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

[Doug Reed]

>>Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>Qpts:  Work VHF'ers once per band? Once per mode? Differing points per mode?
>At 03:55 AM 2/10/2004 -0600, Tom KB0DCO wrote:
>        I like would like to see more activity on FM. 
>         I would like to see some sort of scoring for working the modes. 
>(As to the modes of CW, FM, AM and USB, excluding data transmissions. 

I agree about encouraging FM operators. If you check the NLRS ranks you
will find quite a few people who got started because they participated as
FM-only in one of the contests and many are still FM-only. Having an
all-mode radio doesn't make a person a better NLRS member. It is
participation and interest in our activities that is important. The purpose
of a contest is to increase activity levels, to increase the over-all
number of people who remember they have a radio, and to remind them of the
fun they used to have using it. 

As to the comment about excluding data modes, I say WRONG. NLRS should be
encouraging experimentation. That is why we had Chris N0UK talk about
high-speed meteor scatter at Aurora last year (two years ago?). 

And speaking for TwinsLAN and the digital/packet radio community in
general, I would welcome contest activity using packet radio. And I would
specifically suggest that contest activity via the packet networks be
encouraged, not just packet via simplex. Any person-to-person QSO should
count.  We have a packet network that we want to be USED. From the
emergency services perspective, the more people who have the equipment and
know how to use it, the better it is for us. Having packet used during a
contest not only brings the equipment back off the dusty shelf, it also
reminds people how to use the equipment and the packet networks. And might
even stress test the network to look for weaknesses without having to wait
for an emergency. 
	http://wb0tra.no-ip.org/mn_pkt.html     and    http://www.14567.org

>        I agree on the option 2. I helps focuses on just those band that 
>most hams have. Then the multipliers can be the modes of CW, AM, FM and 
>USB.  Most hams have FM. Then down the line would be those who have the 
>all mode radios. Which could do the CW, AM, and USB modes. Since there 
>are more FMers than the ones with all mode radios... Then maybe FM = 1 
>point, USB = 2 points, CW = 3 points and then AM = 4 points.  As AM is 
>not used much on the VHF or UHF bands and CW is not being used now as 
>much as it used to be. (This is just an observation as more and more new 
>hams don't want to do CW.)

I don't agree on the point spread. We are trying to encourage participation
and experimentation. You don't encourage participation by giving the target
group the least points per QSO, particularly when they are also the
smallest group participating and the ones you are trying to attract. 

For another perspective on the issue, look at the typical contest results.
The FM simplex operators are usually hard put to break 1000 points,
primarily because of the limited number of grid multipliers they get in a
typical contest and the limited range of their stations. 

The NLRS all-mode stations typically have better antenna systems, more
power, and better sensitivity. They usually rack up 3x to 10x the points
simply due to the number of multipliers they collect. And when Q's are slow
on SSB, they flip the knob to FM and grab a few more points on the local
"hot spot" simplex channels. 

If you want to use "mode" points to encourage operations, then turn it on
its head and try:
SSB=1 pt, CW/AM/FM=2 pts, other modes(HSMS, PSK31, packet, SSTV, ATV, moon
bounce, etc)=10pts. 

10 points per QSO for alternate modes will probably encourage some people
to experiment. Nobody will win based solely on HSMS or packet contacts, but
there would be some activity. Anybody who hooks a computer sound card to
their all-mode rig could experiment and play with HSMS, PSK31, packet, and
SSTV just by changing software. ARRL uses bonus points and points per QSO
to encourage experimental modes in Field Day. Its the same idea here. 

(If anyone wants to experiment with sound card software, you will need a
transformer isolated interface. You can buy one of the many kit or
assembled units on the market or I will GIVE you a pair of 600-600 ohm
transformers, some pots, an opto-isolator and schematic to build your own.
Pickup at a NLRS breakfast or Aurora 2004.)

As for 2 pts for FM but only 1 pt for SSB, don't forget the range
difference and grid/county multipliers. And that all-mode radios include FM
as well. I don't think the FM-only operators will seriously challenge the
all-mode stations. If anything it might make the point spread even greater
because FM is channelized and you don't hunt around as much! Contest
strategy: Use SSB to get multipliers and Q's, then bulk up on FM Q's for
maximum points. 

To encourage rovers, how about a multiplier of 1.5 times their total QSO
points from roving? Its expensive and a lot of work to rove and benefits
everyone else by putting more multipliers on the air. Other people will
have a better idea than I of what would be fair. 

Just a quick note on grid versus county multipliers. Grid squares are
pretty much the same size over the whole state, right? Counties are not. If
you look at Hibbing, you will see the number of counties within 50 miles is
maybe 1/3 the number of counties within 50 miles of the Twin Cities. On the
other hand, it is a LOT easier to ask a person what county they are in
rather than explain what a grid square is and try to figure out which one
they are in..... Grid squares would be more fair but counties are a LOT
easier.......
	http://www.mrc.gen.mn.us/MN_CTCSS.pdf		(MN county map)

>>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
>          I would like to see the hams who Rover and others who do the 
>Jan. and June 6 meter to light contests on a regular basis hold a 
>conference in the metro area to discus creating a new contest for MN or 
>to propose one for the ARRL.
>Thomas KB0DCO

We have the NLRS breakfast this weekend and this could be a topic of
discussion. It would also be appropriate to discuss at the Aurora 2004
conference. It would be nice to do the small group and email discussion
between now and April, then make a decision at the Aurora conference. 

These are my opinions. On the other hand, I haven't been active in any of
the recent contests except for the 10GHz contest.......

73, Doug Reed, N0NAS.