Field Day ROVING rule changes

[VK4GHZ]

I'm angry at the moaners who just had to have a whinge about the VK5 stunt during the Spring Field Day.

Anyone else who enjoys a bit of grid hopping should be angry too!

Came across this little gem tonight:

VHF-UHF Field Day - Grid Hopping Rule Changes

I have received a number of comments about the large scores that can be achieved by grid hopping in the VHF-UHF Field Day. As a result there will be changes to the Field Day rules, to shift the scoring emphasis away from the number of squares activated and back to the number of stations worked.

The following details were published on the contest web page when the Spring results were announced:
"The rules for the January Field Day will be the same as for previous events, but there will be some minor changes for the Winter Field Day in late June." The reason for delaying the changes until the winter Field Day is that the rules for the summer event had already been published when the decision was made.

To be more specific about the changes, they will include:
- A limit on the number of grid squares that can be activated;
- The 3 hour repeat contact time limit to apply regardless of whether either station has changed location.

There may be further changes which I cannot announce yet. First I will need to calculate the effects to make sure that the changes will achieve the desired effect in the fairest possible way.

And for anyone who was feeling disinclined to participate in the Summer event - remember that the special 2010 Field Day award is open only to stations that participate in all three 2010 Field Days!

John VK3KM

Firstly, how many exactly is " a number of comments ".
There would be a number, no?
Why are we treated like children with some vague reference?
Is that number > 50% of ALL the logs received?
Was there a majority vote here to trigger the change, or was this change implemented to appease a vocal minority of whingers?

I would like to know the numbers.

Relocating from one grid to another helped relieve the extreme boredom.
Once you worked all the available station from that grid, then that was pretty much it.
Having Es on 6M is a big boredom saver, but we cannot always guarantee the Es, and the limited number of 2/70 re-work points does not contribute a significant gain.

This ill-conceived and absurd change of rules can be easily circumvented.
You have a car load of hams.
rent-a-ham.com
Four hams on-board will enable the operation from the intersection of four grids in quick succession to another station, the mother ship.

So what stupid rule will be put in place to prevent that?

Let common sense prevail, and give the VK5's this one, for ingenuity, if anything.
At least, target mobile stations, not portable grid hoping stations.

From S/E QLD, where Field Day participation is appallingly low to begin with, these change of rules will not help, one iota.
I for one doubt I will bother with the Winter Field Day.
Hmmmm.... based on the 2009 Winter FD, that will leave 3 - count them - 3 other portable stations out there operating.
(There were only 4 last Winter FD)

Stupid stupid stupid.


The $64 dollar question is:
What will the perpetual moaners and complainers whinge about from the 2010 Winter FD?

[vk1da]

As I wrote to the VK-VHF mailing list, I do not think the proposed rule change, which actually complicates the rules somewhat for both the rover and the station they are working, is the right change.

As the current rules (in force for about 10 years I think) have worked ok to encourage a steady level of activity, sometimes with surges of interest (measured by the number of logs entered, not by the number of callsigns on the logs), it is a very simple scoring system and does not have any distance calculation which in my view is too error-prone to be of much value.

All the current rules need is a category for rovers, appropriately defined.

The last thing we need for VHF field days is something that discourages activity. We need more, not less.

[VK4GHZ]

Don't panic Matt!
We have one last contest to participate in.
I plan to rove four grids as a portable station, ie; stop, setup mast & yagis, operate, teardown - not a mobile station, like the controversial VK5 effort.

Why a separate category (that specifically targets the VK5 style) wasn't introduced defies common sense.

What is a Field Day ?

A Field Day is a contest especially for portable stations. Amateurs competing in Field Days find a good location, usually on a hilltop, and often camp out overnight. Apart from having fun, Field Days are the ideal opportunity to check out your equipment in the field and to experiment with light weight, easily transportable equipment and antennas.

http://www.wia.org.au/members/contests/about/

Doesn't this latest STUPID change contradict the goals of the Field Day?

