[VHFcontesting] JUNE/JULY VHF Contest Proposal and Operating Protocol
Bob, W3IDT
w3idt at comcast.net
Fri Jun 4 15:44:17 EDT 2021
Paul,
Thanks for your email.
>> I think contest rules should stay the same.
I'm not proposing changing rules in the short term, merely a "Contest
within a Contest" during this JUNE and JULY contests.
That is, ARRL (and CQ) rules and scoring for submission to them, and
separate, informal rules and scoring for submission to 3830 and the VHF
reflector.
In the long run, I do think there need to be some changes, whether to
the rules of existing contests or new contests or something to bring
back SSB and CW contacts now lost to FTx.
We surely agree that Eskip between WA and and PA during the contest
would be a good thing :-)
Bob, w3idt
6m at W3SO
.......
. Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT
.
. w3idt at comcast.net
. w3idt at arrl.net
........
On 6/3/2021 8:06 PM, Paul Kiesel wrote:
> I've already in the past expressed my opinions about changing contest
> rules. With the exception of extra points for bands above 144 MHz, which
> I consider to be no longer needed because commercial equipment is now
> readily available, I think contest rules should stay the same. After
> all, a contest is a contest and, to win, you use the established rules
> as best you can, all pleasantness aside. Present ARRL rules allow us to
> use all modes and we can do that as we see fit to win. CQ rules restrict
> to using only CW and SSB and you can mix if you like. I like those rules.
>
> Again, I contend that leaving rules unchanged is the way to move forward.
>
> 73, Paul K7CW
>
> On Thursday, June 3, 2021, 9:36:45 AM PDT, Bob, W3IDT
> <w3idt at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> ALL interested in VHF Contesting,
>
> A year ago I drafted and distributed a paper regarding where goes VHF
> contesting given the prevalence of FT8 operation and the reduction of CW
> and SSB contacts. The paper generated much discussion directly with me
> and on various VHF and club reflectors.
>
> I was unable to follow-up on the discussion because 1) the unexpected
> death of Marty Johnson, w3yoz, the owner of the W3SO VHF contest station
> in FN00 at which I usually operate 6m, and 2) my own heart attack - now
> fully recovered. Then the COVID19 pandemic... [June will be my first
> time back at W3SO since January 2020.]
>
> While in this short note I can't restate all the arguments for and
> against various options covered in the original paper - a copy is below
> the signature block - several features stand out:
>
> 1. The need to permit multiple contacts, in multiple modes, per band.
> 2. Clear distinction between "CW only" and mixed mode CW/SSB contacts.
> 3. Retention of a scoring system encouraging use of the higher VHF and
> UHF bands.
>
> In the short run, while nothing will happen to the official rules from
> the contest sponsors (ARRL for the June contest, CQ for the July
> contest), it is possible for us, the participants, to create our own
> "contest within a contest" and still abide by the official rules.
>
> I am proposing is that the "contest within a contest" expand on the
> official rules as follows:
>
> 1. Permit multiple contacts, in different modes, per band; specifically
> A. THREE contacts on 6m and 2m:
> one CW-only (in the CW-only portions 50.0-50.1 and 144.0-144.1)
> one FM, SSB, or mixed, and
> one any form of digital;
> B. TWO contacts on the higher bands
> one CW, FM, SSB, or mixed, and
> one any form of digital.
>
> 2. Point count per contact to remain as now:
> [ARRL 5.2 QSO points for June and September contests:
> 5.2.1 Count one point for each complete 50- or 144-MHz QSO.
> 5.2.2 Count two points for each 222- or 432-MHz QSO.
> 5.2.3 Count three points for each 902- or 1296-MHz QSO.
> 5.2.4 Count four points for each 2.3 GHz (or higher) QSO.]
> Note that TWO contacts on 432, for example, equals 4 points whereas
> THREE contacts on 50 or 144 equals only 3 points.
>
> [CQ One (1) point per QSO on 50 MHz and
> two (2) points per QSO on 144 MHz.]
> Hence, THREE contacts on 2m would equal 6 points,
> whereas THREE contacts on 6m would equal only 3 points.
> *As a 6m op I should change this :-)
>
> 3. Multiple contacts per band for the "contest within a contest"
> A. does not violate ARRL contest rules, which state explicitly
> "
> Log Checking Penalties
> Logs are cross-checked using custom software and human judgment.
