[VHFcontesting] Notes and observations

Nate Duehr nate at natetech.com
Fri May 29 22:06:02 PDT 2009

On May 28, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Steve Clifford wrote:

> 5.  Many on this reflector seem to be arguing against current  
> reality.  We
> keep hearing from the same few guys about winning roving strategies  
> and
> denial of circling.  What they always fail to note is that Unlimited  
> Rover
> exists for a reason.  They never address that reason, nor the reason  
> classic
> and Limited exist.  I would love to hear one of these guys explain why
> Unlimited exists.  Who should be in that category?  What sets that  
> category
> apart from the other two?  Why was it set apart from the other two  
> in the
> first place?
> 6.  I'm going to start lobbying to have single op and multi-op  
> categories
> combined.  If its OK for multi-op rovers to compete against single  
> rovers,
> why should it be any different for fixed stations?  After all, its  
> just
> about a winning strategy, right?  Winners work together in groups...  
> or so
> I've heard.


It sounds like you may have taken some of my comments out of the  
context of the CURRENT rules.  I'm actually arguing REALITY.  Not  
against it.

If ARRL wants to add a real multi-op/team Rover category and figure  
out a way to make it stick, to separate the teams from the individual  
efforts, that'd certainly be useful in the current mess.

The comments I've made about "pack" roving being a winning strategy  
were meant to be read with the additional (maybe not obvious) comment  

"... under the currently published rules."

Anyone not seriously considering pack roving under the current rules  
-- will lose to the Californians or any other team effort.  I state  
this colloquially as "DO THE MATH".

I'm sticking to that opinion until there's a true multi-op/team roving  
category.   Some people are complaining about this, I'm not... I'm  
thinking more along the lines, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

Too many people are whiny about it... team/pack roving is nothing more  
than natural under the current grid-square-and-bands-as-a-multiplier  
rules.  I say it was INEVITABLE that a group like the California group  
popped up.

How would one determine that a rover is operating in a pack/group?   
Out here... if the very few rovers all contacted each other (we do),  
we'd certainly LOOK like a pack in any computer analysis of the  
logs... one could also think we were grid-circling if even a few of us  
travelled together...

I foresee no "fair" way to determine a real "pack" vs. a bunch of  
individuals who just happened to go the same way "round" Denver, in  
our current rover environment out here.  And that's the realism I  
operate under when I think about "is pack roving going away?"... I  
say... no it's not, because the folks in charge of the contest are  
going to have the exact same problem to solve before they can  
realistically create a multi-op/pack rover category.

Thus, logically... they're not going to do either logical option:
1) Ban pack/team roving.  2) Create a new category for it.

#1 requires an adequate detection mechanism, and the closest they  
could come was the 100 QSO rover-to-rover limit.
#2 is actually just slightly more workable, if you beg folks to do  
what all contesters do... be honest about their category and logs.

The other squirrelly thing that I've pointed out is the last-minute  
changes to the rules, every few years right now... a major rule change  
to the Limited Rover category only 3 weeks prior to contest?  Really?

If someone works on a strategy for next year to try the "if you can't  
beat 'em, join 'em" mentality -- will there be a last-minute change  
making their gear/setup/strategy that they may have worked on  
acquiring and setting up all winter, worthless?

Honestly NONE of the above (nor the debates on this list) diminish the  
fun I have out roving or working at the multi-op on contest day.  The  
only thing that diminishes my fun is dead bands with no one  
participating, and lack of personal time to participate in more than  
just June.

Mailing lists and the Internet aren't "real life".

Personally, I don't want to rove right now, mostly due to the constant  
rules changes trying to adjust for the California group... but NOT  
because they're "unbeatable".  There's always a top-dog in any  
contest... ask the top 5 fixed multi-ops.

But, NOTHING on this list means I won't be doing something on the air  
on June contest day!  The list is just mental entertainment in-between  

Nate Duehr, WY0X
nate at natetech.com

More information about the VHFcontesting mailing list