[VHFcontesting] Fwd: VHF Contests Rules Discussion and Proposal

[N12614 at aol.com]

I am primarily a 2m kind of guy and when I first read this I was intrigued
and after thinking about would like to propose something similar but a
little different.

I like the three contacts per station on each band.  

I like the different points for digital and nondigital modes but, as someone
else said I would count voice and CW contacts similarly since I also have
made many cross-mode contacts.  For argument sake lets pick 1 point for a
digital mode contact and 4 points for a non-digital mode.  The point
differences are significant enough to encourage switching off of digital
during band openings since the value of the contact goes way up.
Unfortunately, I can't think of a simple way to separate MS and EME from
other digital modes at this time so they would still count as digital.  I'm
sure someone smarter than I will come up with a way.

My other change would be to grant multiplier credit by mode-grid instead of
just by grid.

Work me CW, SSB, and MS on 2m in EM04 and get 9 QSO points (4+4+1) and 3
multipliers for a max score of 27 points on 2m.

Maybe we can try this during the Fall Sprints as a test run.

Looking forward to the discussion.

Don, AC5D

-----Original Message-----
From: VHFcontesting <vhfcontesting-bounces+n12614=aol.com at contesting.com> On
Behalf Of Bob, W3IDT
Sent: Monday, 16 March, 2020 18:19
To: vhfcontesting at contesting.com
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Fwd: VHF Contests Rules Discussion and Proposal


I have sent the following discussion and proposal for VHF Contest Rule
Changes to appropriate ARRL and CQ contest personnel. If you are interested
in the future of VHF contests, please read carefully and offer your
considered opinions and alternate recommendations.

Please forward to your local contest and vhf clubs.

[A copy of this email with a PDF version attached for ease of
re-distribution is somewhere in the email system; it may or may not appear
in VHFcontesting.]

TO:     Distribution List
      at bottom of this memo.

FROM:     Robert F. Teitel, w3idt
      for the Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators
      VHF contest club, W3SO

      And while this proposal is NOT an official
      Potomac Valley Radio Club (PVRC) position,
      it does represent what appears to be a
      consensus of a number of our VHF operators.

RE:    VHF Contests Rules Discussion and Proposal



CONTEXT:

The Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators VHF club (operating first as W3YOZ
then as W3SO in Western Pennsylvania) has participated in almost every VHF
contest for the past 25 years.[*]

We usually produce among the top scores in the limited multi-operator class.
Thus we are in a position to comment on VHF contesting from long and
extensive experience.

[*] Only exception has been four January contests when we had snow and ice
so bad that operating was simply not possible. This past January
2020 contest, after a couple of hours of operation, we lost the rest of
Saturday due to ice, and had to wait until at least some of the ice melted
on Sunday to resume operation. Such is life contesting from a mountaintop in
Western Pennsylvania in the winter. The rest of the year it's usually very
nice!]

SUMMARY:

1. We don't need to research detail numbers of contest participants or
number of QSOs to know what has happened to VHF contests in the past year or
so: CW and SSB participation is WAY down, and activity on 222 and 432 has
almost disappeared. Oh yeah, a huge continent-wide Eskip opening does bring
some participants, once the word gets out. But that does not represent
normal contest activity.

In short, Marshall, K5QE, - who manages another major limited multi-operator
class station - stated the essence of the problem in his
3830 post with his results from the January 2020 VHF contest:
"NOT A SINGLE SSB CONTACT ON 6M".

The cause is, of course, the tremendous increase in the use of FT8.

2. We do NOT have anything against FT8 (or FT4).
Its use for weak signal contacts on HF and VHF has been a tremendous
advance, especially for the increasing number of hams living in antenna
restricted communities. We also don't object to appropriate use of FT8 in
VHF contests (though we wish more stations would make use of the more
contest oriented FT4).

3. There has been much discussion lately, in the VHF contesting reflector
and among VHF operators, concerning what should be done to increase activity
on the VHF bands during contests.

The following are among the major suggestions:

A: Banning DIGITAL operations in general, or FT4/FT8 specifically, in VHF
contests.
We do NOT favor this approach.

B. Allocate DIFFERENT point values to the (SINGLE) contact per station made
with CW, with VOICE, or with DIGITAL modes in general or with
FT4/FT8 specifically.
We do NOT favor this approach.

