[VHFcontesting] distance scoring

[James Duffey]

Ron - You wrote:


"Perhaps a simple letter to the contest sponsors should be the next  
step. To make this happen, someone from this group has to step up to  
the plate and prepare it. The letter should include how distance based  
scoring will benefit the contesting events. The letter should also  
include examples of current distance base scoring and how it has been  
successful. "


Here is a letter I recently wrote to my ARRL Director, N5ZGT, Brian  
about several VHF/UHF contesting issues. I wrote this before I knew of  
the VUAC's current recommendations, so some of it is redundant. It  
does contain a simple and short proposal for distance based scoring in  
the UHF contest. While I have no qualms about others using this letter  
to send to their directors or the ARRL, I think it is more effective  
if you write to your director in your own words and tell him what you  
want. It may be different than what I want.

I don't think the problem is that the ARRL has not received adequate  
proposals for distance based scoring. The problem lies elsewhere, and  
I am not quite sure what it is.

Here is my letter to my Rocky Mountain ARRL DIrector, N5ZGT:

Brian - I note that the January Board of Directors meeting has come  
and gone without further action on the VHF and UHF contest rules. Is  
there any action on these rules being considered for the July BOD  
meeting? Or any time before that?

As you know, an effective loophole to the 100 QSO rover limit has been  
exploited in recent contests by limited rovers to effectively dominate  
the category. While that in and of itself does not concern me nearly  
as much as it does others, I am concerned that rules changes that may  
be proposed to plug this loophole may impact rover activity and other  
areas of the competition adversely. The rover class is a small but  
active and critical subset of the VHF contesting community and I am  
concerned that rash action could deplete its ranks.

I have provided input before on this and other rover issues to you. I  
suspect that further limiting rover to rover contacts is the solution  
that will be proposed. Maybe 30 is a more reasonable number? Or 100  
total with all other rovers? I have no great opposition to this, but I  
wonder if this recurring need to tweak the rover rules is an  
indication that we should look elsewhere for a solution.

And that elsewhere is the 10 GHz contest. The majority of the  
participants in that contest participate in rover packs that work  
cooperatively . Yet there is no outcry against this by other  
contestants. Why is this so?  Well, the reason is that the scoring  
does not benefit grid circling and pack roving as it does in the VHF/ 
UHF contests, because there are no multipliers. Pack roving benefits  
all competitors.

As a trial, I suggest that we revamp the rules for one or more of the  
VHF/UHF contests to follow the rules similar to the 10GHz contest.  
Perhaps the easiest one to start with is the UHF contest. There are  
only 200 or so active participants, so there are fewer people affected  
by this change. The 10 GHz rules may need to be tweaked a bit, but I  
think they form a good basis for effective change:

1. Exchange 6 digit grid squares.
2. 100 points for each unique call sign worked.
3. 1 point for each kilometer of distance worked per QSO calculated  
from the 6 digit grid squares.
4. Add up the points for the total score.
5. Set a minimum QSO distance of 1 kilometer for QSOs with portable  
(rover) stations
6. Allow stations to work again if they have moved a reasonable  
distance, say 50 to 80 kilometers.

It might also make sense to use this or some derivative of it in the  
January contest where propagation is typically flat.

There is no reason for all the VHF/UHF contests to have the same rules.

I am also interested in rule changes that allow all participants in  
the VHF/UHF contests to use APRS location only data from rovers fed  
from Find-U and similar pages on the internet. Currently the use of  
this information is limited to multi op entries only. The original  
VUAC recommendation was that all classes be allowed to use this data,  
not just the multis. I think that in some quarters it was mistakenly  
thought that frequency information was also sent and hence it was self  
spotting, but only location could be sent and used during the contest.

As you know, I actively rove in all the VHF/UHF contests, enjoy it and  
find it immensely rewarding. That is the origin of my concern about  
this matter and this input.

I am copying several others to this e-mail, including Lauren, W0LD,  
Rocky Mountain representative to the VUAC, K0BJ, chairman of the  
Program and Services Committee, whom I believe has the final say on  
these things, and Sean, KX9X.

Thanks for taking the time to consider this. - Duffey

Feel free to express similar sentiments to your director. The action  
really starts with them.
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM