[VHFcontesting] [Mw] rant: rovers vs multi-ops on limited number of mountains

[John D'Ausilio]

Excellent point, but remember that every grid is (relatively) sparsely
populated when it comes to microwave activity. Is it more beneficial
to the goals of the contest for an accessible hilltop to be occupied
by a limited multiop effort or by a series of microwave rovers? I'm
all about adding more bands and increasing capabilities on the ones I
have, but they're only useful if I can drive them all up to a good
site during a contest!

In any case, as always, it's adapt or die :)  I'm busy working on
route plan B .. we'll be out there

de w1rt/john

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Rick Campbell <ecekk7b at gmail.com> wrote:
> With tongue in cheek:
>
> I seem to recall that the rover category was created to encourage activation
> of sparsely populated grids.  If a multi-op station is at the site, perhaps
> a rover isn't needed in that grid square.
>
> It would be instructive to see a grid map of the US with density of multi-op
> stations overlaid on top.  In the Northeast Corridor it may be that Roving
> has served its purpose and should be discouraged.
>
> In the early days of amateur microwaves, getting two cooperating stations on
> the air and then trying them out on multiple paths was how we designed,
> built, developed and debugged our gear and skills and attracted college kids
> as guest operators into the hobby.  That activity (now referred to as "grid
> circling") is no longer needed or encouraged in the Northeast where amateur
> microwave enthusiasts routinely work more than old retired guy per band.
>
> Perhaps the Northeast Corridor needs to lead the way again (as with grid
> circling) and discourage rover operation in grid squares where there is a
> more capable multi-op station.
>
> The Old Man
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 9:19 AM, John D'Ausilio <jdausilio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'll start by saying I don't have any good solution at this point ..
>>
>> There are a limited number of microwave-suitable rover-accessible
>> spots available, and more of them become non-accessible each year.
>> The presence of a big multi-op station at a site makes it virtually
>> unusable for a microwave rover (we need to coordinate on low bands to
>> work microwaves, and high-power VHF tends to destroy our 144/432 IFs).
>> I don't rove in New England mainly because just about all of the
>> mountaintops are occupied by multi-ops .. so I've been roving the
>> mid-Appalachians and the I-80 corridor.
>> Camelback is occupied June and September, and now a group has decided
>> to occupy Big Mountain this September (and one can assume for future
>> 'tests as well)
>>
>> I'm not throwing stones at anyone, I'm just pointing out that this
>> trend is not a good sign for roving in general. Fewer site options
>> means more driving (at $4/gal) and less operating (and harder to
>> operate during prime time).
>> Ultimately it means fewer rovers visiting fewer grids.
>>
>> de w1rt/john
>> _______________________________________________
>> Microwave mailing list
>> microwave at lists.valinet.com
>> http://lists.valinet.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/microwave
>
>