C: Change the various VHF contests to have different rules; that is, for
example, have the ARRL January contest be ALL FT4/FT8; the ARRL June contest
have different point values depending on the contact mode; and the September
contest a multi-mode contest (and let the CQ contest committee and VHF
contest manager make a choice among various options for the July contest).
We do NOT favor this approach.

D: Add more competitive classes, such as an "FT4/FT8 only" class to
complement the current "FM only" class.
We do NOT favor this approach.
In fact, we would favor the removal of the "FM only" class.

E1: Permit MULTIPLE contacts with the same station using different modes,
CW, VOICE(AM,SSB,FM), and ANY DIGITAL, with the SAME contact value for each
contact.
We MILDLY favor this approach in general, but have some concerns regarding
specific rules.

E2: Permit MULTIPLE contacts with the same station using different modes,
CW, VOICE(AM,SSB,FM), and ANY DIGITAL, with DIFFERENT point values to
contacts in different modes.
We STRONGLY favor this approach in general, but again have some concerns
regarding specific rule (as discussed below).


DISCUSSION:

on A: Banning DIGITAL operations in general, or FT4/FT8 specifically.

Stations not near densely population areas rely on Meteor Scatter (MS) and
Earth-Moon-Earth (Moon-Bounce or EME) modes to work grids outside their
immediate vicinity; we certainly do NOT want to ban such activity; in fact,
it should be encouraged.
[We, at W3SO, do very little MS or EME, not that we are near high population
areas - we definitely are not - but for whatever reason none of our
operators has so far been interested.]

Trying to craft rules prohibiting FT4/FT8 and/or similar "simple and fast"
digital modes yet permitting / encouraging "complex and slow" MS and EME
modes would be difficult, though possible. Hence, in order to protect MS and
EME modes, we have to accept FT4/FT8 as a valid DIGITAL modes. As noted
earlier, we have nothing against FT4/FT8. It is simply another mode of
communication.

A major limitation of FT4/FT8 for VHF contesting is the inability to request
the availability of other bands and to pass a FT4/FT8 station to other
bands. By using FT4/FT8, operators make the choice not to pass callers to
other bands. [The developers of FT4/FT8 are aware of this problem.]

We do NOT favor banning DIGITAL operations in general, or FT4/FT8
specifically.

on B: Allocate DIFFERENT point values to the (SINGLE) contact per station
made with CW, with VOICE, or with DIGITAL modes in general or with FT4/FT8
specifically.

There are two problems with this approach for VHF contests.

The first is that it does virtually nothing to ameliorate the basic VHF
contest problem: Lack of CW and VOICE activity. We seriously doubt that
FT4/FT8 stations would suddenly gravitate to CW (assuming it is the highest
valued mode). A few normally VOICE/CW operators might come back, but that
doesn't increase the total number of participants.

The second is how to assign the point values. That CW operating skill is
greater than VOICE operating skill is universally acknowledged in amateur
radio; hence, its usual higher point value in mixed mode contests (or in
non-contest Field Day). How would "simple and fast" 
digital FT4/FT8 contacts be valued relative to VOICE, CW, or "complex and
slow" digital MS and EME contacts?

We don't want dismiss different point values for different mode contacts as
such, even though there might be considerable controversy over the actual
point values.

We do NOT favor allocating DIFFERENT point values for SINGLE contacts made
with different modes because it would do very little to increase CW or VOICE
participation.

On C: Change the various VHF contests to have different rules; that is, for
example, have the ARRL January contest be ALL digital or ALL FT4/FT8; the
ARRL June contest be a differential point value contest; and the September
contest a multi-mode contest (and let the CQ contest committee and VHF
contest manager make a choice among all the options).

Hard to predict how this would be received by the VHF community at large.
Since we are NOT in favor of at least two of the choices, we could hardly be
in favor of such an approach. The UHF/Microwave community would certainly
object, as there would now be one whole contest without the possibility of
moving stations to higher bands (or "running the bands").

We do NOT favor vastly different rules for the different VHF (and
UHF/Microwave) contests.

On D: Add more competitive classes, such as an "FT4/FT8 only" class to
complement the current "FM only" class.

We think of the available modes as being CW, VOICE (AM,SSB,FM), and DIGITAL
(RTTY, any WSJT or similar mode). Fragmenting participation in various
sub-modes is not the direction we need in VHF contests, just the
opposite: We need more general participation, not less.

We do NOT favor adding additional competitive classes.
In fact, we would favor the removal of the "FM only" class.

ON E1 and E2.
E1: Permit MULTIPLE contacts with the same station using different modes,
CW, VOICE(AM,SSB,FM), and ANY DIGITAL, with the SAME point value for each
contact.

