The WIA is awaiting input mainly from the participants of the VHF/UHF Field Day activities in order to pick the final form of the rules & this is your chance to provide your view. If you have been a previous participant or are planning to do so in the future then this is your chance to have your say.
Division 1 : Grid Square based scoring using the Maidenhead Locator system definition, as denoted by the 4-character locator. A different 4 character square represents additional points for that band.
Division 2 : Distance based scoring where all stations are required to exchange Sub-Square locations (i.e. the 6-character locator). The points allocated per contact are based on 1 point per kilometre with a multiplier determined from a table based on the band being used for the contact.
Please vote only once and it makes no difference on this poll if you are a WIA member or not.
For full scoring details, read the 2017 Summer FD rules at
http://www.wia.org.au/members/contests/v...0Rules.pdf, concentrating on pages 4 and 5.
General details are at
http://www.wia.org.au/members/contests/vhfuhf/
With respect, the contest is in it's current position simply because there is a third choice. If a poll like this is meant to sway the institute then perhaps it would be better to only have two choices.
Div 1 or Div 2 - it shouldn't be that tough a decision.
Lou
Agreed. The "Keep both divisions" has been removed.
Those who have voted before the edit, please re-cast your vote as the previous votes have been zeroed.
Admin
50-odd visitors as at this morning and only 9 votes recorded...
Surely
you have an opinion on this matter.
Make the most of the opportunity and cast your vote NOW.
vk4adc Wrote:50-odd visitors as at this morning and only 9 votes recorded...
Surely you have an opinion on this matter.
Make the most of the opportunity and cast your vote NOW.
Actually, no, I do not have an opinion on this.
I don't participate in field days or contests, so I simply don't have a preference.
I do have an opinion, and I like short grid squares, lets keep it simple.
quick and easy exchanges, easy to move onto the next contact with everyone happy.
trying to work out distances from gps coordinates and subsqures fiddling around, .... nah too hard.
I enjoy working up into the higher microwave bands and when you are portable juggling gear and drifting freqs, rain, sunburn , heat etc , digital modes as well, its got to be short gridsquares. much easier to complete the contact under difficult operating conditions.
73 from the bush,
Dave vk2jds
I'm with Dave,
The "Arms Race" with using Grid Squares had, to be competitive with VK5 and their favorable terrain and more operators, forced myself and others in VK2 to build equipment above 10GHz. It is a real challenge to go there. Thank-you VK5, I loved the fact that we didn't know what they were up to and that to blast them out of the water we would have try harder! I like to think that they also thought the same way. This also levels the field by allowing states such as VK6 & VK7 able to sweep the field with just a handful of operators.
Gridsquares encourage you to learn and be more than a box operator. Also, if you operate in the field, it encourages you to build for reliability as a failure on one band could lead to a loss of first place. Also a bit of luck and unpredictability of what others are doing adds to the challenge. Gridsquares also enables stations with small budgets to compete as it makes expensive linear amps redundant - amps are needed to give the edge when competing for distance, and microwave amps are dear as poison. Gridsquares also make you explore the countryside and workout logistics, travel time and setup/teardown in timeframes that can make you win - its not all about radio! I racked up 1000km the last time I did a rover - an PB of 10 squares activated, all in country NSW. So the opportunity for regional areas to participate is greater than distance scoring - gridsquares get people out of the cities!
That' s what the old contest was all about, the rules were set and well known. If you wanted to come first in the five categories, you had to innovate, build and collaborate with other like minded individuals. And there is no secrecy in what we do, myself and others are more than happy to share what we are doing as we move up the bands. If someone, no matter where asked me "how did you get on 76GHz" I am happy to answer and provide details - even help build and test. It just provides more competitors and pushes me harder to win, and I of course was helped by other amateurs who know far more than me. Although come competition time.... well that's top secret!
And as we know, we already have the Ross Hull distance contest which is mostly 6 & 2m - why have three more contests that are pretty much the same?
Lets go back to the contest the way it was and put this ghastly "everyone gets a prize" experiment behind us. A decline in participation rates seems to have confirmed that things were fine in the past.
Justin - up the road from the bush....
I have to agree with Justin and others regarding the GS versus distance scoring.
We already have 2 contests with distance based scoring: Ross Hull and John Moyle
Interestingly the USA January, June and September VHF/UHF/Microwave contests are Grid square based.