Do the fun-police that dream up these rules actually go out and operate /P themselves?
Two years ago (or was it three?), a VK4 was operating on the junction of two squares.
Cleverly, he moved his trailer from inside one, to the other.
The following year, the fun-police, responded to the fuddy-duddy whingers (who obviously had been sucking too many lemons that summer), banned this operating practice.

I'd hate to think outside box here, but instead of banning ingenuity, and this and that, how about having more categories?
Let the sky be limit.
Even have a fuddy-duddy category, where those who lack imagination, can have a shot at being category winners too... without having to stifle others.

[VK4TS]

Boy oh boy I am really excited entering my first VHF/UHF contest for years (read 20) with all these negative vibes around...Do we really have problem here ??

So what would work ??

How do we generate interest in a contest that encourages activity from remote grids while encouraging the activity of the rover stations ?

How do you make it simple ??

These were some of the problems we looked at when we created the VK Shires - is the trick that the contacts need to be changed to a multiplier in the normal contesting term. I think some analysis of the logs would / could turn up a better and fairer system..

Its interesting that people have complained of the changes due to the reading of the rules and successful activity of the VK5's - some of us would remember the VK3 packet robot attempt to win the RD contest...it was within the rules -was it in the spirit - most thought no...in the case of the VK5 effort I think its admirable that they went to so many grids for the one contest..

Personally I feel the best way to ruin a contest is to modify the rules regularly....the people who support it do so because they like the existing format

Distance does need to be encouraged but can that happen if the grid square is a "normal" multiplier..Lets take VK4CP portable as an example...Adam works 20 VK4 Brisbane stations and then works one in Toowoomba....the one Toowoomba contact is worth as much as all the Brisbane contacts - Adam then needs to really find the next grid...in the mean time he works another 10 Brisbane stations and then a Tenterfield station this station is worth 32 points....

VK3FXYZ parked on top of Mount Macedon could work 200 Melbourne stations but if they are all in the one grid square a well located station working lots of multiplier grids could out do them...

# Is the multiplier system in need of overhaul

# Is the points awarded to Microwave to high

# should there be a all in a box category ? 6 2 n 70cm

# should the rovers be in a separate category ??

It would take a fair bit of sorting out but the concept would be simple enough to follow -

[VK4BEG]

Well it sounds to me that there is a few comments from full call operators. What about the poor Novice and Foundation licencees. Dont you think it is time for change, these poor fellows don't have any chance of obtaining recognision,they may possibly have to work 50 stations on 6 just to equal one of your contacts on 1296 or above. If you want to increase operations I think there should be a category award for each band, then they can achieve some credit for their efforts. If you want to increase the amount of operators submitting logs then this must be where you start.
Is there a difference between operating mobile and portable really? Why do the rules change when you move into another grid. If you work a station you should not be allowed to work him again for 3hrs. I for one hope the rules are upgraded to accommodate or not to accommodate gridhoppers.

[VK3GK]

Next we will be banning clubs who put on BBQ's to "stream" club members through to make contact with the clubs remote field day station .........

Maybe a simple roving section would be suited to those competitors who go to the effort.

Although a field day is fun, sometimes it nice to get a good score if you have gone to a lot of effort, put up with thestorms, rain hail etc.

[VK3PF]

Hi all,

I believe that Rovers in Field Days can be good for everyone - they should be able to help boost the score of anyone that they work, as well as building higher scores for themselves. Depending on where they rove, they might also give other stations a chance to work a rarely activated square (for the Grid Square hunters/counters).

I totally agree that they should be in a separate category (or 2: Rover 8 hour, Rover 24 hour), so that they are not in direct competition with fixed Field stations. I also believe that Club stations should be required to located at a single fixed location - i.e. NO Rover Club stations.

On the question of promoting a scoring system based on distance, the current Grid Square does this by default - to work more squares, you need to work greater distances. Depending upon how you construct the scoring system, the same relativities are still likely to be in effect in the final score.