E2: Permit MULTIPLE contacts with the same station using different modes,
CW, VOICE(AM,SSB,FM), and ANY DIGITAL, with DIFFERENT point values to
contacts in different modes or submodes.

Both these options provide the ultimate goal: Increase activity in VHF
contests. If today, some station typically works 200 contacts, rule changes
E1 or E2 could provide up to 600 contacts depending on specific
implementation.

Increased use of CW and VOICE contacts provide the ability to move stations
to other bands.

We lean to DIFFERENT point values for contacts in the three modes, CW,
VOICE, and DIGITAL. But recognize the problems creating equitable point
values for the different modes and, especially, distinguishing between
"simple and fast" digital FT4/FT8 contacts with one point value, and
"complex and slow" digital MS and EME contacts another value, as noted above
in the discussion of option (B:).

In addition, "manufactured contacts" are one of our major concerns. We
certainly do NOT want a pair of stations finishing a VOICE contact to then
send "dit-dit" to each other and count it as a CW contact. This concern
leads to a secondary issue: How many contacts in which modes on which bands?

The latter issue is complicated and based on operator (radio) band
capability, FCC band segment allocations, and current practice, keeping in
mind that the goal is increased participation in VHF contests.

On 6m, the "complication" doesn't exist: Most current radios have 6m
capability, there is an exclusive CW band segment, and current practice is
to have true CW contacts in that exclusive band segment. THREE contacts, one
CW in the exclusive CW band segment, one VOICE, one any DIGITAL, with or
without different point values would increase activity considerably, and
might even draw in normally HF contesters.

The high bands, 222/432MHz, 902/1296MHz, and 2.3GHz/higher, are really used
only by serious VHF contest operators (who might also be serious HF contest
operators), and do not have an exclusive CW band allocation; they can easily
have a common set of multiple contact rules. So, how to prevent
"manufactured contacts"? Three potential contest rules:
1) Require a minimum frequency change between those contacts (similar to HF
Sprints),
2) Prescribe an "exclusive CW segment" (similar to some HF contest specified
band segments), or
3) Require a minimum amount of time between those contacts.
We lean to (2): An exclusive CW band segment prescribed by the contest
rules.

2m is the most complicated from a multiple contact rules perspective: 
Few radios have 2m built in, so drawing the HF crowd to 2m contesting is
more problematic; and there is an FCC designated exclusive CW band segment,
but current practice is to have CW contacts in the SSB band segment.

So, should the 2m rules follow those of 6m, or should the 2m rules follow
those of the higher bands?
1) Following the 6m rules implies CW contacts in the FCC designated
exclusive CW segment, contrary to current practice. But many "current
practices" would change in a MULTIPLE contacts per band environment.
2) Following the higher band rules implies (per our view stated above) a
contest rule designated exclusive CW band segment. What better exclusive CW
band segment than the one already designated by the FCC?

The discussion above leads to 6m and 2m having the same rules.

[On all bands, a mixed CW/VOICE contact should count as a VOICE contact
only, and the rules should make "manufactured contacts" impossible.]

CONCLUSION:

We are advocating a partial set of new rules for VHF contests:

1a. To permit up to THREE contacts per station, one each with CW, with VOICE
(any of AM, SSB, or FM), and with DIGITAL (RTTY, any WSJT or similar mode),
in all VHF contest bands, and

1b. That CW contacts be initiated and completed solely in the FCC allocated
exclusive CW band segments on 6m and 2m, and in contest rules specified band
segment on the higher bands.

2a. That DIFFERENT point values be assigned to the contacts in the various
modes ONLY IF an equitable system of point value assignment can be be
developed recognizing the distinction between "simple and fast" 
digital and "complex and slow" digital contacts.

2b. For an initial discussion on point values, we would suggest
1) ONE point for "simple and fast" DIGITAL contacts such as FT4/FT8,
2) TWO points for VOICE contacts, and
3) THREE or FOUR points for CW or "complex and slow" DIGITAL contacts, such
as MS and EME.

This proposal does NOT address issues such as DIFFERENT multipliers for
contacts on different bands (CQ's ONE for 6m, TWO for 2m; ARRL's ONE for 6m
and 2m, TWO for 222/432; FOUR for 902/1296; EIGHT for 2.3 of higher).

It also does NOT address Entry Categories.
It also does NOT address Assistance rules.
It also does NOT address Rover-related rules.

