[NLRS] Designing the perfect State VHF Sprint...

[Bruce Richardson]

I just took part in the MNQP and there were many plusses--but it wasn't
perfect when it comes to VHF.  So I thought I'd initiate a discussion of
what features we'd like to see in a State or Regional VHF Sprint.  If we
come to a consensus, maybe some of the features could be incorporated into
the MNQP.

As I was driving around during the contest and while driving to Madison, WI
and back on Sunday, I kept thinking about this. Several big questions like
"what types of activity do we want to achieve" and "what behaviors do we
want to reinforce" came to mind.

For a NLRS club activity, a goal like "work all VHF'ers in the club seven
state region" might be a goal.  Or, like the MNQP, Minnesota works Minnesota
and the world and the world works Minnesota.  Another goal would be to
exercise our little used VHF/UHF/SHF bands.  Or a different goal would just
to get all the regional operators out and playing on the bands that are
widely used.  Depending on how we structure Qpts and multipliers (scoring)
would depend on the behaviors and goals we'd achieve.

Propagation differences:  Kinda like HF works differently within the region,
our VHF and up bands work varyingly.  No VHF bands seem to reach out and
touch all counties reliably like 40m can.  Although beams pointing at beams
on 2m or 222 has the best chance.  Depending on which bands are included
causes one to explore what is and is not possible during the sprint.

Multipliers:  Grids? Counties? Another scheme?  Regionally, I like counties.

Qpts:  Work VHF'ers once per band? Once per mode? Differing points per mode?
Unlike HF, where there are distinct sub-bands for phone and cw, we use both
modes (and FM where appropriate) throughout the weak-signal portion of the
band.  Signal strength (or S/N) seems to determine whether CW or Phone is
used.  Phone generally seems to be faster.  Should the decreased speed of CW
be rewarded with a different weighting or is just completing the extra QSO
(and Qpt) enough reward?

Bands:  Should a guy with many bands automatically smoke someone who has
fewer bands but achieves additional QSO's while staying on bands he has?  Is
there a way to level the playing field for one sprint?  Could we give up
reinforcing have "all" bands for one contest?

Exchanges:  Is exchanging "multiplier" info enough or is there some other
piece of info (like name) that would make the exchanges fun and interesting?

Well, with that as a preamble, I'm torn between two types of sprints:

1. All band sprint.  Multipliers: Counties gained (+outside states) acquired
the first time worked on any band.  Work operators once per band (any mode)
1 Qpt per contact (any band).  Exchange County (or outside state) and name.

2. Three band sprint 6, 2, and 432.  Multipliers: Counties gained (+outside
states) acquired the first time worked on any band.  Work operators once per
band (any mode) 1 Qpt per contact (any band).  Exchange County (or outside
state) and name.

What I like about option one is that it encourages additional bands for
additional Qpts, but it doesn't guarantee that a guy with more bands will
automatically smoke those who don't have additional bands.  This is based on
VHF+ activity levels in the region and the additional fiddle-factor with
increasing frequency.

What I like about option two is that it forces us all to play in the same
basic sandbox while still having us explore propagation differences between
50 and 432.

What are your thoughts on what would make a fun club or regional activity
sprint?  If we come to a consensus, and if appropriate to be worked into the
MNQP, perhaps the MNQP will remain our annual club sprint activity.  Or
alternatively, we can come up with our event.

What are some other things to consider?

Bruce Richardson - W9FZ

"Communist Martyrs High School, that's who." --FST