[VHFcontesting] Fwd: VHF Contests Rules Discussion and Proposal

[w5zn at w5zn.org]

Interesting thread. The geographical & population density differences 
across the country definitely impact a person's perspective on any 
proposed change to VHF rules more so than on HF. Down here in "5-Land" 
not too far from Marshall I agree with his comments so rather than post 
a huge response of similar thoughts I'll just leave it at that.

I will add the only way we can compete out here in fly-over-country is 
to use every tool available and allowed by the rules and that includes 
using EME and whatever we can, otherwise our scores will be in the 
noise. I realize a lot of folks don't care about their score and just 
get on to have fun and make a few Q's...that's perfectly OK but if I'm 
able to participate in a radiosport event I do so at as high a 
competition level as I can and that includes using every allowable tool 
I can.

If our objective is to increase overall activity, in other words getting 
new or more folks on the air in VHF contests, then allowing contacts on 
different modes won't do that, it will just shuffle the existing pool. 
Down here in my area FT8, like it or not, has generated more "new" 
activity from stations who never were on 6 meters before so that in 
itself is a plus.

Anywho, as Marshall says, let it ride for a while longer and see what 
shakes out.

73 Joel W5ZN



On 2020-03-17 15:48, Marshall-K5QE wrote:
> Hello to all interested in VHF contesting.....Arliss-W7XU has raised a
> caution that no one seems to have considered.  Unintended consequences
> are always the result of changes....most especially changes that are
> made in haste trying to "fix" a perceived problem, that is not really
> that much of a problem to begin with.
> 
> I do not believe that any of those proposed changes will help VHF
> contesting--I think that they will hurt it, maybe badly.  I propose
> that we DO NOTHING about the VHF rules for at least a year, maybe
> more.  Bob's proposals might generate more contacts, especially for
> stations in the populous North East, but it will NOT bring in any new
> participants.  Generating "activity" among the folks that are already
> operating strikes me as mostly a poor way to run a railroad.  For
> those in the highly populated areas, manufactured contacts will
> abound, further hurting those of us that live in the sticks.
> 
> Jay-W9RM is correct as well.  Currently, the masses, are doing FT8 on
> 6M because they perceive that they are making all these contacts that
> previously were very difficult to make.....and hence their score must
> be higher.  Except that it is not, because their rate is so bad--so
> scores actually go down.  Give me two hours on SSB on 6M with the band
> wide open and I will give up all the FT8 contacts.  Eventually, folks
> will figure this one out.  For me, the FT8 "problem" exists only on
> 6M.  We work a lot of SSB on 2M and we move folks to 222 and 432 as
> necessary.  It may happen that FT8 will "take over" 2M also, but I
> certainly hope not.
> 
> The correct way to look at this is the way that HFers look at it. 
> Many, many HF contests have been won by stations that moved from one
> band to another at just the right time to maximize their contacts. 
> Contests have been lost by stations that stayed on 20M when the rate
> was slowing down when they should have moved down to 40M.....or they
> should have moved from 40M to 80M.  All this is just a part of HF
> contest strategy.  No one is proposing a batch of new rules to "fix"
> this problem.  For us, choosing the right band and the right mode to
> maximize contacts is just part of VHF contesting.
> 
> Let's leave everything alone for the time being.  All of us can
> consider the situation and maybe some new and better rules may come
> forward in the future.  Arliss and Jay are two of the top VHFers
> running around.  We need to pay careful attention to their cautious
> views.
> 
> 73 Marshall K5QE
> 
> 
> On 3/17/2020 2:59 AM, w7xu at w7xu.com wrote:
>> Just a few thoughts from the middle of the country --
>> 
>> The more populated areas of the country already have a huge advantage 
>> when it comes to making QSOs compared to those of us who have fewer 
>> than a dozen stations within 200 miles. While I support the idea of 
>> getting folks back on cw and phone, making analog QSOs count twice (or 
>> 4 times!) as much as a digital QSO really puts those of us in the 
>> hinterlands at a disadvantage.
>> 
>> Likewise, getting points for separate QSOs using CW, SSB and digital 
>> also gives a big advantage to the population centers. Combining CW 
>> with SSB vs digital, as K8MR suggested (but for a different reason), 
>> would lessen that discrepancy somewhat as well as take care of the 
>> mixed mode QSO question. Maybe with just 2 categories and a distance 
>> factor, it would be more palatable for those of us away from the east 
>> coast or other populated areas. (Or maybe too much of a change for 
>> others).
>> 
>> I don't like the idea of a station only being able to make a CW QSO in 
>> a CW sub-band. There are a lot of places in the country where it was 
>> tough to find anyone straying from 144.200 even in "the good old 
>> days." I think it would take a lot of arm twisting to get stations to 
>> move to 144.050 in my area.
>> 
>> The bottom line is that I'm in favor of recovering the lost cw and 
>> phone activity, but let's not overlook the unintended consequences.
>> 
>> 73, Arliss  W7XU
>>     Currently marooned near Tierra del Fuego (and you thought you were
>>     in the sticks), but normally in EN13
> 
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting