[ILQSO] comments to comments :)

[James Funk]

"Capable of motion" is one way to separate them.  Dunno if it's the best
way.
 
You're correct about SSB operation.  Complete waste of time for me as a
mobile.  With a low dipole, it's an entirely different story.
 
I tend to agree on the "single op mobile" category.  I have DONE these, but
they are nerve-wracking and I may never do another one.  I would much rather
see a Rover category in which a single op could be "competitive", and safer,
while operating from a series of fixed points.
 
"Mobiles" should be encouraged to use separate drivers.
 
As for a single station entering as both a mobile and a rover....I guess I
have no opinion.  I'm still trying to finish the logs we've gotten so
far....
 
Thanks for your input.  Hope to see you in IL some year for ILQP.
 
CU in SS this weekend, five times, I hope!
 
73, Jim N9JF

  _____  

From: Jimk8mr at aol.com [mailto:Jimk8mr at aol.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:50 AM
To: ilqso at mailman.qth.net; jfunk at fossnorthamerica.com
Subject: Re: [ILQSO] comments to comments :)


 
An outsiders opinion:
 
The "Rover" concept in state QSO parties is a good one.  PA has had one for
a long time, and Ohio added one this year.
 
In the past two years I have done both a rover and a mobile operation in the
PAQP. PA's criteria is that mobiles use "mobile" antennas, and rovers use
"non-mobile" antennas. I don't think this is the best way to separate the
categories, but that is their rule.
 
The first year we used the same call, K8MR/3 and broke out the mobile and
rover qsos afterward.  This year we used a separate call for the rover
operation. 

The big difference is in SSB operation. Mobile operation on SSB is a pain.
Only with a peak of propagation does a mobile have any real opportunity to
run stations. But with a 40 meter vee on a DK9SQ fiberglass mast at 25 feet
at the center, we could run bursts at 200+/hr on SSB.  This year, as
W3DAN/R, we had about 300 qsos in 2.5 hours with stops in 3 counties.
 
In OQP, we also intended the rover class as an alternative to the often
asked for "single-op mobile" category.  I am very strongly opposed to such a
category. Contesting is a very intense activity, and I do not want anybody
injured or killed because of somebody driving while distracted by
contesting. And I don't want lawyers coming after me or others involved with
the OQP if anything were to happen.  Sponsors can't stop people who want to
operate while driving from doing so, but they ought not create a category
where a driver is *forbidden* from having somebody else drive.
 
IMHO a rover, with a very simple dipole, can be loud enough to make up in
higher rate and become competitive with mobiles who are on the move but
weaker. My experience on 40 meters is that a dipole is about 3 units louder
than a mobile whip.  
 
Ideally a rover would be defined as a station that uses non-mobile antennas
at any time during the contest. There could be issues if, say, a mobile
station, deciding he was getting beat, decided to pull off in the last hour
and change into a rover.  So perhaps there might be some sort of time limit
or maximum number of counties allowed as a rover.   But I think it would be
a good addition.
 
Unfortunately IL is still rather a long drive from Cleveland!
 
Now back to getting ready for CW SS.  I'll be out roving, sort of, in this
one too.  I operate from each of 5 stations, including my own, for about 4-5
hours each.  So the rate just keeps getting better as the contest goes on
and new stations become harder for the rest of the world to find.  CU from
N8TR, AC8E, K8MR, W8AJ, and K8AZ.
 
 
73  -  Jim  K8MR