SUPPORT

This proposal has been discusses with a number of major VHF contest
participants within the Potomac Valley Radio Club (PVRC) (of which we are
members - but is NOT a formal PVRC position), and with other major VHF
contest participants well outside the mid-Atlantic area.

There is rather unanimous agreement that
a) current VHF contests are "broken", and
b) that multiple contacts on different modes per band would invigorate VHF
contest operations by generating much more activity and, perhaps, attracting
HF contest operators, at least to 6m.

There is not unanimous agreement on some of the operational details,
including the number of contacts, in which modes, on which bands, and with
what differential point values, precisely for the reasons discussed at
length above.

We have not listed the calls and names of those who have provided
contributions and constructive criticism to this discussion and resulting
recommendations in order to preserve their ability to issue public comments
with or without acknowledgement of their previous participation.

It surely will take time for the contest committees to sort this all out,
and make appropriate changes to the contest rules.


Respectfully submitted.

Robert (Bob) F. Teitel, w3idt
for the Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators
VHF contest club, W3SO

W3IDT:
60 year ARRL membership pin.
Very long time ARRL Life Member,
so long that I don't remember
w3idt at arrl.net
w3idt at comcast.net
-----------------------------------------------------

To other VHF contest operators:

If you support these arguments for rule changes, please raise you voice 
by writing to your ARRL (and CQ) contest and administrative 
representatives.  Either formulate a proposal in your own words, or 
simply state that your support this proposal.

If you do NOT support this proposal, please let that be known to the 
appropriate sponsors AND please send me a copy of your alternative 
suggestions.

The list of the ARRL Board Program and Services Committee below is 
complete (taken from the ARRL website early February 2020). This 
committee tasks the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee with any study of 
rule changes for ARRL contests.

A list of the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee is available at the 
following website: ARRL Contest Committee:
http://www.arrl.org/arrl-staff-cac
Select your committee representative.

A list of the ARRL Division Directors and Vice directors is available at 
the following website: ARRL Division Directors: 
http://www.arrl.org/divisions
Select your Division representatives.

A list of the ARRL Section Managers is available at the following website:
ARRL Section Managers:
http://www.arrl.org/divisions
Select your Section manager.

The email addresses of ARRL Headquarter personnel, and the CQ VHF 
Contest Manager are the same for all correspondents.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution list:

ARRL Board Program and Services Committee:

      Matt Holden, K0BBC, Dakota Division Director, Chairman
      k0bbc at arrl.org

      Mickey Baker, N4MB, Southeastern Division Director
      [The website says N4MB at arrl.org.
       But a "copy email address" produces "gsarratt at arrl.org"
       The N4MB at arrl.org is probably correct.]

      David Norris, K5UZ, Delta Division Director
      k5uz at arrl.org

      Mike Ritz, W7VO, Northwestern Division Director
      w7vo at arrl.org

      Rod Blocksome, N0DAS, Midwest Division Director
      k0das at arrl.org

      Ed Hudgens, WB4RHQ, Delta Division Vice Director
      wb4rhq at arrl.org

      Bob Vallio, W6RGG, 2nd Vice President (Officer Liaison)
      W6RGG at arrl.org

      Norm Fusaro, W3IZ, (Staff Liaison)
      w3iz at arrl.org

ARRL Regional Officers:

      Chas Fulp, k3ww, k3ww at fast.net
          Contest Advisory Committee
          Atlantic Division
      Tom Abernathy, w3tom, w3tom at arrl.org
          Atlantic Division Director
      Bob Famiglio, k3rf, k3rf at arrl.org
          Atlantic Division Vice Director
      Joe Shupienis, w3bc, sm at wpa-arrl.org
          WPA Section Manager

ARRL HQ:
      Bart Jahnke, w9jj, w9jj at arrl.org
          ARRL Radiosport and Field Services Manager.
      Paul Bourque, n1sfe, n1sfe at arrl.org
          Contest Manager
      Kathy Allison, ka1rwy, ka1rwy at arrl.org
          RadioSport Associate

CQ VHF Contest Manager:

      John Kalenowsky, k9jk, k9jk.cq at gmail.com
          CQ WW VHF Contest Director



-- 

.............................
. Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT   .
.                           .
. W3IDT at arrl.net            .
. W3IDT at comcast.net         .
.............................

-- 

.............................
. Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT   .
.                           .
. W3IDT at arrl.net            .
. W3IDT at comcast.net         .
............................. 					

_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting