[VHFcontesting] CQ WW VHF Contest Rules Change

[David All]

I dont get CQ Magazine, can you detail what "passive assistance" is.  Thanks
for making those of us in the contesting world who dont subscribe to this
Fantastic Magazine aware of what appears to be some good rule changes.

I have been racking my brain for a reason to invest 600+ dollars per band to
upgrade out of the lower 4 category.  But at 600 and no longer even
being competitive in that new category, I ask what is the incentive to me or
any one else out there to make the investment.  Are there suggestions for
rule change proposals that would make it worth the investment to jump out of
the 4 band category.

There are so many bands in the VHF/UHF/Microwave spectrum that breaking the
list of bands into blocks like they did with the lower 4 as a class.
 Granted if 2 additional classes are made from the UHF/Microwave spectrum if
you want to be competitive it will mean you will eventually need to purchase
equipment for all the bands in that class.

So you number crunchers out there, how competitive are the people who
competed with 3 bands against the ones who had all 4 in the lower 4 class.

Dave N3XUD/R FM19rw
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Les Rayburn <les at highnoonfilm.com> wrote:

> The February 2011 issue of CQ Magazine includes contest results for last
> year's "CQ WW VHF" contest, and an explanation of their decision to allow
> "passive assistance" starting with the 2011 event. Complete details of the
> rules change are promised in the June Issue.
>
> This change better reflects the normal modes of operation on VHF, and
> recognizes the inherent differences between VHF and HF contesting. The
> articles specifically cites that "VHF usually demands antennas with narrow
> beamwidths which must be pointed directionally to make the contact. This
> capability is enhanced by utilizing information posted on the cluster with
> logging programs that simply allow a mouse click to find the contact".
>
> As usual, CQ Magazine seems to lead the way with common sense solutions to
> VHF Contesting issues without the baggage of HF contesting bias, or a world
> view that seems to think that VHF operation around the world is exactly the
> same as it is in the Northeastern part of the United States.
>
> For most of us in the rest of the country, the combination of weak signals
> and highly directional antennas simply means that stations spend a lot of
> time, like ships, "passing in the night" without either station being aware
> that the other is even on during the contest period. This means fewer
> contacts and a lot less fun.
>
> I'd love to see the ARRL take a more enlightened viewpoint in regards to
> assistance in VHF Contests, allowing for passive assistance. I suspect it
> would make little or no difference as to who wins or loses the events (and
> most of us casual contesters are not that concerned about winning anyway)
> and would put a lot more new ones in the log. For many VHF Men, that's the
> whole point of contest operation. It's basically an oversized "activity
> night" for bands that are normally very quiet.
>
> The topic ends by saying, "We think this will not only keep the CQ WW VHF
> Contest up-to-date with present technology, but will also put more QSOs in
> your log. That has to be a good thing. We hope you approve."
>
> I can only speak for myself, CQ Magazine, but this is one VHF Contester who
> certainly does! BRAVO!
>
> 73,
>
>
> Les Rayburn, N1LF
> EM63nf
> 121 Mayfair Park
> Maylene, AL 35114
>
> 6M VUCC #1712
> Grid Bandit #222
> Life Member Central States VHF Society
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>