[NLRS] [BC'ers] What's the problem with UHF (& microwave) contesting?

[kboston6 at wi.rr.com]

Folks;

I agree pretty much with Pauls assessment of the direction of the VHF/UHF contests, and activity in general.

After a major peak in activity here in the upper Midwest in the 90s and early 2000s, things generally have been falling off severely over the last few years.  I personally do not work the tests as aggressively as in the past, and have dropped the high power on all bands and compete in the low power class now.. I still have high power on 50 meg, but not in the tests.

Local activity has deropped off severely here in Milwakee in the last couple years, where has everyone gone?

I will admit to turning to other activities, like music, to fill my time lately, but this due to a renewed interest in the piano, and serving as Audio guru to a couple local churches.

Ken W9GA
---- Paul Husby <husby002 at gmail.com> wrote: 
> Back in the 80's when I was getting my multi-op station going, things 
> were really taking off all over.  We had saved a slot at 222 (just had 
> to re-crystal from 220), a new band came in at 902, KK7B developed the 
> 'no-tune' transverters, and W3HQT made them available to all by starting 
> up DEMI.  Things were looking great!
> 
> Then we were given the "Limited Multioperator" category, and you could 
> field a competitive station with just 4 bands.  At first, that at least 
> meant you needed 1296, but nowadays you wouldn't think of substituting 
> 1296 for 222.  So, forget the hassle and expense of anything for 
> 902&up.  Multiops can really drive activity in a region, and I know it 
> hurts that we don't have one around here these days.  Always finding at 
> least one signal calling on a band makes a big difference.  Multiops 
> take the lead, and if they aren't on the higher bands, why should the 
> little guy?
> 
> Then we got the "Limited Rover", and ditto to most of the above. Top it 
> off with the "3-Band Station", so you aren't even encouraged to get on 
> the fabulous 222 band.  A station with 432 and not 222 is almost 
> ridiculous to fire up for the UHF Contest, since practically nobody 
> calls CQ on 432 anymore.  And if you built up your multiop with nothing 
> above 432, then the UHF Contest isn't going to be a big thrill for you 
> either.  So we have encouraged a collection of single-ops, multi-ops and 
> rovers that are discouraged from operating a UHF Contest.
> 
> The constant theory has been that these new categories increase activity 
> by encouraging stations with limited resources.  It was never clear to 
> me that we were ever discouraging those stations!  I don't think many 
> people seriously get on for the contests to collect the wallpaper or to 
> see their call higher up on a list.  Heck, since the complete results 
> dropped out of QST, how many people ever actually look to see where they 
> ended up?  I think most people get on just to have fun making contacts 
> on these rare occasions when activity is guaranteed.
> 
> If the changes we make don't result in more contacts on all bands, and 
> if they don't promote growing your station, then we are not headed in 
> the right direction.  The demise of what was a very fun UHF Contest is 
> the most clear proof of that.  The lagging activity in the September VHF 
> Contest is further evidence.  Only the June contest is in good health, 
> and that thanks to the huge influx of HF contesters who found their new 
> radios all reach 6 meters.
> 
> One change that seems to be helping is the opening up of spotting and 
> internet chat forums.  That is especially valuable on 222 & above, where 
> sharp antennas make it so difficult to find contacts randomly.  Yet we 
> were barely given a chance to try it out, let alone develop it, in the 
> UHF Contest.
> 
> Gregg is right, we also need a simpler and less expensive means to reach 
> these bands.  The technology is out there, but that is another subject.
> 
> 73
> Paul W0UC
> ______________________________________________________________
> BadgerContesters mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/badgercontesters
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:BadgerContesters at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html