[VHFcontesting] distance scoring

[k4gun at comcast.net]

I appreciate all the responses.  I genuinely am open, and some of these notes do make sense.  I haven't changed my mind, but I'm still listening.  I like the current system.  I like that I can go to a distant yet flat grid and make contacts that help both me and other stations.  I think a distance based system would keep me away from places like FM26, FM27 and FM28 where there isn't any real high ground and therefore, no real reason to be there.  It wouldn't benefit anybody since they could catch me at longer distances from FM08 in the mountains.

Is this just an academic discussion or is there serious consideration for making changes like this?  

Steve

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Duane - N9DG <n9dg at yahoo.com> 

> 
> In line below: 
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 6/21/08, k4gun at comcast.net wrote: 
> 
> > From: k4gun at comcast.net 
> > Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] distance scoring 
> > To: "Bruce Herrick" , "VHF Contesting" 
> 
> > Date: Saturday, June 21, 2008, 10:55 AM 
> > No one ever said that, but then again, until Ev spoke up, 
> > nobody had ANY specifics. Everybody keeps talking about 
> > use of 6 digit squares as if the current 4 digit is 
> > inadequate. That's why I asked for details, rather 
> > than speculation. 
> 
> 6-digit exchanges work well for this purpose because the granularity of the 
> distance increments is fine enough. Something on the order of 3-4 miles vs. 50 
> or so when calculating based on 4 digit grids. BTW I do believe that maintaining 
> 4 digit grids as multipliers is desirable as well. 
> 
> > 
> > After reading Ev's posts, I remain skeptical, but I 
> > would be up for working some sprints to see how it actually 
> > ends up working. I still think a 6 digit exchange is 
> > cumbersome for a guy behind the wheel of a truck. My 
> > truck's built-in navigation system is not set up for 
> > Maidenhead readings so I've been relying on a paper map 
> > and comparing to the lat/lon readings to determine grid 
> > location and that would not work for a 6 digit exchange. 
> > I'll have to buy more equipment and figure out how to 
> > integrate it into my system. That's not horrible, but 
> > it makes me nervous "K4GUN/R in FM08us... no wait, 
> > uniform tango... hang on, the road keeps turning, make that 
> > us. Yes, its uniform sierra, I'm sure, QSL?" 
> > Meanwhile, my logger is furiously trying to enter my 
> > location as well as the location of the station I'm 
> > talking to. Hopefully we all put the same information into 
> > the logs. 
> 
> In the run and gun scenario I don't think anyone would be particularly concerned 
> about a Q starting in one 6-digit grid and ending in another, in the end those 
> kinds of instances would all average out. The rover would most likely make the 
> exchange based on the beginning. 
> 
> What 6 digit grids and distance scoring opens up as possibility is an allowance, 
> or even the encouragement of rovers making multiple Q's with the other ops from 
> within the same 4 digit grid. The scenario could go something like this: 
> 
> Station 1 and the rover find each other. They are only 10 miles apart, they make 
> the Q with 6 digit exchanges and log it. Later on as the rover is still in the 
> same 4 digit grid and these two ops find each other again, but the rover is now 
> 80 miles away. So they would simply work each other again and exchange 6 digit 
> grids again, and log it again. Note that for logging purposes none of the 
> "dupes" are removed. Just submit them all. Once the logs are submitted the 
> contest sponsor's log checking program would simply ignore all the different Q's 
> in this scenario except for the one that achieved the longest distance from 
> within respective 4 digit grids. If by chance they do not get another 
> opportunity to work each other after the first short haul Q, then at least that 
> one is in the bank. 
> 
> One of the overall effects if this would be to increase overall contest chatter, 
> generally speaking more chatter makes stations more likely to be found by 
> others. 
> 
> 
> > I also see this as a dis-incentive for rovers to make 
> > longer trips. Part (not all) of the advantage of moving 
> > from grid to grid is to get closer to population centers in 
> > grids that you could not get from your QTH or from a single 
> > spot during a rove. Closer would mean less points. That 
> > means few stations can work me because I will not be 
> > traveling to an area where they can get me. 
> 
> It will ultimately come down to being a strategy decision to make as to which to 
> do is better. So it will be either go for higher number of Q's vs. some fewer 
> Q's, but potentially more points per Q's because each has more value. Today 
> there simply is little or no incentive for rovers to consider long haul roves by 
> choice. The long haul roves mostly occur today by trying to hit a large number 
> of grids. 
> 
> Then on the flip side of the whole equation the fixed stations will now have 
> more incentive to try reach rovers in far away grids as well. And all ops will 
> also have more incentive to try work each and every long haul Q in a distant 
> grid instead of primarily the multiplier first one. In other words, make all 
> long haul distant Q's to the same 4 digit grid roughly equal in true value vs. 
> just the first one that represents a new multiplier. This is especially true for 
> bands above 432. 
> 
> Duane 
> N9DG 
> 
> > 
> > Skeptical. That's all I'm saying. I like it the 
> > way it is. I don't see why it needs changed. 
> > 
> > Steve 
> > K4GUN/R 
> 
> 
> 
>