[VHFcontesting] ARRL/CAC: VHF Contest Proposal(s)

[Bob, W3IDT]

All,

You are receiving this email via the VHF Contesting Reflector (or PVRC 
Reflector), or because you received and perhaps commented on my VHF 
Contest proposal / discussion document of 18 months ago which gathered 
much interest and email traffic both direct to me and via various 
reflectors.

A "let's wait and see what happens" attitude seemed persuasive at that 
time. Well, we've waited and we’ve seen: VHF contests have now evolved 
into mostly 50- and 144-MHz FT8 contests with very little SSB/CW 
activity nor much activity on the higher bands.

The ARRL/Contest Advisory Committee (CAC) is aware of the issues and is 
considering various options to rejuvenate VHF contests. They are 
interested in "thoughtful ideas and proposals".

Please DO NOT send COMPLAINTS about the loss of the "good old times", 
and please DO NOT send RANTS about whatever bothers you now about VHF 
contesting.

As stated above, the ARRL/CAC  IS  aware of the issues.
They are interested in good and thoughtful ideas.

Send any submission to your CAC representative; a listing of CAC members 
is below the signature block. I would be interested in receiving a copy 
of any submissions.

Attached in PDF format, and in plain text below the CAC members list 
(losing some bold, italic, and underline formatting), is the proposal I 
sent to the CAC.

The CAC is interested in similar (style, format, tone, etc) ideas,
not necessarily the substantive content of my proposal.

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS EMAIL WIDELY.
The ARRL/CAC will appreciate "thoughtful ideas and proposals".

Bob, w3idt
6m op at W3SO, Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators
-- 
.......
. Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT
.
. w3idt at comcast.net
. w3idt at arrl.net
........

======================================================================
ARRL Contest Advisory Committee August 2021
======================================================================
Atlantic – Charles D. Fulp, Jr., K3WW (H) 215-257-7472
1326 N 5th St., Perkasie, PA 18944 (W) 215-257-5200
Email: k3ww at fast.net

Central – Craig A. Thompson, K9CT (Chairman) Email: craig at k9ct.us
1603 N. Holiday Lane, Trivoli, IL 61569-9643

Dakota – Jon Platt, W0ZQ (P) 952 888-9531
9512 Riverview Ave, Bloomington, MN 55425-2451 Email: w0zq at aol.com

Delta – Stan Stockton, K5GO (P) 870-715-8228
PO Box 73, Harrison, AR 72602-0073 Email: k5go at cox.net or
wa5rtg at gmail.com

Great Lakes – John S. Comella, N8AA Email: jscomella at gmail.com
4418 Muskopf Dr, Fairfield, OH 45014-3284

Hudson – Zev Darack, N2WKS Email: n2wks at arrl.net
180 Johnson Avenue, Teaneck, NJ 07666

Midwest – Glenn R. Johnson, WØGJ Email: vjohnson at paulbunyan.net
2215 Big Timber Road, Calmar, IA 52132

New England – Rudy Bakalov, N2WQ Email: n2wq at arrl.net
18 Fillow Street, Westport, CT 06880

Northwestern – Jim Cassidy, KI7Y (H) 503-654-3559
4224 S E View Acres Rd, Milwaukie, OR 97267 Email: ki7y at arrl.net

Pacific – Jim Brown, K9YC Email: k9yc at arrl.net
2878 Pine Flat Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Roanoke - Don Daso, K4ZA (P) 704-408-7948
515 Withershinn Drive, Charlotte, NC 28262 Email: k4za at juno.com

Rocky Mountain – Darryl Hazelgren, K7UT Email: darryl at hazelgren.net
248 E 13800 S, Unit 21, Draper, UT 84020-5010

Southeastern – Charles Wooten, NF4A (P) 850-896-8076
1709 New Hampshire Ave., Lynn Haven, FL 32444 Email: nf4a at knology.net

Southwestern – Glenn Rattmann, K6NA Email: k6na at cts.com
14250 Calle De Vista, Valley Center, CA 92082

West Gulf – James K. George, N3BB (P) 512-288-4635
14721 Bear Creek Pass, Austin, TX 78737 Email: n3bb at mindspring.com

RAC – Samuel A. Ferris, VE5SF (H) 306-789-7866
2618 Laycock Bay, Regina SK S4V 1VP Email: ve5sf at sasktel.net
Canada

