[VHFcontesting] Contesting Philosophy

[Duane - N9DG]

--- On Fri, 2/27/09, Ron Hooper <w4wa at alltel.net> wrote:



> I don't want to take what you meant to sound out of

> context so if my

> response is not correct let me know.



Ron, OK, your response is only partially out of context. Just to be clear when I say contest "scheduling" I mean using the telephone, Internet, or even a non VHF contest band like 80, 40, or whatever. I am not talking about the common practice of "walking someone through the bands". Because in that case you did (presumably) find them without scheduling or assistance using means outside of the contest bands themselves. And in almost every contest believe it or not I will occasionally work someone on 222 or 432 first and then take them down to 6&2 from there. And also I don't have any concerns about anyone trying to work on a higher band and failing and then saying that they want to try it again in the evening or morning at some specific time when tropo will likely be better. Again the key differentiator is that the initial contact was made on a contest band while in the contest.



 

> How else am I going to

> get someone on during a band opening to work them on 902 or

> up. I would

> waste years trying to catch them on random and to have our

> antennas lined up

> to make a non solicited contact. I am sure that many WAS

> awards were earned

> using schedules. I am sure that many VUCC awards were

> earned using schedules.



I can't argue that making random Q's on the higher bands is particularly feasible, it certainly isn't. And I guess non contest Q's have never concerned me as much because I believe that they represent something that is distinctly different from what a VHF contest is, or in my mind should be. Perhaps the contest sponsors really need to come to grips with what it is that they want contests to truly measure: 

a) Do they only want to measure the skill of "making the Q"?
b) Measure the skills of both  making the Q *and* finding the other participants.

So at the risk of re-igniting the whole grid circling debate I'd estimate that the grid circlers, and those who don't see any problems with it, see VHF contesting as "a" and those who don't like it, and do see a problem with it are more likley to see VHF contesting as being "b". And I don't think that two can co-exist in the same contest, the sponsors *must* pick one or the other.

And during various openings between contests I have paid attention prop loggers. And in watching them I have also noticed the HF-like "spot pileups" occurring too. But,... there's always but,... I have also noticed there is often more DX to be found, and worked in those openings that is *never* spotted. So are the prop logger following ops ultimately hurting themselves and others by not looking around more for themselves, and throwing numerous CQ's out? I do think so.




> HF contesting scheduling actually caused the rules to be

> changed to

> eliminate calling people on the phone during a contest. It

> had NOTHING to do

> with VHF operation at the time but the CAC was made up of

> HF contesters and

> did not know scheduling played a big part in 50mhz and

> above. The contesting

> schedules during the event were actually a carry over from

> the normal dx

> operation on VHF until the CAC guys stopped it. Now all the

> contest

> schedules are supposed to be made prior to the contest

> using any means

> available, just like HF.



I guess once again my perceptions and understandings of VHF operating only go back about 25 to 30 years. At no time did I ever get the impression that most, or even many of the 50-432 MHz or so "terrestrial mode" QSOs being made because of schedules. My perception has always been that scheduling was primarily used for EME, or trying to make some specific extra long haul Q path. Kinda like the efforts today of trying to span the Atlantic on 2M without EME. Were large numbers of the "garden variety" 2M Q's out to the 400-500 mile or so range in years past scheduled in VHF contests? If so I did not know that.





> Now we come to the assisted category. This came primarily

> from internet dx

> spotting nets. Again a carry over from HF normal dxing into

> contesting. The

> internet spotting was created to help people find the dx

> station when they

> came on the air. Before that, it was phone calls during the

> night by hams

> networked together to get the dx stations in their logs. So

> now we can say

> schedules played a big part into many of the DXCC awards

> hanging on the

> walls of hams around the world. Again this spilled into

> contesting and many

> without the internet seen it as an unfair advantage so a

> new category was

> created so you would have a choice.



And there is a constant debate in HF circles about assisted vs. unassisted in contests, and there is lots of angst that surrounds the "instant pileup" phenomenon caused by the DX station being spotted. No doubt there are numerous HF DX'ers who simply work the DX spots and spend little or no time actually listening and searching the bands for themselves. Perhaps that being so common is one of the reasons that HF DXing and HF contesting has never tripped my trigger.



And it has been shown time and again that in HF contests that top “unassisted” ops score higher than assisted ops. I believe that the same is true for VHF contests. And in HF contest there are plenty of participants so that the “spot follower only ops” won't dilute the total number Q's made significantly. On VHF+ contests I think there is that danger, and I have seen evidence of that occurring already. It happens when rovers publish their detailed schedules, and then you can tell that some fixed station ops are very focused on following the rover schedules. So much so that those fixed ops only pop up when the rover is due to be in a new grid, but yet those fixed ops aren't calling CQ's, or swinging their antennas much between those rover stops. They are definitely missing Q's because of it. And if they are missing Q's so are other contest ops. In the end I believe it is the casual ops who suffer the most because they don't find the CQ'ing
 activity. But it is the casual ops who most need to find activity on the bands, because the new blood comes from the casual ops. But yet it is the casual ops who will be less likely to be “plugged in” to the spotting or scheduling mechanisms.


> I know that Marconi, Percy 1AW (ARRL) and other radio

> pioneers made

> schedules to complete the famous contacts that is the

> foundation of our ham

> heritage. I still care about this heritage and want to see

> it preserved.



I'll admit that in most "just to see if it can be done" scenarios that scheduling is appropriate. But I think arguably back in early HF history that it was when “the masses" of hams started routinely making transatlantic Q's just by "working the bands", without skeds, that HF "DXing" truly came into its own. And I think that same argument can be made for "routine" VHF Q's like what VHF contests are made of. At least for the bottom 4, and that the common walking the band practice is a perfectly reasonable way to "arrange" contest Q's on the higher bands.





> If you like tuning around a dead band hoping to make a

> contact and that is

> your bag, go for it. I don't think anyone will find any

> fault in the way you operate.



I know that there are plenty of VHF single ops and multis who make most of their Q's without skeds all of the time. In fact they find and make more Q's than you could possibly schedule for. They find the casual ops who pop up on the band because those casual ops heard that there was VHF contest that weekend and decided to just see what they could find. Now my concern with a large percentage ops using schedules and spotting is that the many participants will likely call CQ less. That in turns lessens the likelihood of the casual op finding as many to work. It represent lost opportunity in two ways: a) the "serious" contest op misses the Q. and b) the casual op thinks there are less people on than there really is.



Duane
N9DG