[NLRS] ARRL VHF+ contest proposals: input invited

[Steven H Sawyers (na0ia)]

Veeerrryy Interesting.

Looks like some peoples egos got bruised by a bunch of rovers. And it looks 
like Overbeck did the maximum bruising.

Please understand I have no problem with changing the rules to eliminate 
grid circling. As I presented in "The Art of The Rover" at CSVHF a few 
years ago, we only did it because we were bored with the low levels of 
activity in our area or areas we activated. Over half our contacts were 
outside our rover group.

My major operating mode is as a rover.

I do all the work of creating a mobile station because I wanted to play radio.

I can work everyone local on rubber duck, and then everyone within 100 
miles on some short beams and end the contest in an hour or so. I just run 
out of people to play with, so we go someplace to play with more people. 
The rules rewarded us for playing a certain way, so we did.

I do not want any change in the rules that forces me into long periods of 
boredom with no activity for those of us out in the hinterlands.

No matter what the changes, the resulting rules need to be simple and 
understandable.

As an old manager told me "Be careful how you measure and reward behavior, 
because you will only get the measured behavior that you reward."

On a more positive note:

My question is: What types of behavior, station design, and operating 
techniques (both rover and fixed station) do we want to reward?

I would propose the following:

In my opinion, the purpose of a radio contest is to generate activity and 
further the art and practice of radio.

Activity is the number of QSOs.

The art and practice is the ability to transfer a message to a given point, 
from a given point,  using the allocated and available resources. The 
allocated resources are the frequencies, and the available resources are 
the stations in use.

Higher frequencies require a higher level of the art, and longer distances 
require a more precise execution of the art.

We need a better means of measuring the quality a given QSO's demonstration 
of the art and practice of radio than just the counting the number of 4 
digit grid squares that we were able to contact.

I would propose that we score a given QSO on the total number of miles 
covered.

Rationale: This would reward better station design and more energy 
efficient operating modes (CW) within the power limitations of the class. 
It would extremely limit the overall value of short range contacts typical 
in grid circling. The longer 6 digit exchange would promote more accuracy 
in the message transfer. With current GPS and Web resources, it is very 
easy to determine your 6 digit maidenhead grid square. The availability of 
computers makes the calculation of distances from this data a trivial 
matter if included as part of the logging program. I would propose the EME 
contacts be based on the maidenhead distances, not on the propagation path 
distance. For the rovers, I would suggest that they can only contact a 
given station once from any given 4 digit maidenhead grid square. Four 
corners does add a lot of fun to both the rover and fixed stations 
operating practices.

I think that operating at higher frequencies and overcoming the increased 
propagation loss for a given distance should be rewarded. So I would 
suggest retain the current concept of multipliers based on frequency. I 
would recommend the multipliers be inversely proportioned to the nominal 
path loss for a given frequency.

Rationale: Effective higher frequencies equipment is harder to acquire, 
maintain, and operate.

The score of a given QSO would continue to be the QSO value multiplied by 
the band multiplier. The band score would be the sum of the individual QSO 
scores times the number of grids worked as it is now.

The rover Grid/Band Activation Multiplier scoring would be as it is now.

Rationale: The rovers have an inherent ERP limitation due to the typically 
smaller antennas and amplifiers             as compared to a big fixed station.

I would suggest that rovers be limited it 100 watts due to RF exposure 
concerns, or that power classes be added to the rover category.

I object to the one point rover QSO. Rationale: It is harder to work a 
rover than a fixed station so no one would try very hard to work rovers. 
This would basically kill the Rover category, in my opinion. In many 
contests the rovers provide over half the activity for the fixed stations. 
The last time the rover rules were changed, rover participation dropped 
significantly. If the rovers don't go out, then there will be less activity 
for the fixed stations.

With this new score proposal I do not think it is necessary to remove the 
rover scores from club scores. In our case 90% of our club score was from 
rovers because tat is all could do to get a quantity of QSOs to make things 
interesting enough to participate. The distance based scoring will reduce 
the rover contribution significantly so it removes the problem. Eliminating 
the rover scores would discourage the fixed operator from going mobile as 
rover and submitting two logs to support his club and generate additional 
activity as is now permitted.

I object to dropping the microwave bands from the June contest. Here in the 
frozen north, pointing microwave dishes is not practical in January. So 
drop them from the January contest, but not the June one when the weather 
is nice enough to actually enjoy doing it. With the distanced based scoring 
the Micro wave range will not add much to a score. Even now the cardinal 
operating rule in the June contest is: If 6 is open work 6, if 2 is open 
work 2, then worry about the other bands when those close.

I am a systems engineer and I will adapt my operation and equipment to 
maximize my figure of merit. The question is: Will the rules changes 
maximize ham radio's figure of merit, or just sooth some egos bruised by 
someone working a loophole?

Steven H Sawyers NA0IA