[VHFcontesting] Comments on proposed changes - please excuse excesive bandwidth

[w4rx]

Hello Tom and Group,

 

Judging from the reflectors, you have had a lot of feedback already on the proposed changes in VHF+ contest rules and awards.  I agree with most of what has been said already but would like to add another comment, just so you can add up the numbers of pros and cons, if nothing else.  This is from an old timer's perspective.  I have been an active HF contester for 50+ years (W4YHD, W4RX, even placed first in the US in CQWWCW twice in my younger days, now the reflexes don't stand up so well to the competition, hi).  And a PVRC member for 50+ years.  I got started in VHF+ mountaintopping (we didn't have rovers then) in the 50's in the Northeast.  Then began upgrading the home station for VHF+ in the 80's, band by band, until I am now active in most of the contests on 50 MHz thru 47 GHz (yes, there are stations such as W3IY/R who are equipped that high).  Why did I make all of that effort to equip my station?  Because there were stations to be worked in the contests on those bands.

 

Beginning with your basic goals, I agree with all of them.  But there is a major omission from your goals, which is to encourage the use of as many amateur VHF+ bands as possible, particularly the microwaves.  First:  All of our bands, particularly the higher ones, are under constant pressure from commercial interests.  To the industry, frequencies = money, lots of it.  We are indeed fortunate to have all the bands we do.  Only by using these bands will we keep them.  The reality is that there is much more activity on the microwave bands during just the four ARRL-sponsored contests (June, September, August UHF, and January VHFSS) than the sum total activity for the entire rest of the year.  Please don't do anything to discourage that activity.  Second:  Encouraging contacts on the higher bands will encourage contesters to upgrade their stations, just like it encouraged me, and in the process they will improve their technical proficiency and operating skills.  That's what it is about - it's not about tailoring the contests to make us more content to be appliance operators.

 

On to the specific proposals.

 

(1) Change Rover Rules.  I remember when the original rover rules were changed so that grid multipliers didn't count repeatedly from each new grid activated.  A few rovers didn't like the change, a few even quit roving.  But the number of rovers has increased steadily since then.  My own survey of active rovers indicates that almost none of them feels strongly that the old scoring needs to be reactivated.  Your premise is that going to the old scoring would encourage rovers to travel further and activate more distant grids.  This is not true.  The successful rovers under the present rules are stretched to the limit by travel time as it is.  They would not activate a single added grid, in fact, they might be tempted to alter their routes to include more grids close to major population centers, so as to maximize the number of grids they could repeatedly work.  Ask a successful rover like W3IY, who usually activates 11 (sometimes 12) grids as far away as FM15 and FM25 under the present rules.  Those locations net him relatively few grids.  Under the old rules he would get a higher score by dropping those grids and going to, say FN10, FN20, and FN21 each easily reached and within range of a larger number of grids.  Yet he was probably the only FM15 and FM25 for all who worked him, while we each worked at least a dozen FN10/FN20/FN21.  The result in terms of distant grids activated could easily be negative, not positive.  Also note that the present rules make the top rover scores on a par with the top fixed station scores.  There is no need to adjust rover scores if the present rules are retained.  Above all please don't de-incentivize the rovers by not allowing their scores to count for their club (most rovers are faithful club members) and especially don't de-incentivize them (and those who work them) by making QSO with rovers worth less than QSOs with fixed stations.  These are both very poor ideas, conceived only to compensate for the flawed premise to revert to the old rover scoring system.  Bottom line: the rover rules and scoring ain't broke.  Please don't try to fix them.

 

There remain two rover issues: so-called captive rovers and grid-circling.  The captive rover "issue" is easier to deal with.  I believe there are very few "captive" rovers who actually would refuse to QSO a calling station.  I have personally yet to encounter one.  If a major club station is able to outfit an army of rovers and sends them out to contact home base, more power to them.  These guys may have a long road to travel and may not spend much time at each stop.  They may have low power and poor receivers (as would be adequate for mountaintop-to-mountaintop QSOs from many of the grids they might activate), making them difficult to work.  Stations on the fringe of the population density (e.g., K1WHS) send rovers in a direction away from other population centers (like FN45) so that, even with great equipment, those rovers may be unworkable by others.  Should we penalize the rover?  The home station?  Mostly, if you hear these rovers and call them, they answer.  They might not call CQs from all their locations, but should we try to legislate that?  I don't think this is a problem that needs to be dealt with.  For the outlier who clearly ignores callers, the solution is peer pressure.  Simply state in the rules that refusal of a rover (or any station, for that matter) to answer a caller (that he can hear, that is) is unethical behavior and if it is verifiably reported, that behavior will be noted in the contest writeup.  The problem of grid circling is harder, because this is an intentional activity of a few which attempts to gain unfair advantage (at least many of us think so) by using the rules in a somewhat perverted way to their advantage.  A lot of possible restrictions have been floated on the reflectors to prevent this.  But every time you prescribe a restrictive or punitive action, there is a probability of unintentionally harming someone else's legitimate activity.  The best way to deal with this (if it needs to be dealt with) is, again, peer pressure.  Make clear in the rules that grid circling is considered an unethical practice and the perpetrators will be identified when the results are published.

