[VHFcontesting] Comments on ARRL VHF/UHF Contest Rules Change Proposals

Steve Stahl ke7ihg at gmail.com
Sat Dec 6 20:34:00 EST 2014

  Good grief it was a HUGE jump for me to 900 and then to 1296. Leave the
points alone

Steve Stahl

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Paul Kiesel via VHFcontesting <
vhfcontesting at contesting.com> wrote:

> Hi Marshall. Thanks for your comments regarding the proposed changes to
> the ARRL VHF contest rules. I guess my opinion about contest rules in
> general must differ from those of many. By that I mean I don't care what
> the rules are just as long as they make sense and the contest is fun to
> operate in. I certainly don't have a problem with changing the rules as
> proposed. On the other hand, I don't think changing the rules is going to
> change the status quo with respect to who wins and who doesn't. The guys
> who win by virtue of their effort and operating expertise are going to
> continue winning. The proposed rule changes are not going to level the
> playing field for anyone. They might make it possible for some to make more
> contacts. I've never checked the internet during a contest and I think I
> will likely continue to not check it. For me, it's more fun to hunt for the
> elusive multipliers.
> One of the things that has bothered me for years is the fact that someone
> can gear up with microwave equipment just by spending the money and beat me
> in contests while making fewer QSOs and fewer multipliers than me. So, I
> would modify the points per contact regime as follows: 1 point for contacts
> made on 50, 144, 222, 432, 903 and 1296 MHz bands. 3 points for contacts
> made on 2304, 3456, 5760 and 10368 MHz bands and 10 points for contacts
> made on 24000 MHz and above frequencies. Having contact points given this
> way would recognize technical progress efforts made on the higher bands
> while, at the same time, removing the unfair QSO points advantage.
> 73, Paul K7CW
>       From: Marshall-K5QE <k5qe at k5qe.com>
>  To: "vhfcontesting at contesting.com" <VHFcontesting at contesting.com>
>  Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2014 2:27 PM
>  Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Comments on ARRL VHF/UHF Contest Rules
> Change Proposals
> Hello Jay, James, and others interested in this topic.  The Committee
> identified three "goals" in their post.
> 1) Removal of the current prohibition on the use of Amateur and
> non-Amateur forms of assistance for all operator categories, with such
> use having no impact on entry category;
> 2)  Removal of the current prohibition on self-spotting for all operator
> categories; and
> 3) Allowing single operators to transmit on more than one band at a time.
> Regarding 1), this allows Single Op stations to "look" at the Internet.
> I have never understood why there were so many (silly) restrictions on
> the Single Op stations.  I once posted that the ARRL rules discriminate
> against the Single Op stations...and many folks agreed with me.  Many
> Single Ops use the Internet now, but of course, no one can prove it one
> way or the other.  Removing this prohibition will put everyone on the
> same page as far as looking at the Internet is concerned.
> Regarding 2), this rule is of the utmost importance.  Currently, the CQ
> WW VHF contests allow stations using digital MS or digital EME to "self
> post" their Call, Frequency, and Sequence ONLY.  It is no coincidence
> that the CQ WW VHF contest is the best contest that we have.  I know
> that the HF Philosophy types are having heart palpitations, but they
> don't operate VHF contests.  In any HF contest, you can find a never
> ending stream of stations to work.  That is most certainly not the case
> in the VHF affairs.
> Self posting, i.e. Announcements, will allow stations to find each other
> during the contests. Rovers would be able to let the big stations know
> where they were and when they were ready to run.  Stations searching for
> MS contacts or EME contacts will be able to find others using the same
> methods.  Most especially, the smaller stations will be able to find the
> "big guns" if they know where to look. That means more QSOs for everyone.
> Regarding 3), I originally saw this as just removing another silly
> restriction from the Single Ops.  Jay's comments have caused me to
> re-think this one.  I am and always have been a Multi Op station, so for
> me, transmitting on multiple bands at once is just normal.  What Jay is
> saying is that this might / will give the stations in the "Golden
