[VHFcontesting] Fwd: VHF Contests Rules Discussion and Proposal

[Bob K0NR - email list]

Hi all,
I was going to sit this one out but debating VHF contest rules is way 
too much fun. :-(

There are always multiple things to "fix" in the VHF contest rules but I 
think the big issue on the table with FT4/8 is the reduction of 6m 
ssb/cw contacts and the impact on run rates.
That's what I hear people complaining about...as Jay/W9RM 
writes...serious contesters are looking for decent run rates on 6m to 
drive their score.
That's what I want, too....running on 6m ssb is way more fun than the 
best day on FT8.

If 6m is really the issue, it may point to being a June VHF contest 
issue (only). We don't get anywhere near the sporadic-e except in the 
June (and July CQ VHF) contests.

I claim that a serious contester (focused on competing with the best 
score possible) would choose cw or ssb 6m contacts when the band is open 
with decent signal levels. Again, it provides the best run rate and best 
score...if there is someone to work. So the fact that many/most/all 6m 
operators are choosing FT4/8 even when signals are strong implies they 
are not optimizing their score. They are optimizing something 
else...probably just enjoying making contacts during the contest and not 
so focused on the score. This is a key point because any effort to fix 
this problem (as I've defined it) has to result in these casual 
contesters changing their operating behavior. Unfortunately, I don't see 
fiddling with the points awarded or operating categories changing their 
FT4/8 preference. For example, if the rules award points for both 
digital QSOs and ssb/cw QSOs, these casual folks will probably just keep 
on making FT4/8 contacts and ignoring ssb/cw.

The one thing that might change their behavior is to restrict the 
allowable modes to not include FT4/8. This would be a drastic change, 
not one I would recommend at this time.
(Even then, it might not work...the contest might happen on cw/ssb while 
the casual operators still have fun on FT4/8.)

I think Marshall/K5QE has the right idea:

    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.

Note: I am located in Colorado, so the VHF activity is on the sparse 
side. Most of the contests end up being focused on 6m & 2m, with a small 
sprinkle from the other bands.

73 Bob K0NR
bob at k0nr.com

On 17-Mar-20 3:15 PM, Jay RM wrote:
> I started out answering a private email, but then thought this might be
> better 'out there'.
>
> FT modes are "out of the barn", loose in the wild and have wide acceptance,
> so you can't look the other way or ban them - that would not reflect well
> on the contest community.  Education will not work, as the people who need
> the education on how to contest (..just run the rate !) don't care - they
> are just there for the Q's, not the score.  Contesters mostly know they are
> hurting their score by having to work everyone on FT8, but they need to get
> the Qs, even if it's much slower than "the old days".  The individual
> contester need to decide whether he/she wants to.
>
> I don't know what would work to bring people back to faster rate modes.
> Personally, I think the days of 200+/hour on 6M E are over.  I have a
> single suggestion that I havent put a lot of thought into, but it might
> lead somewhere.
>
> SInce the FT8 boom has two main effects, one, lowering Q totals and run
> rate on 6 and, two, depopulating the bands above 2M, let's either shunt FT8
> modes off to a separate contest or category for JUNE ONLY.  June is where
> all the Qs on 6 are made AND June is arguably where you see the least
> activity above 2M, since it's likely everybody is busy on 6 to a greater
> degree than in January or September.  If we need to kill off digital meteor
> scatter in June by simply saying NO digital, fine.  BTW, I'm a HUGE user of
> digital meteor scatter and have been since the very first FSK441 version of
> WSJT.  But, I would accept not having it if it brought back SSB/CW ops.
>
> January and September can remain status quo.  FT8/4 was ready made for 6M
> with weak signals (I.E. little or no sporadic E) and the need for digital
> meteor scatter is much greater for the same reason.
>
> If the activity in June dries up because of the proposed change, we can
> still call it a successful experiment, go back to allowing ALL modes and
> acknowledging the death of SSB/CW on VHF.
>
> -W9RM
>
> Keith J Morehouse
> Managing Partner
> Calmesa Partners G.P.
> Olathe, CO
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting


-- 

--
Bob Witte K0NR
bob at k0nr.com