If people think that there should be limits on the number of contacts between 2 Rovers, express that point to the Contest Manager. One option might be to place a maximum number of contacts that can be made between any 2 stations (as per ARRL Field Day rules, I believe). Another might be to require a minimum percentage of contacts to be with stations other than the prime station worked by a Rover. A further option might be require a minimum radial (not road miles) distance to be moved before a Rover can make new scoring contacts (in addition to moving squares) - the US rules require 10 miles (16 km).

All of these discussions have occurred in the past in the US, where geographically smaller grids (higher latitudes = smaller grid squares) combined with excellent highway networks make Roving a more attractive option than here in VK.

Surely the key aim should be to increase participation in the Contest/s?

Regards,

Peter VK3PF (sometimes /Rover)

[VK5ZT]

Hello all

As one of the stations at the centre of this controversy, here's a few points to ponder.

1. It seems odd to change the rules because of what only one or two stations do.
2. The main objection is to the "follow the leader" style of contacts. I have stated elsewhere and re-iterate here...for the present we have decided to abandon that type of operation in favour of longer distance operations.
3. For the record, in the Spring Field day, operating alone for most of the contest, I had more contacts with stations other than my partner station!
4. Moving through a few squares creates many opportunities for other competitors.
5. There is only one other active microwave station (>23cms) in VK5 during contests. Without some sort of incentive we will never make the top 10 unless there is a weather disaster in the eastern states!! We are trying hard to encourage greater participation in the higher bands.
6. It is not apparent to others but there have been huge changes in the way we have operated over the last 18 months including great improvements in equipment.
7. I live almost on top of the intersection of 4 squares...including a transition that is almost on top of my favorite hill. wouldn't you take advantage of that if you could?

We have always operated within the rules and will continue to do so. I have doubts about the effect of the changes. Depending where you are, various advantages and disadvantages exist....Frankly I do not believe a truly level playing could be created without far too excessive complications to the rules.

Unlike the stated intentions of some other teams, whatever happens, we will continue to compete. It is disappointing to see the withdrawal of some teams in apparent objection to us potentially winning again. I have already stated that we will not operate the same way as recent contests, thus restricting the potential scores that are achievable.

I do intend crossing some local grid squares but will be operating alone.

Best of luck to all competing...

Cheers Tim VK5ZT

[VK3KM]

Hi all,

I agree completely with Tim's comments: "It is disappointing to see the withdrawal of some teams in apparent objection to us potentially winning again."

Some people have expressed concern about the big scoring margins that rovers can achieve. I need to listen to their concerns. But at the same time I don't want to see rovers losing interest or dropping out. The greater the number of active stations, the better it is for everyone.

I have been looking at various options and doing some trial re-scoring of logs. It will be possible to address the concerns that have been expressed, but without complicating the rules or adding any restrictions that could reduce the number of contacts that can be made.

John VK3KM

[VK3QI]

John,

If you have been following this thread for the last 12 months (not just the comments made since your email last week) then I believe the consensus is that there should be a separate section for rover category and that the rules relating to distance etc. remain as they are, making the contest somewhat different to the other VK contests held during the year.

I have to agree with Peter 3PF, that to increase the number of grid squares you work on a particular band is, in fact, a defacto distance issue anyway, as generally contacts are made via tropospheric propagation (the only exceptions are some 6 mx and occasionally 2 mx sporadic E).

If encoragement to participate in the contest is one of the primary goals, then a rover category may well appeal to some of our newer and often younger hams who can see some appeal in a mobile type of operation.

Cheers

Peter VK3QI (and an exhausted operator from VK3ER/p !)

[VK4GHZ]

The latest changes are a knee jerk reaction.
It would not have hurt to let a few more contests go by, to see where the trend was going.
Even more so, when Tim has indicated that they will not be using that strategy again.