Board Liaison – Bill Lippert, AC0W (P) 507-433-5835
2013 6th Ave. SE, Austin, MN 55912 ac0w at arrl.org

Staff Liaison – Paul Bourque, N1SFE (P) 860-594-0232
225 Main St., Newington, CT 06111 Email: n1sfe at arrl.org

Administrative Liaison – Sharon Taratula (P) 860-594-0269
225 Main St., Newington, CT 06111 Email: staratula at arrl.org


========================================================================
VHF CONTEST RULES CHANGE PROPOSAL (September 2021)       w3idt/22SEP2021
========================================================================
As sent to the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee (CAC)

Context:

It is now abundantly clear that VHF contesting has dissolved into 
(mostly) 50- and 144-MHz FT8 contests. About 18 months ago, I circulated 
a proposal / discussion document which gathered much interest and email 
traffic, both direct and via various reflectors.

A "let's wait and see what happens" attitude seemed persuasive at that 
time. Well, we've waited and we’ve seen: VHF contests are now, as per 
the opening sentence, effectively 50- and 144-MHz FT8 contests.

The rules for any contests should encourage PARTICIPATION and ACTIVITY. 
By some measure, PARTICIPATION – that is, the number of individual 
stations participating - may have seen an uptick in the past two years 
(much likely attributable to home-bound operators during the COVID-19 
pandemic and the drop in multi-operator stations, and perhaps the 
availability of 50MHZ on modern HF radios), while ACTIVITY – that is, 
the number of stations available for contacts has gone down considerably 
(a clear manifestation of the length of an FT8 contact, and operators 
remaining on 50- and 144-MHz, not venturing to the higher bands).

Immediately below are the specific ARRL VHF contest rules changes I am 
proposing (and, of course, encourage CQ to make similar changes to their 
JULY VHF contest rules).

Below the specific rule change proposal is a discussion of the merits of 
the changes, and possible alternatives. The discussion 18 months ago, 
and that recently as part of the summaries of the ARRL September 
contest, convinces me that the proposed changes will meet with general 
approval of the serious VHF contest community. There will, of course, be 
some naysayers. Always. Alternative, well thought-out ideas are always 
welcome.

Specific ARRL rule changes.

Modifications to two rules are proposed. In the text below, the 
{current} rule is followed by the {proposed} version. As noted earlier, 
a discussion of the rule changes follows the text of the changes.

{Current} Bands and Modes:
Use any amateur band above 50 MHz.
Contacts may be made using any mode.
Contact stations only once per band.

{Proposed} Bands and Modes:
Use any amateur band above 50 MHz.
Contacts may be made using any mode.
Contact stations only once per band per mode type.

On 50- and 144-Mhz there are THREE mode types:
CW – classical CW in the exclusive CW band segments on 6m and 2m.
VOICE – any of AM, FM, and SSB in the permitted band segments.
DIGITAL – any computer-generated digital mode,
including FT4/FT8, JT65, MSK144, and similar, and classical RTTY.

On bands 222-Mhz and above there are TWO mode types:
ANALOG – CW, any VOICE mode, or mixed CW/VOICE anywhere in the band.
DIGITAL – any computer-generated digital mode,
including FT4/FT8, JT65, MSK144, and similar, and classical RTTY.

{Current} Scoring:

Contacts count for different points based on band:
Count one point for each complete 50- or 144-MHz QSO.
Count two points for each 222- or 432-MHz QSO.
Count four points for each 902- or 1296-MHz QSO in January
and three points in June/Sep
Count eight points for each 2.3 GHz (or higher) QSO in January
and four points in June/Sep.

{Proposed} Scoring:

Contacts count for different points based on band and mode type:
On 50- and 144-MHz,
      A CW contact counts 3 points;
      A VOICE contact counts 2 points; and
      A DIGITAL contact counts 1 point.
On 222- or 432-MHz,
      An ANALOG contact counts 4 points; and
      A DIGITAL contact counts 2 point.
On 902- or 1296-MHz QSO in January
      multiply the 222- and 432-MHz points by 2, so that
      An ANALOG contact counts 8 points; and
      A DIGITAL contact counts 4 points.
On 902- or 1296-MHz QSO in June / September
      multiply the 222- and 432-MHz points by 1.5, so that
      An ANALOG contact counts 6 points; and
      A DIGITAL contact counts 3 point.
On 2.3 GHz (or higher) QSO in January
      multiply the 222- and 432-MHz points by 2, so that
      An ANALOG contact counts 8 points; and
      A DIGITAL contact counts 4 point.
On 2.3 GHz (or higher) QSO in June / September
      multiply the 222- and 432-MHz points by 2, so that
      An ANALOG contact counts 6 points; and
      A DIGITAL contact counts 3 point.

