[VHFcontesting] [VHF] Changes to ARRL VHF Contest Rules

[Nate Duehr]

To be ultra-clear here..

You added "grid-circling" to your reply.  This rule change has nothing  
to do with that, nor does it even address it. Any rover can still  
grid- circle their little hearts out under the rules.

You say "simplification" is good for rovers but not for limited multi- 
ops because somehow only fixed stations have the mental ability to  
understand the pros and cons of 222 vs. 1.2 GHz which would be mildly  
insulting if it weren't so obviously thoughtless.

You also bring up that people get upset at the perceived speed of rule  
changes which was also not mentioned at all in my previous message. I  
didn't complain about the speed, I complained that the rules were  
ALREADY PUBLISHED and then changed.  It would have been more  
appropriate to say since the rules were already out for 2009 that this  
change would take effect in 2010 and the change documented in QST this  
year.

Finally you admonished me to compete. I've already won the Rocky  
Mountain Division unlimited rover category twice in 2006 & 2007.  And  
I rejoined the W0KVA unlimited multi-op station in 2008, helping them  
post their first ever top-ten national ranking last year.  I think I  
know how to compete.  Noooo problemo.  My concern is the NEW rovers,  
of which we only see one or two a year in my area.  This change may  
have helped them against an "all microwave" rover working with a TEAM  
of other rovers and fixed stations, but they will ALWAYS lose to any  
such organized group.  Forcing them to buy 222 if they already had  
902, 1.2, or even 10 GHz did nothing to change that fact.

I didn't "cut any slack" because this rule change is yet again, poorly  
thought through.

For "limited" roving...

If you own a TS-2000X... You just got hosed by the VUAC and ARRL.

If you own an IC-910 with 1.2... You just got hosed.

If you own an FT-857/897 or IC-706 and ANY other band transverter  
other than 222 MHz... You just got hosed.

If you own an FT-857/897 or IC-706 and any number of cheap commercial  
927 MHz FM rigs... You just got hosed.

If you have an interest in the microwaves only... You just got hosed.

The LAST scenario was the only one they were supposedly trying to  
eliminate, and even that doesn't jive with the stated goal of the June  
contest.  If the Limited Rover is a "stepping stone" to the Unlimited  
Rover, then limiting THREE bands is appropriate MAYBE, and the fourth  
band is the operator's option.

Imagine the uproar if the same limitations were also imposed on the  
Limited Multi-ops with similar stations as listed above?

Let's see parity on the "Limits" between Limited Rover and Limited  
Multi-op. And let's see a Limited Single-op category too instead of  
only a power level distinction.

And if grid-circling is the REAL perceived problem, then ban it  
completely and make it stick.

Personally the more frustrated I become at the constant illogical  
changes that dance around this FAKE problem... Since the stated goal  
of the contest is "as many contacts as possible"... It just makes me  
want to go form a new circling team of rovers that ignore the fixed  
stations altogether, just like the Californians.  We'd have fun.

Who wants to meet up in Colorado next year, rovers? Texas?  Whatever.  
Let's go.  Want to set some distance records, we'll send someone up  
Pikes Peak to over 14,000 MSL and have line-of-sight to Kansas.

This rule change fixed one problem and in the process alienated any  
new rover who doesn't have 222, and took effect after the rules were  
already published for this year, without communication of any sort  
from our representatives on the VUAC. It also purposefully  
disenfranchised people who ARE working piles and piles of microwave  
contacts.

I've said this one before, too... Does ARRL want an OPERATING contest  
or a BUILDING contest?  If the REAL problem is folks operating  
equipment they didn't purchase themselves, or didn't build/assemble  
themselves, then ban THOSE activities for everyone and start requiring  
proof-of-purchase labels or receipts for components.  (Obviously  
that's not going to happen either, and I'm saying it only to point out  
that the perceived problems are not being met head-on with solutions.)

The California girl beat the other Limited Rovers with strategy and  
someone else's money and stations.  It showed a logical flaw in the  
Limited Rover that could have been fixed with a three-or-less band  
limitation without all the above examples of collateral damage. And it  
could have been fixed sooner than three weeks before the largest  
annual contest of the season.

"Fair" enough?

-- 
Nate Duehr
Sent from my iPhone

On May 26, 2009, at 20:00, "R. Michael West" <k6nc at saciplaw.com> wrote:

> I like the new rules, and the clarification regarding the Limited  
> Rover class.  Thank you ARRL and the hard working people who made it  
> possible.
>
> There is a good reason for keeping the Limited Rover class limited  
> to the lower four bands:  Simplification.  Why create yet another  
> class of operation where there are inherent variables in the bands  
> of operation, and yet more room for complaining about lack of a  
> "level playing field"?
>
> Those who want to operate on 902 and above can do so, in the Classic  
> or Unlimited Rover classes, and they can have lots of fun doing it.   
> What's the matter - can't you compete in those classes?  Stop  
> complaining and compete.
>
> I suspect that the Limited Multi-Operator Band Rules were not  
> changed because there was no reason to do so.  Those of us who have  
> competed in that class know about the trade-offs between 222 and  
> 1296 operation, and we're not grid-circling, either.  In short, the  
> circumstances for that class of operation are different from those  
> faced by Rovers.
>
> Regarding the ARRL's change of rule procedure, there are those who  
> would criticize because they are too slow in changing rules and  
> those who criticize because they moved too fast.  Please, cut them  
> some slack.
>
> 73, Mike K6NC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nate Duehr [mailto:nate at natetech.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 06:16 PM
> To: ''VHF Contesting Reflector''
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] Changes to ARRL VHF Contest Rules
>
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 16:03:10 -0500, "Les Rayburn" said: > Hat's off  
> to the league for this one. -------- RULE WORDING: Couldn't the rule  
> have been just as effective by saying: "At least three bands  
> submitted by a Limited Rover must be 432 MHz or lower. The fourth  
> band may be any band allowed in the contest." Wasn't that REALLY the  
> ORIGINAL intent? Seems like that would have worked better, and would  
> have kept the 222 "favoritism" out of it, and also killed off the  
> weird new four-band microwave rovers that weren't intended. --------  
> One more -- here's a reasonable question that will be nothing more  
> than trouble: Why didn't the *Limited Multi-Operator band rules*  
> change to match the Limited Rover rule? If Rovers in the "Limited"  
> category can't use 902, or 1.2 GHz, or anything else above 432, why  
> can a fixed station? Are they special? -------- A final  
> administrative point: Weren't the 2009 rules ALREADY PUBLISHED on  
> the website, prior to this change? Perhaps it would be smarter not  
> to publish the rules until they're FULLY BAKED? I might be wrong on  
> that last one, but weren't they up there? -------- This change may  
> have "protected" the Limited Rovers from the "multi-microwave  
> rover"... but if they had 927 FM or a nice new rig with 1.2 GHz in  
> it... they just got totally hosed by this overly-restrictive change,  
> for no good reason. No hat's off from me. Nate WY0X -- Nate Duehr nate at natetech.com 
>  _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting  
> mailing list VHFcontesting at contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting