[NLRS] NLRS response to VHF+ Subcommittee

[Dave Aho]

Everything seems to be kosher to me.  I just have a
few questions...1st, pertaining to the Rover items:  I
am not sure on what the scoring would be then...as it
is, the final score is the number of QSO points (from
the different band/point levels) multiplied by (the
total multipliers accrued by band in each grid plus
the number of grids activated) so say you worked 200
contacts for a total of say 500 points, and had a
total multiplier count of 140 grids, and you activated
10 grids, your score would be 500 pts X (140 grids +
10 grids activated)= 75,000 total points correct?  The
proposed writeup doesn't seem to address the grids
activated.  Is this an oversight, or is this the way
they want it to be.  Remember I have only been active
on VHF contesting since Sept. 2002.

2nd, points per distance change.   Are we proposing
instead of higher point values for higher bands, that
it would constitute higher point value only for grid
distance away?  Where this might be nice on 6 meters,
theoretically one could get more points per 6 meter
contact (an easier contact in my way of thinking),
than one on 1296, which is harder.  Am I reading this
completley wrong?

3rd, As far as adding the 220 MHz to the limited
single op, Although I am a proponent of utilizing this
band to full capabilities, I see the reason for the
limited class being proposed to only include 6m,2m, &
70cm.  Mainly because of the volume of rigs with these
three bands being sold out of the box.   This is
geared toward an entry level competition.  meaning
somone with limited capabilities.  Adding 220 is not
an easy thing to add sometimes.  Either building a
transverter not something a newbie or even an oldie
may want to tackle.  Buying a transverter is expensive
in most cases right now..DEMI's usually run another
$400, something a newcomer might not have after
plunking down lots O' cash for a new FT-847 etc... 
this class as proposed with three bands gives a decent
amount of competition with comparative little
expenditure AND with like equipped stations.  Adding
220 would just end up making them compete with the
better equiped stations in my mind.    

     Dave...N9TTX


--- jcplatt1@mmm.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been having some problems with my home AOL NLRS
> email.   I sent this
> from home last night but have not seen it appear.   
> This is a resend from
> my work account.
> 
> Based on recent discussions with NLRS members, we
> may indeed have general
> agreement on many of the proposed rule changes
> offered by the ARRL's MSC
> VHF+ Subcommittee.   For those who may not be
> familiar with their proposal
> you can check it out a
> http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2004/02/26/2/ .  
> The subcommittee has
> set a date of March 7th for receiving feedback.
> 
> Below is our club response that I am proposing. 
> I've purposely kept the
> response at a high level.   Please let me know if
> you object and/or have
> suggested changes .... based on your responses I
> would like to send this in
> on March 7th.
> 
> In addition I encourage all interested parties to
> provide their own
> feedback as well.   There is an email link to do
> this at the ARRL website
> referenced above.
> 
> 73, Jon
> W0ZQ
> 
> 
> 
> The Northern Lights Radio Society offers the
> following response to the Feb
> 26, 2004 letter outlining proposed rule changes to
> the VHF+ contests:
> 
> Do Not:
>    Eliminate the UHF contests.   We like it.   Finds
> ways to increase
>    participation.
>    Make the June contest 50 thru 1296 only.   When
> 6m dries up we want to
>    play on the high bands.
>    Add other bands to the current 10 GHz & Up
> Contest.    Leave it alone as
>    its lots of fun as is.
>    Relax the current criteria for awards such as
> VUCC.   It cheapens the
>    goal and the current challenges are achievable.
>    Restrict rover scoring to just 1 point.   Points
> should be the same as
>    fixed stations and we want to encourage roving.
>    Make QSO points the same regardless of frequency.
>   Contacts are more
>    difficult on higher bands and we want to
> encourage their use.
> 
> Do:
>    Change to the old rovers rules.   Although we are
> not excited about
>    leaving rovers out of club aggregate scoring we
> understand the reasoning
>    behind it.
>    Add a new Limited Single Op category for the
> Jan/June/Sept contest to
>    encourage newbies.
>    Simplify the low power class, but we need to
> apply this to 902 and up as
>    well.
>    Change score to distance base, but its not clear
> if the current proposal
>    is the best, plus how to consider distance for 6m
> vs 1296, etc.
>    Eliminate the rule that allows muli-ops to work
> each other on 2.3 & up.
>    Allow DX to DX contacts for points & multipliers.
> 
> Think about:
>    Strengthening the rules around not allowing
> captive rovers and grid
>    circling.
>    Adding a FM only class.
>    Adding 222 to the new Limited Single Op category
> (to encourage use of
>    that band) so that it would be 6, 2, 222, and
> 432.
>    Redefining the definition for low power vs high
> power for 902 and up.
>    How we can allow rover scores to add to club
> aggregate scoring.
> 
> --- End --
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NLRS mailing list
> NLRS@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com