[VHFcontesting] Rover rendezvous in Gap PA?

[James Duffey]

The recent exchanges here point out that there are still unresolved issues regarding rovers coordinating contacts and operating locales in VHF/UHF contests. This has been going on for nearly 22 years. Another round of discussion here, while almost certainly to be interesting, is unlikely to resolve anything. I hope that the Ad-Hoc committee addresses this issue soon and that is where our input should go. To many of us, this is as important a VHF contest issue as is assistance, which the committee chose to deal with quickly. The longer standing problems take longer to resolve I guess. 

AF6O is correct, there is little grid circling these days. With the 100 QSO limit with another rover, it is better to use those QSOes for multipliers rather than QSO points, so most of the rover-to-rover QSOes occur at grid boundaries, not at the convergences. This does little, however, to reduce the perception, some have that these contacts are not as worthwhile as those that occur spontaneously between rovers that have not coordinated their efforts. Whether or not one agrees with this, the desire not to compete with these coordinated rovers by the individual uncoordinated rovers is real. Over the years, with several rules changes and several scoring changes, this difference has proven to be irreconcilable. The Unlimited Rover category, an attempt to separate coordinated roving efforts from other roving efforts, has largely been a failure in that regard.

The very existence of a rover class encourages coordinated roving as, over the course of a contest, rover-to-rover QSOes contribute more to a competitor’s score than QSOes between or with non-rovers. This is a fundamental issue that the committee should deal with. 

I think that rover rules based on some variation of the 10 GHz and up contest rules for VHF/UHF contests would address many of the concerns, both perceived and real. Nearly everyone in the 10 GHz and up contest roves on one weekend or the other, often in groups. Yet there are no complaints about coordinated roving in the 10 GHz and up contest. The 10 GHz and up rules encourage QSOes between rovers over significant distances and require that one end of the QSO move a significant distance before recontacting the same station. The rules also give 100 points for each unique station contacted; a good incentive for working stations other than the rovers one travels with. It seems to me that implementing those rules would be mutually beneficial to both sides in the rover controversy.

You may have other ideas. That is good. Whether or not you agree with my comments on roving, commenting about the rules here will not have the same impact as writing to the Ad-Hoc committee members and letting them know how you feel about the issue and making suggestions for the way you want it. Please do that. I hope we will get some effective rover rules that everyone can live with from the committee. This can only happen if they have significant input from rovers and fixed station operators.  

If you have suggestions for future and I hope, better rover rules, you should make them known to the ad hoc committee:

Kermit W9XA (Chairman)	< w9xa at arrl.org >

Dave   NN1N		< nn1n at arrl.org >

Marty  N6VI		< n6vi at arrl.org >

Doug   K4AC 		< k4ac at arrl.org >

N6VI has roved with the Southern California group and I know that W9XA has also roved. I am not sure whether K4AC or NN1N have roved. So, there are members of the committee who have roved and should have some knowledge of the issues involved. Send them an e-mail. - Duffey KK6MC/r
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM