[VHFcontesting] Digital and VHF contests

Fri Sep 20 17:04:52 EDT 2019

DO WHAT??  That last sentence does not make any sense to me.  AGAIN, 
AGAIN...

73 Marshall K5QE

On 9/20/2019 11:24 AM, Ron Klimas WZ1V wrote:
> Some of the guys have also been tossing around the idea
> of whether the ARRL should just create seperate categories
> for those who want to compete with or without digital.
> There could be analog-only, digital-only, and combined categories.
> Combined ops will want to work as many analog-only ops
> as possible which would also help their score but they would
> only be competing with other analog-only stations.
> -73 Ron WZ1V
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Kludt <johnnykludt at gmail.com>
> To: Rick R <rick1ds at hotmail.com>
> Cc: vhf contesting <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:03:07 -0600
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Digital and VHF contests
>
>> Rick,
> Interesting thoughts.  Maybe this is committee work, but if run as a
> separate digital contest there is no need for a points differential.  I
> asked a good friend who is an accomplished HF operator why CW Q's where
> worth 2 points and SSB Q's were worth 1 point.  I had always assumed it had
> to somehow do with the fact that CW was in some way more difficult.  His
> answer surprised me: "A good SSB operator can make Q's at about twice the
> rate of a good  CW operator so it is a mathematical way to level the
> playing field."  If that logic were applied to VHF contesting digital Q's
> should  actually be worth *more* than SSB Q's and maybe on a par with CW
> Q's.  Right now as we all know there is no differential between Q's by
> mode.  And maybe it should stay that way - just get that grid anyway you
> can!
>
> There are also interesting and conflicting threads on the digital modes -
> specifically FT8.   On the one hand people complained that FT8 was too
> slow, ergo FT4.  On the other hand the same folks are now bemoaning the
> lack of the ability to rag chew during a contest exchange.  At Contest
> University during Dayton last year many participants sported buttons with
> the word "Please" with the universal "Not" symbol on top of it.  Extra
> words just slow you down.  So I guess the question then becomes in VHF
> contesting  which is the driver, rate or the ability to visit during the
> exchange.  It seems to me that as individuals it is a hobby that we do for
> fun so everyone is free to make their own decision.  But to make the claim
> that FT8 is too slow *and *complain about the inability to kibitz during a
> digital contact is a bit if a stretch.
>
> Your comment about the casual users seem to me to be close to the center of
> the issue.  In the days before digital the casual users had to line up and
> take their turns mostly working the big stations.  Great for the run
> stations and maybe not so great for the little guys.  I saw one comment in
> this thread about the frustration of patently waiting your turn only to
> have the big station scamper off to "run the bands."  In the old days that
> was just the way it was.  With the digital modes we now have a "free
> market" for Q's for the casual operator.  They now have a choice.  They can
> be good S&P stations and scurry around looking for the run stations or they
> can go with FT8/FT4.  As I have said before, the casual operator's goal is
> to maximize their score not the scores of the big stations.  And if the
> digital modes ultimately give the casual operator a bigger score, isn't
> that as good contesters what they should do?
>
> Interesting times!
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 8:44 AM Rick R <rick1ds at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I’m resending this to a wider readership. Having been the author of the
>> June VHF contest results for QST for several years (prior to FT8) I had all
>> of the entrants scores. In a nutshell, 90% of those log submissions were
>> “low” scoring casual contesters. My read is that most were out to join in
>> the fun, give out points to the big guns and multis, say hi to another
>> VHFer and to perhaps get some new grids. They operated for a few hours when
>> the bands were busy—and the detailed Packrat log reviews done by WA3RLT
>> showed the first few contest hours, Sat eve and Sunday eve as peak times,
>> at least for the Mid-Atlantic and northeast. Now it is far more difficult
>> for that casual op to find the concentrated activity except on the FT8
>> frequency. And moving up the bands based on a completed FT8 contact is
>> problematic. More recently I have been writing up the QST EME contest
>> results and there are similar issues regarding digital vs CW, especially
>> for contests. The introduction of JT65 has been a great boon to EME
>> activity, yet there is still substantial CW activity.  I don’t have any
>> solutions to returning to the activity of the past, but here are some
>> thoughts.
>> There have been EME contest activities sponsored by EU groups (ARI) that
>> were digital only or CW/SSB only. The ARRL EME contest separates results of
>> those who use CW/SSB only from those who use digital only or digital plus
>> CW/SSB. Many have suggested that CW and/or SSB QSOs be given a higher point
>> value than digital contacts. Others have proposed credit for multiple QSOs
>> on the same band with the same station for 2 or 3 modes. Others thought
>> there should be separate contests for digital and other modes.
>> Hopefully the ARRL radiosport staff will evaluate what is happening and
>> get an adhoc committee to discuss and make recommendations regarding VHF
>> contests. We have been given fantastic tools with digital programs. We need
>> to be able to utilize them and yet maintain a balance that keeps some of
>> the personality of the stations and operators on the air that makes it easy
>> and fun for the casual VHF contesters who are the real majority of those on
>> the air for the contest weekends who help feed the logs and scores of the
>> big guns. Rick K1DS
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting