[VHFcontesting] VHF Contests Rules Discussion and Proposal

[Bob, W3IDT]

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 PDF version is attached for ease of distribution,
for those email systems/reflectors passing attachments.]


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         .
.............................