> LGCK.1. Duplicate contacts are removed with no additional scoring penalty.
> "
> B. I couldn't find an explicit rule for the July CQ contest, but other
> CQ contests do not penalize for duplicate contacts.
>
> That's it.
> Scoring? Sum of (Contacts * Multipliers * Points per Band).
> Self scoring and reporting via 3830 and VHF contesting reflector.
>
>
> At W3SO (FN00) we will try to use the operating schedule below:
> 1. SSB at the top of every EVEN UTC hour.
> 2. CW - in the CW band portion - at the top of the ODD UTC hour
> 3. FT4 in between; FT8 only when nothing else available.
> 4. SSB or CW when Eskip or Tropo conditions exist.
> [We do not do much MS or EME but obviously encourage its use.]
>
> Self plug:
> We tend to hang out around 50.165 and 144.213 SSB
> and will try 50.095 and 144.093 for CW;
> 222.115 and 432.115 on the higher bands.
>
> PLEASE forward this email to other individuals and/or club reflectors.
> Thank you.
>
>
> Bob, w3idt
> and the Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators, W3SO
>
> .......
> . Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT
> .
> . w3idt at comcast.net <mailto:w3idt at comcast.net>
> . w3idt at arrl.net <mailto:w3idt at arrl.net>
> ........
>
>
> ========================================================================
> COPY OF LAST YEAR'S 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 <mailto:w3idt at arrl.net>
> w3idt at comcast.net <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <mailto:k0bbc at arrl.org>
>
> Mickey Baker, N4MB, Southeastern Division Director
> [The website says N4MB at arrl.org. <mailto:N4MB at arrl.org.>
> But a "copy email address" produces "gsarratt at arrl.org
> <mailto:gsarratt at arrl.org>"
> The N4MB at arrl.org <mailto:N4MB at arrl.org> is probably correct.]
>
> David Norris, K5UZ, Delta Division Director
> k5uz at arrl.org <mailto:k5uz at arrl.org>
>
> Mike Ritz, W7VO, Northwestern Division Director
> w7vo at arrl.org <mailto:w7vo at arrl.org>
>
> Rod Blocksome, N0DAS, Midwest Division Director
> k0das at arrl.org <mailto:k0das at arrl.org>
>
> Ed Hudgens, WB4RHQ, Delta Division Vice Director
> wb4rhq at arrl.org <mailto:wb4rhq at arrl.org>
>
> Bob Vallio, W6RGG, 2nd Vice President (Officer Liaison)
> W6RGG at arrl.org <mailto:W6RGG at arrl.org>
>
> Norm Fusaro, W3IZ, (Staff Liaison)
> w3iz at arrl.org <mailto:w3iz at arrl.org>
>
> ARRL Regional Officers:
>
> Chas Fulp, k3ww, k3ww at fast.net <mailto:k3ww at fast.net>
> Contest Advisory Committee
> Atlantic Division
> Tom Abernathy, w3tom, w3tom at arrl.org <mailto:w3tom at arrl.org>
> Atlantic Division Director
> Bob Famiglio, k3rf, k3rf at arrl.org <mailto:k3rf at arrl.org>
> Atlantic Division Vice Director
> Joe Shupienis, w3bc, sm at wpa-arrl.org <mailto:sm at wpa-arrl.org>
> WPA Section Manager
>
> ARRL HQ:
> Bart Jahnke, w9jj, w9jj at arrl.org <mailto:w9jj at arrl.org>
> ARRL Radiosport and Field Services Manager.
> Paul Bourque, n1sfe, n1sfe at arrl.org <mailto:n1sfe at arrl.org>
> Contest Manager
> Kathy Allison, ka1rwy, ka1rwy at arrl.org <mailto:ka1rwy at arrl.org>
> RadioSport Associate
>
> CQ VHF Contest Manager:
>
> John Kalenowsky, k9jk, k9jk.cq at gmail.com <mailto:k9jk.cq at gmail.com>
> CQ WW VHF Contest Director
>
> --
>
> .............................
> . Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT .
> . .
> . W3IDT at arrl.net <mailto:W3IDT at arrl.net> .
> . W3IDT at comcast.net <mailto:W3IDT at comcast.net> .
> .............................
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com <mailto:VHFcontesting at contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting>
More information about the VHFcontesting
mailing list