[NLRS] W0ZQ - Comments on proposed VHF contest changes

[W0ZQ@aol.com]

Let me try that again, sorry for the bandwidth:



Hello Tom and the MSC VHF-UHF Contest and Awards Subcommittee.   Thanks for 
all your hard work towards making our hobby even better than it is.   

A bit of information about myself before my comments on the proposal.    I am 
an active VHF/UHF/Microwaver and HF contester.   My home station runs 160m 
through 2304, 3456 is on the bench, and I operate 10 GHz with a portable 
station.   I have operated as a fixed station, a rover, and as a member in a 
multi-op.   I have operated all VHF/UHF/Microwave contests with the exception of the 
EME contest.   I am an active member of the Northern Lights Radio Society and 
the Minnesota Wireless Association however the following comments are mine 
alone.

I agree with the following proposed changes:
#1 - Change Rover Rules.   Yes please. 
#4 - New categories in Jan/Jun/Sept contest.   Why not a FM only category too 
? 
#5 - Other recommended changes (Jan/Jun/Sept).   What about changing the low 
power definition for 902 and up as well ? 
Proposed Awards changes #2 through #4.   I strongly disagree with proposal #1 
regarding entry level changes (see below).
I have no comments on the following proposed changes:
EME Contest.   I do not operate EME.
I am unsure of the following proposed changes:
Proposed New Microwave contest - UHF contest dropped.   Do we think that 
having a 2304 & up contest will generate more activity than a 222 and up contest ? 
  Don't we loose any emphasis on 222 and 902 with all these proposed changes 
?   The guys with the 6/2/432 radios can at least contest on 432 during the 
current UHF contest.   Also, one of the charms of the 10 GHz (and up) contest is 
that you do not have to drag along a lot of other gear .... will stations 
that operate in a new 2304 and up contest take along extra equipment to support 
those bands .... a few will, but most will not.   With this proposed change we 
would remove our only 222/432/902/1296 + microwave contest in favor of a 
microwave only event (which we already have).   For now, I lean towards leaving the 
10 GHz and Up contest alone and find ways to bolster the UHF contest.    Here 
in NLRS land I think UHF contesting activity has increased.
I disagree with the following proposed changes for the following reason(s):
QSO Point Changes.   We want to encourage the use of all bands.   The current 
rule that provides increasing QSO points for contacts made on higher bands is 
a primary driver towards stations adding more and more bands.   With the 
proposed change there is little incentive to invest the time, money, and knowledge 
in the bands above 1296.   In addition, I think the two points for adjacent 
grids and three points for QSOs beyond concept is a poor embodiment of a good 
idea to award points based on distance.   My suggestion is that we maintain an 
incentive for operating on higher and higher bands (like we do now) and that 
QSO points are based on true distance using six digit maidenhead calculations.  
 Using the six digit maidenhead will add some complexity to the exchange, but 
Europe has been doing this for a while, GPS in rovers are common now days, 
and my experience with the (160m) Stew Perry where grids are used for distance 
points is that its a lot of (real time) fun.   For stations (rovers, etc) who 
do not know their six digit location an estimated four digit position could be 
used. 
June VHF QSO Party 50-1296 MHz Only.    Why ?   My experience has been that 
when 6m is open, everyone is basically on 6m now anyway (which is fine).   When 
there is no 6m, which happens more often at northern latitudes than southern, 
why not play on the high bands ?   June is a GREAT time to rove here in MN 
and roving with high bands is a lot of fun.    Again, this detracts from the 
incentive to invest any time, money, or knowledge on the bands above 1296.   I 
would be willing to go along with proposed change if there was an upside to it 
but I don't see any upside. 

I strongly disagree with the following proposed changes:
Award proposal #1.    I strongly disagree that the entry-level steps for 
VUCC, WAS, etc. be lessened.   They represent a challenge.   Any lessening of the 
challenge cheapens the effort.   Perhaps we can have a VUCC-lite or mini-VUCC
Thanks for your time.

73, Jon
W0ZQ


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---