 

(2) QSO Point Changes.  All three of these proposed changes are actually counterproductive to what are (or should be) the goals.  QSO Point Value:  At present, the number of points per QSO is roughly proportional to the effort necessary to get on the band involved and to make the QSO.  That is as it should be.  In particular, the large differential for microwave band contacts should be retained, to encourage use and amateur development of these bands for the reasons stated at the outset.  It is proposed to replace this with a system based upon grid separation.  The stated goal of this is to discourage band changing (which it would not) and encourage more contacts with casual operators and newcomers.  It would have the opposite effect.  Many of us spend some contest time on FM working locals (this is where the real newcomers and casual participants are); we would be less inclined to do so if they were worth less points than we could achieve on ssb working stations in some big city an extra grid away. Point value based on distance:  This gives no particular benefit and introduces unnecessary complexity.  But it does further discourage working local casual operators and beginners.  We all try to make as many long distance QSOs as possible anyway (and are rewarded by the grid multipliers obtained thereby).   One point only for rover QSOs:  As noted before, this is a very poor idea, would make it less appealing to look for rovers (and to wait for them, as is often necessary), and would badly de-incentivize the rovers.  Rovers are probably the single factor most vital to maintaining activity in the contest.  This change would be certain to reduce their participation.  Recommendation: no changes in the points per QSO rules.

 

(3) June VHF QSO Party 50-1296 MHz Only.  The idea seems to be that if we can reduce the number of bands, more people will operate.  As if we can encourage operation by reducing the options to the lowest common denominator.  As if people who don't have the higher bands are boycotting the contests because they can't compete on all bands - the contest doesn't fit their particular rig.  Isn't this selling the average VHF ham a little bit short?  When I got back on the VHF bands around 1980, the first contest I operated I had 2 meters - only.  I enjoyed it but I definitely heard lots of guys moving to other bands where I couldn't go.  I didn't quit, I started building the station.  Wouldn't you?  It took a few years but eventually I got to where I could go to other bands, too.  This is what we want - incentive.  Microwaves are not the last frontier, but they represent a technical step forward for many of us.  Don't take the incentive away by reducing the June VHF contest to the lowest common denominator.  And don't take the action away from the serious operator just because the next guy hasn't gotten equipped.  If some contest had to be sacrificed in an ill-advised experiment to curtail the number of bands, June is a very poor choice, when the opportunity for mountaintop microwave contacts is greatest.  Try January when microwave conditions are poor and access to mountaintops may be nonexistent.  Remember also that the CQ VHF contest (in July) is limited to six and two meters.  If a reduced number of bands would increase activity, you would expect this one to be very popular, but activity is actually much less than the all-band ARRL June contest.  Recommendation: leave June as it is.

 

Establishing a new limited-band single-operator category is a much more acceptable proposal.  It doesn't penalize the serious operator who wants to get the maximum action out of the contest but it gives the band-limited station a category in which to compete with a bigger opportunity to win.  But don't forget, even this reduces the incentive to improve.

 

(4) New Categories in Jan/Jun/Sept.  A category for 50-144-432 only and a category for 6-hour hilltopping.  Again, this doesn't hurt anybody, so no objections.  But I think the premise may be flawed.  It is as if nobody is going to operate unless there is a category exactly tailored to his station, so as to maximize his chances of winning.  I think the guys with three-band radios are going to operate if they are interested, and if they aren't interested, this category won't make them get on.  But try it.

 

(5) Other Recommendations.  I agree with all of these.  Particularly with allowing DX-to-DX credit, which has been a conspicuous deterrent to Caribbean and Central American activity.

 

Dropping the UHF Contest.  This contest is a bit slow for me - I prefer the action of all bands, 6M through the millimeters.  But there are quite a few guys in our area who enjoy the UHF contest a lot, and the rovers go out for it.  It would be a shame to drop it.

 

Changes and Better Publicity for the EME Contest.  I haven't done this contest yet, but plan to.  It will probably become a more and more important contest with time, particularly with the digital modes.  Agree, on all counts.

 

Changes Already Implemented.  Agree with all - well done.

 

Awards.  These changes are all logical and non-controversial.

 

Strong Recommendations:  Don't mess with the rovers.  Don't mess with the points per QSO.  Don't take the microwaves out of the June contest.

 

One last thing:  Putting the VHF contest line scores back into QST will do more to stimulate VHF contest activity than any changes to the rules or scoring.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

73,

 

Jim

W4RX