[PaQSO] Rover query

[Pete K0BAK via PaQSO]

I will be operating rover this year, as I did last year in my first-ever HF rove (did a little VHF contest roving before that). So, I don't have a lot of experience, but I have entered a handful of other states' QSO parties as a mobile/rover/portable.
As I mentioned in an email to the reflector earlier this year, I wish there wasn't such a strict division between the rover and the mobile class. A mobile isn't allowed to put up better antennas, and a rover isn't allowed to operate between setups. I would like to see the rover class (or some class) be an "open" class whose only restriction is that all equipment (antennas and power being most important) must be carried in a single vehicle. Let the rover operators determine the tradeoffs between being off the air and putting up better antennas. Being off the air is a big penalty.
Secondly, in my unscientific and limited look back at PQP score results for a few years, I didn't see a clear pattern as to whether the rover class or the mobile class winners always have higher scores. I'm not sure there is evidence that the mobile class has to be "protected" against the scores of the rovers, so another idea is to just eliminate the distinction and let the operators decide whether to be more like a mobile or more like a rover, and to what extent.
As to county line operations when mobile or rover, I don't have a strong opinion, but it does seem that that would give out more contacts and more counties to the other (fixed) participants. More contacts and more counties should always be the bias in the rules.
While we're discussing changes to the rules, let me again say that I really appreciate PQP making a distinction between single and multi operator rover and mobile categories. It makes a huge difference having a partner in the vehicle (especially for mobile class), and as a usually single operator, it's nice not having to compete with the team efforts (though I really appreciate the teams that can be on the air effectively while under way). Another rule feature of PQP that I hope doesn't change is the bonus for a minimum number of contacts from each county ... it's vital to give the mobiles and rovers a significant incentive to keep moving. So I hope those features of the rules don't change.
Please excuse the overly-wordy response. It's an affliction.
-- Pete K0BAK
      From: Michael Coslo <mjcn3li at gmail.com>
 To: PAQP <paqso at mailman.qth.net> 
 Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:33 PM
 Subject: [PaQSO] Rover query
   
On a separate matter from updates, I’d love to know who is planning on operating as a Rover this year.

Roving is a tough class, and I’d love to get some feedback from people to see if there are any changes we can make to make it more attractive to people.

Now when making changes, I always need to determine that changes don’t impact other classes, so doing things like eliminating county line stations are not going to work.  But I want to hear any and all suggestions. 

This is NOT about any changes for this year, but just something to get feedback after operating from people who have operated as Rover this year. 

- 73 Mike N3LI - 
______________________________________________________________
PaQSO mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:PaQSO at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html