[NLRS] Comments on proposed UHF and Up contest rules

[John Toscano]

Overall, the rules look good, but there are a few problems and areas of
concern.


   1. Rule 3.3 has a welcome statement that basically allows a Rover
   station that has a breakdown or equipment failure after activating their
   first grid to submit a log as a Rover, even though they never make it to a
   second grid. But I am surprised to see that, unlike the 10 GHz & Up rules,
   the Rover station still has to move to a new 4-digit grid to re-work other
   stations that have not moved instead of only needing to move to a new
   6-digit grid. This may in fact be what was intended, but it should be
   stressed (perhaps set in *boldface type*) so it is not missed or
   misunderstood. As the rules are presented, the operation and scoring of
   this contest is a hybrid of the old UHF rules (must move to a new 4-digit
   grid) and the 10 GHz rules (scoring based on distance between 6-digit
   grids).
   2. Rule 3.3.2 is in direct conflict with Rule 3.3.1 (Family Rule). If
   two family members are sharing a vehicle and radio equipment, they use two
   callsigns (Rule 3.3.1), not a single callsign (Rule 3.3.2). Just omit rule
   3.3.2 because its intent is already present in Rule 3.3.1 (one station
   except for the family rule).
   3. Rule 3.3.6 is actually two unrelated rules, and should be broken into
   such: a rule allowing a Rover to submit a second Fixed Station log, and a
   rule on club scoring if a Rover moves out of the club territory for any of
   its QSO's. This latter part of the rule should either become a separate
   rule, *i.e.* 3.3.7 in the current numbering scheme, or omitted
   altogether, since it is covered in the Club Competition section's Rule 6.1
   4. Rule 5.1 distance scoring uses the distance in miles from one 6-digit
   grid to another 6-digit grid. In the 10 GHz & Up contest, distance scoring
   is done in kilometers, not miles. Obviously, it does not matter to the
   ultimate outcome of awarding higher scores to longer contacts, but the
   inconsistency between two ARRL contests (miles vs. kilometers) is not
   welcome, and even complicates the design of a way to support logging for
   the new contest. Sure, it is not insurmountable, but why do it two
   different ways?
   5. Rule 5.2 Band Factors have an unusual progression of weights: 1, 1,
   4, 4, 20, 20, 20, 20, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50, based on the relative
   difficulty of getting on the band and making a contact. I'm not sure that
   10 GHz is 20 times as hard as 222 MHz, but I'd be willing to try out a
   contest with these weights. I'd probably try the scoring out on one of my
   old UHF logs, although from home I was never able to reliably get on any
   band higher than 1.2 GHz, and as a Rover, I never managed to get out of the
   driveway with what I considered a full complement of bands, namely 222 MHz
   through 10 GHz,
   6. The Team Competition is new, and interesting. But a team of size 3,
   for example, is not likely to be competitive with a team of, say, 10
   members. So the value of the team groupings is not obvious to me. Also, the
   "...suggested grouping of three station* (sic)* with at least one
   Rover..." table does not match its description:
      1. Reference 5 has zero Rovers, which contradicts the description
      2. Reference 7 has a total teram size of 4, not 3.
      3. There should be a line for 2 Multi-Op stations with one Rover
      4. There should be a line for 1 Single-Op plus 1 Multi-Op plus 1 Rover
      5. Although not exactly matching the lead-in description, a team of 3
      members could conceivably have zero Rovers, and be made up of a
combination
      of Single-Op and Multi-Op stations (4 possible combinations
there). If this
      was included in the table, however, the lead-in description would need to
      be modified to describing a Team of 3 members and not say anything there
      about Rovers.
   7. If I understand the Team rules correctly, team members would submit
   two logs, one with all of their contacts, and one with only contacts with
   other Team members. The overall log would compete in the Single-Op,
   Multi-Op, or Rover class, and the Team log gets accumulated with other Team
   members' logs for a separate scoring category. Who accumulates the Team
   logs, a member of the Team, or the Contest Robot?
   8. Rule 8.4 surprised me by excluding the validity of EME contacts. This
   is not an exclusion in any other VHF and up contest. Was it intentional? Is
   it a good idea? It is probably not a major issue, given the (probable)
   small number of EME contacts made in most non-EME contests, but why exclude
   it here?
   9. Rule 8.4 as worded contradicts Rule 8.5, with respect to repeater
   frequencies. Rule 8.5 allows the use of repeaters for self-spotting, but
   Rule 8.4 prohibits tje use of repeater frequencies, whether occupied by a
   repeater or not. Rule 8.4 needs to clarify that repeater frequencies can
   only be used for self-spotting, not for QSO's.
   10. The existing Cabrillo logging method does not support distance
   scoring of a UHF contest. I would urge the Contest Branch to expand the
   Cabrillo format to allow the scoring of this contest properly, and while
   they are at it, also create a Cabrillo format for the 10 GHz and Up
   contest, which would be similar. I have previously sent a proposal to the
   Contest Branch for a Cabrillo format that would support the 10 GHz Contest.
   I would be happy to consult with the Contest Branch on developing Cabrillo
   formats for both contests.

I hope that these comments are considered helpful to the Committee.

John P. Toscano, WØJT/5, EL09vu