[VHFcontesting] Suggestion for the ARRL June VHF contest
Bob, W3IDT
w3idt at comcast.net
Wed Oct 26 20:34:30 EDT 2022
I have a long standing proposal before the ARRL Contest Advisory
Committee (CAC) for THREE contacts per station - CW, VOICE(ssb, am, fm),
ANY DIGITAL - on 6m and 2m, and TWO contacts per station - ANALOG,
DIGITAL - on the higher bands.
The reasons for the distinction are explained in the proposal which is
copied in full below.
The committee did change ENTRY Categories.
Changing the entry categories is fine, similar to CW, SSB, or MIXED
categories in various other contests.
Combining the new entry categories and multiple contacts per station is,
in my view, the future of VHF contesting.
[I did not address entry categories, nor Rover / Portable issues, as I
wanted to concentrate on rule changes to increase ACTIVITY.]
My proposal alone will not accomplish much.
Write the CAC if you agree (write even if you disagree).
Bob, w3idt
========================================================================
VHF CONTEST RULES CHANGE PROPOSAL (September 2021) w3idt/22SEP2021
========================================================================
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
.......
. Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT
.
. w3idt at comcast.net
. w3idt at arrl.net
........
On 10/26/2022 7:24 PM, Sean Waite wrote:
> I'm sort of in between contesting, but have slowly started to get stuff
> together to start getting back into it.
>
> I'm not sure that this plan would be terribly effective at accomplishing
> what you want to accomplish. Yes, we've heavily spinning towards digital
> modes, but there are still some multi mode ops out there.
>
> It also impacts the rovers quite a bit, it's a lot of effort for us to get
> out there and operate, and doing it over 3 weekends means that you'll
> likely have far fewer on the road. Rochester and some other areas have
> proven that active rovers really helps drive activity, and if we divide
> them up among weekends it won't be a great thing. Even for the non-rovers,
> 3 full weekends is a ton of work and hard to do. Not every HF op runs every
> HF contest. We'd also have more conflicts with the more popular HF
> contests, reducing available ops further.
>
> I believe that it's better to encourage operations on multiple modes over
> one weekend rather than divide it among multiple. HF contests can be super
> busy and we don't have time to work a station multiple times on multiple
> modes, but aside from the largest stations VHF ops have plenty of downtime.
> Look at something like the 10m contest for a similar feel, a single
> weekend and not divided up.
>
>
> 73/Yours in Scouting
> Sean Waite, WA1TE
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022, 6:59 PM Mark, K5AM <k5am at zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Suggestion for the ARRL June VHF contest
>>
>> Recently introduced digital modes have resulted in a
>> major change in the way contesters have operated in the
>> June VHF contest. A wide spectrum of opinions have been
>> expressed on the various e-mail lists. Many operators are
>> concerned for the long-term health of VHF contesting. To
>> what is considered by some to be a serious problem, there
>> is a feasible solution.
>>
>> On HF (for example, Sweepstakes and DX) ARRL has had
>> separate contests for CW, SSB, RTTY, and recently
>> Digital. However, VHF has been slighted, like a neglected
>> child, with ARRL providing only combined-mode contests.
>> This inexplicable situation is easily corrected.
>>
>> Suggestion for an ARRL June VHF contest series.
>> 1. Three separate contests will be held, on the first
>> three weekends in June.
>> 2. Each of the three contests will be conducted using a
>> single mode.
>> 3. In 2023, the sequence of modes will be SSB, Digital, CW.
>> In subsequent years, the modes will be rotated.
>>
>> Notes.
>> 1. The September and January VHF contests can be
>> considered later, after an experimental three contest
>> series in June 2023.
>> 2. As with any proposed scheme, there are obvious pros
>> and cons; the challenge for operators is to balance
>> individual circumstances with VHF contesting in general,
>> and the long-term picture.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Mark, K5AM
>> https://www.zianet.com/k5am/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
More information about the VHFcontesting
mailing list