad dash to visit as many grids as possible (for those multipliers) then am I encouraged to work as many people as possible? This is a tough call to make and I'm glad I don't have to make it! If there were some way to see statistics of rover behaviour before and after the original rules change, perhaps that would improve the quality of the debate.

>Because rover scores can be so large 
>under the original rover scoring rules, 
>they can distort the club competition scores. 

I don't understand this. Can't every club help equip their members as rovers? And wouldn't that be a good thing? More people on the air and more QSOs?

>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.

Oh, no! You want to make a contact with me worth less than a contact with a fixed station? That is incredibly discouraging. Why on earth would a fixed station want to give me a 3-1 advantage for each and every QSO? For a new grid? That works for the first rover in, but the rest of us are sort of undesirable after that one. Discouraging QSOs with a rover can't possibly help any of the 3 goals.

>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. 

Oh no! You want to take the best month for microwaves away? How does removing bands help any of the three goals? If you absolutely have to do this, do it in January, but I'm completely against it.

>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. 

I didn't think it was daunting at all, and I did my first contest with a 2m HT. With this change, there is a certain temptation to drop my weak upper bands and stay with the easy-to-use 3 band category. I don't think I will personally succumb, because I rather like the other bands, and building radios by hand is Very Cool Indeed. The rules permit me to actually operate 5 bands and only submit my log for the 706 bands, right? So I could compete in what ever category maximises my position in the standings regardless of the actual capabilities of my station? That sounds like it's the letter of the law, but not the spirit...

>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. 

Why? This is the one place the pioneers get to shine! It might help bring out more microwavers, given the different categories, so maybe I'll be able to get in on this one sooner rather than later. But I have to tell you that having a 10G+ contest is motivation for me to build a 10G transverter sooner rather than later.

> The August UHF Contest would be discontinued after 2004. It 
>never reached a critical mass of support and entries. 

Oh no! How does killing a contest help any of the three goals?

>Awards
>----------

With these changes I don't think I'll live long enough to garner any awards. 


Addressing some of the ideas floated on the VHF contesting reflector, I am adamantly against any idea that restricts the number of times I can cross a grid line. One of the better ways to make contacts is to drive along the grid line and work a fixed station from both sides of the line, giving him two grids. Otherwise, why would he bother working a weak station like me? And every single contest takes me out of my home grid out into some other grids and back into my home grid. It would Well And Truly Stink if I were unable to work stations from my home grid on my way back home each day. If we really believe that grid circling is such a bad thing, then make a separate category for them. Let them rack up a million points and try to beat each other. Don't let them add to club scores. I am against limiting the number of times I can work from a particular grid.

For me the beginner, it's an issue of time. I can drive to Canada and operate as a rover from there at 3am local, but who will be awake to work me? The point is that I need to be in a grid where I can work people with my small station AND there are people to be worked. For instance, I catch quite a few people on their way to or from church on Sunday by calling CQ on 2m FM at those times. If I'm in a 'rare' grid at that time, I can't work those people. This reduces the number of QSOs I make, defeating goals 1 and 3. A grid isn't any good at the wrong time of day, and some grids are good multiple times a day, with a different batch of operators each time.

Mainly, I just don't understand the furor about grid circling/captive rovers. If someone has enough time, money and ingenuity to convince a pack of rovers to operate with them, God bless 'em. That strategy is clearly open to everybody. Same thing goes for the 'captive' rovers. If your club can convince a pack of rovers to go out, more power to it. In either case you are sending more people into the field, making more contacts on more bands than without them. If the League has documented proof that a particular rover (or fixed station!) refused to work another station, then that rover's log should be disallowed. Otherwise, if one of these 'naughty' stations answers calls from others, despite mainly working themselves, then they are legitimate and should be allowed to compete. They are out making noise and answering calls. That's as good a definition of goals 1 and 2 as I can come up with.

Regarding a DX category, I'm all for it. I'm all for DX-DX contacts as well, and I don't care if they work W/VE. Who knows? I might be roving in a place where I can hear at least one side of that QSO and be able to piggyback. The more the merrier. Goals 1,2 and 3.

Regarding making 222 worth more points than 50/144/440 in a limited single op scenario, I'm all for it. Goals 1 & 3.

As a beginner, I am adamantly against anything that discourages my puny short-range station from making an entry. There is nothing here that will encourage a station like mine to go out, make noise and submit a log. In fact making the points distance based will it tough for me to figure my score with my paper log but I can live with that because I transcribe my paper log into RoverLog so I can submit a Cabrillo email to the robot.

If you really want more participation, I propose making each and every station call CQ on 146.55 at the top of the hour. In fact, force the format of the call to something like 'CQ contest from KC2HIZ rover FN32 listening until 5 after the hour.' That's a lot of noise and it's bound to get someone new into the fray. Goals 1 and 3.

Another thought (just to show that I'm not just a naysayer): To increase long distance contacts, make contacts with rovers 'in the next ring' worth more points. You'll reward the rover who's built and deployed a strong station and you'll reward the patience of the fixed station who worked me, er, I mean the rover. Goal 2.

I hate to be the one to say it, but this is a lot of debate over _points_. There's no cash prize involved here, and most of us don't even get to see our name in print anymore. For me, it's about getting better each round, and the points are a way for me to measure my progress. Some day, ten years or so from now, I may be competitive (as in top 10) but for now, it's about measuring my own progress. This might be naive on my part, but I suspect a lot of contesters feel the same way. Fiddling the points calculation just makes it harder to figure out where I am on that ladder.

Thanks for your time and for letting me share my thoughts. It is deeply appreciated.
73 de KC2HIZ/r FN32at
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.