I would suggest however, a number of minor changes;
(1) A rover category is where you operate from more than one GS
(2) The multipliers need to be rescaled. I would suggest 6, 2, 70 x1 1.2Ghz x 2 and 2.4Ghz and above x 3
My reasoning is that virtually all modern rigs have 6, 2 and 70 built in, some rigs also have 1.2Ghz (IC910, IC9100, TS2000X) and 2.4Ghz and above is almost exclusively transverter based.
Having 6, 2 and 70 on the same multiplier, is based on experience over the last 10 years in VHF/UHF Field days where the number of qsos and GS on these 3 bands has been almost identical each time (despite varying propagation conditions such as sporadic E for 6 and 2). It also provides an incentive to populate the 6 metre band more than has occurred in the past.
Cheers
Peter VK3QI (operator at VK3ER/p)
VK3QI Wrote:Interestingly the USA January, June and September VHF/UHF/Microwave contests are Grid square based.
&
(1) A rover category is where you operate from more than one GS
Peter VK3QI (operator at VK3ER/p)
The ARRL September VHF/UHF rules make for interesting reading :
http://www.arrl.org/september-vhf as they are similar to our own in many ways however they do specify transmit power limits etc..
One thing that has come to mind many times is whether the FD scoring should be based on sub-gridsquares so that ZZ99XX scores additionally and separately to ZZ99XY. I typically operate portable from around QG61OV in the Gold Coast Hinterland and occasionally others set up portable elsewhere in the QG61 square but there is no real advantage for the effort required versus the Brisbane operators clustered in QG62. Maybe the square/subsquare rules could be different for portable/mobile/rover stations versus home stations so that the effort put into portable/rover operation becomes more beneficial even though they are still competing against others in the same categories.
Just a thought while we are contemplating the rules !!
I also agree that Gridsquare-based scoring is the best option. In my view, it rewards participation over size of setup. So, the single op in his car on a hilltop with his 6/2/70 capable radio and small antennas can log an impressive score provided that he/she works at it.
I agree with Peter about the multipliers, except that maybe the higher microwave bands deserve a higher multiplier. Again, it's about reward for effort - the higher bands are both more difficult to build equipment for and more difficult to work any distance to another gridsquare. We also should be encouraging activity up higher as these bands become more under threat.
I'd change the Sub-Sections to VHF (6/2/70), Microwave (23 and up) and Open, treating Digital contacts the same as any other mode While you might work a more distant square, each Digital contact usually takes much more time and effort. We should be encouraging the use of modern comms modes, not shoving them to the side.
Fully utilising the 8-hour period is also an issue. If you do Saturday afternoon, then you are most likely pulling antennas down in the dark (after 8pm). 8 hours on Sunday morning is not viable for many reasons. I would suggest that 6 hours is more practical.
Regards,
Dave
VK3HZ
Encouragement for cars equipped only with FM radios.
Though in VK3, FM contacts are common, here in VK2 none of our field stations
are equipped with vertical antenna or radios on them. SSB and horizontal only.
So again, can I ask that stations with separate radios and antenna for FM be able
to contact other stations similarly equipped and gain extra points for that band.
Bottom line:
If the field stations had the equipment, the mobile stations COULD participate.
2C39 'cause a 73 is no use here.
Alan VK2ZIW
vk2ziw Wrote:Encouragement for cars equipped only with FM radios.
Though in VK3, FM contacts are common, here in VK2 none of our field stations are equipped with vertical antenna or radios on them. SSB and horizontal only. So again, can I ask that stations with separate radios and antenna for FM be able
to contact other stations similarly equipped and gain extra points for that band.
Bottom line:
If the field stations had the equipment, the mobile stations COULD participate.
2C39 'cause a 73 is no use here.
Alan VK2ZIW
An interesting comment Alan, maybe true and maybe not.
I am usually set up to work both horizontal and vertical polarisation on 6, 2 and 70 when portable. I have two yagis on 70cm, one dedicated to each polarisation while on 2m, the yagi is hinged so that yanking on a rope moves the yagi from horizontal to vertical - plus I have a dual band vertical whip for 2/70. The whip on 52.525 is actually an old fibreglass 5/8ths 2m mobile whip that works well as a quarter wave on 6, plus a 4 element yagi on 50MHz horizontal.
Despite having the antennas available on FD setups, I seldom work anyone on 52.525, 146.500 or 439.000 FM simplex - and it isn't because I don't listen or call CQFD there either. I am happy to set up a dedicated radio and antenna on 146.500 and 439.000 if I can believe that there will be stations to work.
