[VHFcontesting] [VHF] ARRL VHF UHF Advisory Committee (VUAC) looking for public input

[Les Rayburn]

I applaud the work being done by the ARRL and the VUAC in this regard. It’s clear that their intention is to increase participation in VHF Contesting, and we should all support that effort. 

As is often the case, Marshall Williams, K5QE has proposed a suggestion that makes the most sense. The “KISS” principle is very important here, if we truly hope to attract new participants. I think the best solution would be to modify the existing “Limited Rover Class” to remove 222 MHz for exactly the reasons that Marshall stated. 

I also favor the introduction of a new Single Operator Class C category that would allow home based operations using Icom 706, Yaesu FT-857, etc. type rigs. 

This endorsement is not made lightly. I feel uniquely qualified to comment on this matter, as I’m one of the most active VHF Men who is also a newcomer to this part of the hobby. I have fresh memories of my own frustrations, triumphs, etc. to draw upon. Personally, I love the 222 MHz band and hate to do anything that limits participation on that band. But just last year, I helped  a new rover get started in the “Limited Rover” category and saw personally how frustrating it was for him to struggle to learn things like transverter interfacing, PTT switching, amplifiers, etc. in a short period of time. A category that encourages simple operation is a great idea. 

Marshall also spoke to the need for perceived fairness. I agree that this is important, and much more difficult to regulate. The “win at all cost” mentality of some competitors have negative impacts on all of us. Practices such as “captive rovers” and “pack roving” are harmful to the spirit of the contest, and especially efforts to attract new blood. 

I would encourage the VUAC and the ARRL to also consider rules changes that would make it more difficult for these categories to be exploited. The Sprints have done well with their “Rookie” designation, perhaps that is one way to address this. Allow participation in this category for only a three year period, before requiring contesters to move up. 

More importantly, we all need to look at our own practices, and consider if our actions are in keeping with the spirit of the rules. The goal should always be to contact as many other stations as possible. Peer pressure is as powerful as any written rule—but only if it’s applied. If you have a competitor in your area who is engaging in activities that are not in the best interest of all of us, make sure that they know you don’t approve. 

See you all during the contests! 

73,





Les Rayburn, N1LF
EM63nf
121 Mayfair Park
Maylene, AL 35114

6M VUCC #1712
Grid Bandit #222
Life Member Central States VHF Society



On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Marshall Williams <k5qe at sabinenet.com>wrote:

> Hello Jim....I was one of those who proposed the Limited Rover
> Class(there were others) several years ago.  I originally suggested that
> the Limited Class be 6M, 2M, and 432.  For some reason, this neat scheme
> got screwed up with the addition of another band(which is now 222).
>
> The new hams will go out and try VHF contesting IF they perceive that
> things are FAIR.  They know that if someone else has a 4th band that
> they have no chance.  If everyone is 6M, 2M, and 432 they will see that
> everyone has the same chance.  This point should be emphasized in the
> rules.  Beginners, most especially, will not go out for 2 days, bust
> their humps, spend a lot of money on gas, food, and motels unless they
> think that they have the same chance as anyone else.
>
> The power levels should be 6M=100W, 2M=50W, and 432=35W.  This covers
> all the "standard" IC706 type radios.  It includes everyone and excludes
> no one.  It is absolutely fair to all entrants.  There should be NO
> amps, NO transverters, NO funny business.  That was my suggestion then
> and it is my suggestion now.  Just simple and straightforward.
>
> If a Limited Single-Op Class is created, it should be exactly as above.
> The Limited Rover Class should drop the 4th band and then the two
> classes would be identical....except that one moves and one does not.
> If you start allowing amps and a bunch of other stuff, you will just
> complicate things AND the beginners will not participate.  KISS!!!
>
> I will mention this to my VUAC rep.  Everyone who believes this is a
> simple and fair method should do the same.
>
> 73 Marshall K5QE
>
> On 5/31/2011 11:03 PM, Jim Worsham wrote:
> > When I was a member of the VUAC I suggested on several occasions that a
> > limited single operator category be established with similar if the not
> the
> > same restrictions as the limited rover (lower 4 bands only, 200 Watts on
> 6
> > and 2, 100 Watts on 222 and 432, etc.)  It never seemed to gain any
> traction
> > among the other committee members.  Maybe now is a good time to try
> again.
> >
> > 73
> > Jim, W4KXY
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu [mailto:owner-vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu]
> On
> > Behalf Of James French
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 4:31 PM
> > To: VHF Stanford W6YX Group
> > Subject: [VHF] [NLRS] ARRL VHF UHF Advisory Committee (VUAC) looking for
> > public input
> >
> > I thought this would be of interest to the Stanford VHF list and I hadn't
> > seen it come across yet.
> >
> > Lets get some good ideas and then pass them along to each representative
> on
> > the VUCC.
> >
> > To quote my Microwave elmer, Lloyd, NE8I:
> > "We make activity happen!"
> >
> > James W8ISS
> > =====
> >
> > Hello NLRS land -
> >
> > The ARRL would like to encourage more participation in its several
> VHF/UHF
> > contests
> > held each year. Many of the HF transceivers sold in recent years include
> 50
> > MHz, and
> > some also include the 144 and 432 MHz bands with multi-mode capabilities.
> > The question
> > at hand is how can we encourage more owners of such radios to utilize
> these
> > bands and
> > modes to participate in VHF/UHF contests?
> >
> > The ARRL VHF/UHF Advisory Committee (VUAC) has been asked to consider
> this
> > question,
> > and to make recommendations to encourage, explore and expand the ARRL VHF
> > and UHF contests
> > and other operating activities by using the multi-band and multi-mode
> > capabilities of
> > modern transceivers and related equipment.
> >
> > The VUAC would like to ask the Amateur Radio community to provide their
> > comments and ideas for consideration.
> >
> > Please send any comments or ideas you have on this matter to your ARRL
> VUAC
> > Division
> > representative no later than July 1, 2011.  A listing of each Divisionb s
> > VUAC representative
> > can be found at http://www.arrl.org/arrl-staff-vuac-cac.
> >
> > 73, Jon
> > W0ZQ
> ------
> Submissions:                    vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu
> Subscription/removal requests:  vhf-request at w6yx.stanford.edu
> Human list administrator:       vhf-approval at w6yx.stanford.edu
> List rules and information:     http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
------
Submissions:                    vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu
Subscription/removal requests:  vhf-request at w6yx.stanford.edu
Human list administrator:       vhf-approval at w6yx.stanford.edu
List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/