> Crescent" another unfair advantage over the Single Ops in the rest of
> the country(Jay...I hope I restated that correctly).
> However, I have run into Single Ops that use SO2R techniques to call CQ
> alternatively on 6M and 2M in such a way that they are never
> transmitting on two bands at the same time.  They call it "dueling
> CQs".  The effect of this is that they ARE ON two bands at the same time
> without ever transmitting on two bands at the same time.  This is
> clearly just a technological solution to skirt around the current rule.
> On the other hand, I don't know of anyone around here that is doing
> this, so maybe this practice is not widespread.
> Hence, I am neutral on 3).  I am waiting to be re-educated on this one.
> Please try to keep the comments relatively civil....
> The Committee also did some nice house cleaning on the FM side of
> things.  They propose removing the restriction on 146.52 and on use of
> repeaters to solicit contacts.  The contacts must still be made on
> simplex frequencies.  This will not help me personally, as there is
> essentially no FM activity around here for me to work.  But it may help
> others.  Unfortunately, there is the distinct possibility that this may
> only give another advantage to the NE stations where there are a lot
> more stations close by, many of them little FM stations.  I agree that
> the NE stations do not need any more advantages over the rest of us.....
> As always, your comments are of interest to me, Pro or Con.  Flames,
> diatribes, etc. will go directly to the bit bucket....they will not pass
> GO and will not collect $200.  Respectful, well thought out comments
> will not collect $200 either, but that is another story.....
> The best of Holiday Seasons to everyone....
> 73 Marshall K5QE
> On 12/5/2014 6:12 PM, Keith Morehouse wrote:
> > If you don't live on the east coast and want to top 10 in a VHF contest
> > someday, I would urge you to think long and hard about adopting this
> rule...
> >
> > Jay W9RM
> >
> > Keith J Morehouse
> > via Droid Inc2
> > On Dec 5, 2014 4:29 PM, "James Duffey" <jamesduffey at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If you have comments on the proposed rules changes for VHF/UHF contests,
> >> they are due December 15 to the committee at < vhf-input at arrl.org >.
> >>
> >> I personally am not going to campaign here for any of the rules changes,
> >> except for the one allowing single op stations to have multiple signals
> on
> >> different bands at the same time without being in the multi category. I
> >> think that this will increase activity as it will increase signals on
> the
> >> air, so someone who tunes to the bands during a contest is more likely
> to
> >> hear activity. This should also help with the problem of people ignoring
> >> the higher bands when 6M is open by encouraging ops to use SO2R
> techniques.
> >> If 6M is open, the single op can still CQ on two at the same time, and
> >> pickup stations calling there. I don’t see any down side to this
> proposed
> >> change, and I encourage you to comment favorably on this proposed rules
> >> change.
> >>
> >> In the past there has been a lot of discussion here, and elsewhere, on
> >> assistance in VHF/UHF contests, and I hope that those who have been
> vocal
> >> on both sides of that issue have made or will make their input to the
> >> committee known. The proposed rules are very liberal with respect to
> >> assistance, even with respect to the CQ WW VHF contest rules, so I
> >> encourage you to read the proposed changes and ponder their consequences
> >> for you and others. Then make constructive comments on the proposals.
> >>
> >> The proposed rules allow self spotting pretty much in all categories and
> >> pretty through all vehicles. This is a big change with potentially big
> >> consequences, so I encourage you to comment on this as well. Consider
> that
> >> self spotting is not thought of well by most of the HF contesters and
> those
> >> are some of the new activity that the committee is trying to attract.
> >>
> >> Read and study the proposed rules changes. Make your concerns and
> desires
> >> known to the committee now. Don’t pass on this opportunity. If rules are
> >> adapted that you don’t like and you didn’t comment on them to the rule
> >> makers, then it will be hard to seriously take your criticism of them
> >> later. Just saying. - Duffey KK6MC
> >> --
> >> KK6MC
> >> James Duffey
> >> Cedar Crest NM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting


More information about the VHFcontesting mailing list