I guess one factor is that most mobile stations stick to repeater frequencies and probably many are unaware that there is a FD on at that point in time, or can be bothered doing a numbers exchange let alone actually completing a log to send in. Grid square details (6 char format) could be a little tricky too.
Plus being an old fogey, I think I understand your 2C39 reference. (Others may need to Google 2C39
)
{I guess old HF operators would need to quote 807 or 6146... }
Then again, a 59073 sounds like you are doing well in the contest.
All the good numbers are usually available from my FD setup... 52.525, 146.600, 439.000 vertical plus 50.150, 52.150, 144.150, 432.150, 1296.150, 2403.150, 3398.150, 5760.150 and 10368.150 for those horizontally-polarised-only types.
Doug
The USA Rules quoted are very different to what we currently use -
While they are grid based the value of different grids is much higher.
As each grid is a true multiplier and that the QSO points per band are tallied and then multiply by the grids worked.
If the grid multiplier was only allowed once on all bands then the effect would be something like - new grid (4 character) times points total say 250 becomes very important to nail that extra grid. A VK3 station around Melbourne could grab the local grids and Melbourne is a fortunate junction by only allowing the grid once then the maximum extra advantage would be 6 grids, in the case that the grids only counted once.
But if the grid multiplier is allowed on all bands then location advantage becomes ridiculous.
Having spent many hours on this and opposing the changes, mainly due to two other contests being distance based, it is very interesting that it has not been adopted.
My thoughts have always been a combination of both which can be acheived easilly with logging software.
Stealing from the ARRL
5.1. QSO points:
5.1.1. Count one point for each complete 50- or 144-MHz QSO.
5.1.2. Count two points for each 222- or 432-MHz QSO.
5.1.3. Count three points for each 902- or 1296-MHz QSO.
5.1.4. Count four points for each 2.3-GHz (or higher) QSO.
5.2. Multiplier: The total number of different grid squares worked per band. Each 2 degrees X 1 degree grid square counts as one multiplier on each band it is worked.
Adding Distance based points from a points per km basis
5.3. Final score: Multiply the total number of QSO points (including distance points) from all bands operated by the total number of multipliers for final score.
The Title Field Day should be replaced by Activity Day and all stations lumped together rather than the every ones a winner stance.
Single op Multi op and various times modes remain but no different scoring for a Single op at home and one in the bush - Rovers still have an OWN category.
And just to stir the proverbial pot a bit...
From WIA news for 12 March 2017 :
"
Last weekend WIA Director Roger Harrison told us of being bowled over with the response to the Wyong Field Day and to the VHF groups meeting he chaired at the HamFest.
He spoke of help to improve amateur antenna masts and towers thru local government
The second hot topic was about VHF-UHF Field Days. No surprises there !
The time has come to consult field day stakeholders about scoring – and it is generally thought that it must come down to either grid-square scoring or distance-based scoring. A binary decision.
As listeners may know, the VHF-UHF Field Days have had both means of scoring since 2014. This was introduced on the principal of – quote – let the market decide ! – end quote. As it happened, field day participants – the market – have by and large decided to have an each-way bet. Many operators enter logs for both scoring divisions; some enter logs for one division in one event, and the other division in the next event. A few operators stick resolutely to one division or the other !
I asked the audience how many had participated in the VHF-UHF Field Days, or had an interest in doing so, and a good proportion of the audience raised their hands. Everybody was keen to discuss it.
The idea arose that maybe there’s a THIRD way.
For a start – the Rover category is necessarily based on grid-square scoring. Secondly, the philosophy underlying VHF-UHF operating is to work the best distances you can under the circumstances facing you. Thirdly, the audience articulated that grid-square scoring is unfair because there is a geographic advantage for regions that are further from the equator and the grid-square are physically smaller. And that’s not ALL the issues !
A lively, robust, but friendly, discussion progressed – cut short only because the session ran out of time.
The general upshot was – perhaps some combined scoring method could be devised that incorporated the best features of the two on the table.
I was bowled over.
The issue of VHF-UHF Field Day scoring will open for consultation on the WIA website soon. Look out for it.
"
One can only assume it will appear here:
http://www.wia.org.au/members/contests/vhfuhf/
Posted in the interest of finding out that there may be yet another scoring scenario ...