Discussion:

1. Note carefully that the expanded text of the {proposed} scoring rule 
change regarding point values for contacts on bands above 50- and 
144-MHz is simply a more-or-less restatement of the original text of the 
{current} scoring rules. For example, contacts on 222- and 432-MHZ count 
twice as much as those on 50- and 144-MHz; Contacts on 902- and 1296-MHz 
in January count four times those on 50- and 144-MHz; Etc.

2. In the {proposed} scoring rules, TWO contacts on 222- and 432-MHz 
count the same as THREE contacts on 50- and 144-MHz. TWO contacts on 
902- and 1296-MHz in January count TWICE as much as THREE contacts on 
50- and 144-MHz. An incentive to use the higher bands.

3. Three contacts per station on the lower bands, especially on 50-MHz, 
may well draw participation and, hence, activity, from the HF contesting 
community, with the prevalence of 50-MHZ on modern HF radios.

4. The most controversial proposed rule change will likely be,
“CW – classical CW in the exclusive CW band segments on 6m and 2m.”
and the concomitant,
ANALOG – CW, any VOICE mode, or mixed CW/VOICE anywhere in the band
for the higher bands.

4.1 There are (FCC sanctioned) exclusive CW band segments on 50- and 
144-MHz. We should be using them! This follows general 50-MHz practice, 
but not that on 144-MHz. The aim is to provide for three contacts per 
station on 50- and 144-MHz while avoiding “artificial” CW contacts (two 
operators sending “dit-dit” to each other after a SSB contact and 
claiming a CW contact).

4.2 The argument that following a SSB contact on 50-MHz, the operators 
agree to meet on, say, 50.095, is an “artificial” contact does not have 
much merit: a) It’s really not much different that their agreement to 
meet on, say, 144.215, and b) A running operator on, say, 50.165, is not 
likely to leave for the CW contact and risk losing the run frequency.
4.3 Yes, it means a change to operating practice on 144-MHz. But this 
entire simple set of rule changes would create many changes in operating 
practices and strategies.

4.4 There are no exclusive CW band segments on the bands above 144-MHz; 
therefore the “exclusive CW band segment” has no real meaning. Hence, 
the TWO contacts per station, one in any ANALOG mode and one in any 
DIGITAL mode. Plus, weak signal work on those bands often combines SSB 
and CW into one contact.

Alternatives:

Between the discussion 18 months ago and that recently, there are 
several alternative ideas:

1. Simply ban FT4 and FT8 from VHF contests.
Unrealistic. There will soon be some other similar mode, FT*, which 
would then need a rule change to ban it. Furthermore, how does one write 
rules prohibiting FT4/FT8 – or similar modes - while retaining JT65 and 
MSK144 for meteor scatter and EME contacts? We clearly want to encourage 
the latter. To do so, we have to accept FT4/FT8.

2. Separate VHF contests by mode.
Say, January is a FT4/FT8 (or general DIGITAL) contest. June a SSB 
contest, and September an (unrealistic) CW contest or a MIXED mode or a 
multi-mode contest (as advocated here for all three contests). Serious 
VHF stations – those equipped for operation above 144-MHz - will likely 
walk away from contesting without the incentive for at least three major 
contests including the higher bands.

3. TWO contacts per station on ANY band.
Essentially define only TWO mode types: ANALOG and DIGITAL. Apply the 
general scoring rules as per the {proposed} scoring rules, changed to 
reflect, say, ONE point per DIGITAL contact and TWO or THREE points per 
ANALOG contact on 50- and 144-MHZ. (The higher band scoring multiples 
would remain as stated in the {current} and {proposed} scoring rules.)

Plus: Simplifies the scoring rules and conforms to current 144-MHz practice.

Minus: Removes 1/3 of the possible activity from a three mode contest on 
50- and 144-MHz. Would make changes to the current 50-MHz operating 
practice by effectively dropping CW contacts.


Respectfully submitted.

Robert (Bob) F. Teitel, w3idt;
6m operator at (W3SO), Wopsononock Mountaintop Operators.

w3idt at arrl.net
w3idt at comcast.net