[VHFcontesting] Insights to Consider

[Zack Widup]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, N6KJ wrote:

> 
> I don't think so.  I happen to believe that one of the primary reasons
> that VHF contests get fewer logs is that fewer people operate VHF SSB/CW
> and there are far fewer stations to work in a VHF contest and thus
> they tend to be considered more "boring" to most contest operators.  HF
> contesters routinely make 1000, 2000, or more QSO's (esp. multi-ops) in a
> contest.  They routinely have run rates in the 50, 60, 70 or more Q's per hour
> range.  The fact that HF is open beyond line of site (or so) with 
> more regularity, more predictability and for far more hours per day means
> more QSO's which (for most people) means more fun.

I do both HF and VHF contesting.  They are really two different animals.  
Yes, HF contesting provides a certain adrenalin rush when you're working 
3, 4, 5 stations a minute.  That's a lot of fun.  But VHF contests are 
also fun.  Just in a little different way.  Each QSO can be a challenge 
depending on conditions and the station at each end.  And you know that if 
you're having a tough time of it, other people in your area with similar 
stations are also having those difficulties. I have never considered a VHF 
contest boring.  Even when the band is dead, I'm usually sitting there 
constantly tuning around for someone to work.

> The people that
> operate the microwave contests tend to be the hardcore experimenters: the one's
> that operate the contest mainly to prove that their designs work.  I
> find very few "hardcore contesters" operating UHF or microwave in contests.
> 

I may be an anomaly because I'm both. But one point about microwave ops is 
that they usually have a lot of time, money and effort invested in their 
equipment.  About the only times I get to use it much are in the contests. 

I already have transverters for the bands up through 10 GHz.  Right now 
I'm working on various improvements in local oscillator designs.  I have 
boards for three different methodologies - the KD6OZH PLL circuit, the 
RefLock, and the WA1ZMS direct synthesizer approach - scattered around. 
I'm experimenting with all of them. 

I'd hope that I can continue to have people to work in the contests with 
this equipment.  And I think it's worth the extra points currently being 
rewarded for QSO's on those bands.  Not only does it take a lot of time 
and expense to get the equipment running in the first place, but each QSO 
is much more difficult than a QSO on the VHF bands. It can take a half 
hour for one QSO!  

I don't think HF contesters would complain because they got beat out 
when the competitor had a band they didn't have.  I don't have 160 and I 
have a poor antenna for 80 meters.  People with great antennas on those 
bands always rack up more QSO's than me. It seems if you want the extra 
points for QSO's on the microwave bands, you have to do some work for it.  
The thing NOT to do IMO is "level the playing field" by eliminating those 
bands for a VHF+ contest.

> I don't have any magic ideas for increasing VHF+ contest participation, but
> I DO think it is unreasonable to expect VHF+ participation to rival HF
> participation.  Just my $0.02.  
> 

I have gotten a few HF contesters interested in VHF+.  One hardly even 
works HF anymore.  I think this is the only way we are going to get people 
interested - by inviting them to see the station in operation and even to 
operate a little (well, except the single-op stations) to find out what 
it's all about.  

73, Zack W9SZ