[NLRS] NLRS response to VHF+ Subcommittee

[John P. Toscano]

Dave Aho wrote:

> 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...
> ...Remember I have only been active
> on VHF contesting since Sept. 2002.

It is my understanding that the calculations would work like this.
But I got into Ham Radio after the change in the rover rules, so I
could be all wet also.

Sample rover calculations for a very short log:

                                                Current Rules  Old Rules
My Call  My Grid  His Call  His Grid  QSO Pts    New Grid?    New Grid?
-------  -------  --------  --------  -------  -------------  ---------
W0JT/R   EN34     W0ZQ      EN34      1        Yes            Yes
W0JT/R   EN34     W0GHZ     EN34      1        No             No
W0JT/R   EN34     W0AUS     EN35      1        Yes            Yes

W0JT/R   EN44     W0ZQ      EN34      1        No             Yes
W0JT/R   EN44     W0GHZ     EN34      1        No             No
W0JT/R   EN44     W0AUS     EN35      1        No             Yes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total QPts........................... 6        6              6
Total Grids Worked............................ 2              4
Total Grids Activated......................... 2              2
Total Grid Multipliers........................ 4              6
Total Score = QPts x Grids.................... 6x4=24         6x6=36

> 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?

No, that was one of the "DO NOT" entries.  DO NOT make QSO points the
same regardless of frequency.

> 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.

In my post, I was too quick to agree to the proposal to omit 220 from 
the limited class.  The way I see it now, after more thought on the 
matter, is (a) if your part of the country doesn't use much 220, then 
you won't be at much of a disadvantage by not having it, (b) if your 
part of the country uses a lot of 220, then getting it may be of value 
on non-contest days also, and there are a lot more of them in the 
calendar year, (c) while there is a dearth of 222 all-mode rigs now, no 
doubt strongly motivated by the lack of an allocation for that band to 
amateurs in Japan, encouraging people to add it is a way to send the 
message to the manufacturers that there is a market for such stuff in at 
least this country, and (d) while 222 all-mode gear is hard to find if 
you don't want the fuss and expense of a transverter, getting on 223.5 
FM is easy and cheap.  In my first contest, all I had was a dual-band FM 
rig and a 3 watt 220 MHz FM  handheld, and it was a blast to work a 
couple of rovers in a couple of grids with it.  I did modify a Hustler 
mobile 220-band antenna into a roof-mounted antenna by homebrewing a 
ground plane for it.  Still use it all the time for repeaters and such.

73 de W0JT