[VHFcontesting] 6m Dominant

[Anthony Rick]

What a strange conversation...

I remember seeing at least a dozen posts describing what a disappointment
the 2007 June contest was because 6m never really opened up.  Several people
expressed their frustration after obtaining a new HF/6m transceiver and
feeling like it was a waste of money because their QSO totals were higher
for 222 MHz and above.

Maybe this year was just an example of how it is possible to get too much of
a good thing?

It is my prediction that eliminating 6m from the June contest would cause a
major drop in VHF/UHF activity as a whole.  Also, can't the same logic be
applied to an HF contest?  Should 20 - 160 meters be eliminated from CQWW at
solar cycle minima to promote activity on 10 and 15 meters?  This way people
could enjoy contesting without the need of a selective receiver or
directional antenna which may be required when conditions on 20m are
favorable.

Anthony



On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Mike (KA5CVH) Urich <ka5cvh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Steve Tripp (K1IIG)
> <stephen.tripp at snet.net> wrote:
>
> > I try and stay out of the "Rules Game" and any blogs about our contesting
> > aliments but I must agree with KR1ST, Chris, who suggests removing 6m
> from
> > the ARRL VHF/UHF contest.
>
> Mike wrote
>
> Are you on drugs? 50 MHz is the perfect band to get the newbie with
> their tech ticket on the air with an inexpensive basic station and get
> involved.  Obviously this is some New England elitist attitude or
> better yet, conspiracy to prevent the rest of "fly over country" or
> "newbies" from getting any Q's for the score board.  If you are going
> to eliminate 50 MHz just eliminate the darn contest altogether.
>
> --
> Mike Urich, KA5CVH
> http://ka5cvh.com
>  _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>