There are always two ways of dealing with a situation.
One in a positive way, where activity is actually encouraged and grows, and the other is in a negative way.
Waving a big cane around saying you can't do this or you can't do that, and limiting this and that, is unfortunately a negative approach.

Trying to micro-manage specific areas, and the constant putting out of spot fires, suggests we need a totally fresh approach to VHF contesting here.
Step back, and take a look at the bigger picture.
How do we actually encourage people to put the time and effort into this, rather than turn them off?
Remember, as a society, we are all becoming fat and lazy, so this is becoming a bigger problem in itself, as time roll on.

This would be a great opportunity to actually encourage more rover activity, rather that put the brakes on it.
Leaving everything else alone, and simply introducing a rover category would be more of positive approach, IMO.
Don't the Americans have rover categories?
Not only do the fixed stations (home or portable) have more grids to potentially work, but it encourages competition between rovers.
Competitive rovers will refine their setups and procedures... activating more and more grids, so this becomes a win-win for all participants.
This is what should happen, instead of telling the rovers to go and sit in the naughty corner.

With the Summer Field Day just gone, I drove over 900km and spent $150 in fuel activating four grid squares from near the QG50/51/60/61 junction, which was a 3 hour drive away to begin with.
It required a bit of effort, and gobbled up the entire weekend.
This was on top of spending half of Friday preparing for it.
On Saturday arvo I was bailed up inside my van for 30 minutes, as a severe hail storm came out of no where and whipped through.
Not fun for a while, but the rest of the weekend made up for that.
I won't mention the speed camera fine either.

Like many others, I could have been doing productive things around the house, like drinking beer and wearing out my fingers with the TV remote control.

I doubt I will participate in future Field Days if the negative management approach continues, and discourages activity.
Despite all the effort, and making over 1,000 points in trying conditions, I will not be submitting my own roving Summer FD log in protest.

[VK3HZ]

I agree that we should definitely encourage Rovers. I'd like to see more of mobile antenna farms like Peter VK3PF used to go out in.

A simple change to the current rules would be to say that any station (whether single or multi op) activating more than 2 gridsquares during the contest will be placed in the Rover category to compete with other Rovers - 2 gridsquares to allow people to go to one location Sat afternoon and another Sun morning without being pushed into the Rover class.

The reason for not separating single or multi is that a true single op driving the sort of distances needed might be a hazard to himself and others (and expensive on speeding fines). So, the rules should encourage having several people to share the load of driving/operating.

My 2 bob's worth

Regards,
Dave.

[VK3DJ]

Hi all. I have just participated in my first proper VHF/UHF field day. Not big on contesting but did it as part of a club (Geelong Amateur Radio Club) activity. Our mission was to socialise with members on the pretence of playing radio. We achieved this and to add to the fun we made quite a few contacts. It seems a shame that we put more emphasis on winning the event than participating in it. I had contacts with people I had heard of but not spoken to. That was wonderful, some even engaged in more conversation than just giving signal reports, I enjoyed that even more. I learned a lot about operating microwave equipment and I learned a lot about how quickly the weather changes back and forth in the Otways. So in all it was a great learning experience.

According to the WIA on their Introduction To Contesting & Field Days page state:

What is a Field Day?
A Field Day is a contest especially for portable stations. Amateurs competing in Field Days find a good location, usually on a hilltop, and often camp out overnight. Apart from having fun, Field Days are the ideal opportunity to check out your equipment in the field and to experiment with light weight, easily transportable equipment and antennas.

As far as I'm concerned the key word is 'a' as in 'find A good location'. The word is not some, nor is the word locationS. My view then is that these 'rovers" are currently operating outside the spirit of the event. So lets give these rovers their own category and everyone is happy. I mean if stations have the opportunity to move between grid squares by all means let them do it. They will learn a lot from this exercise and can share their experiences as well as the grids. Some of us are not that lucky as to have good spots in multiple grid squares.

Well I said my piece.

Regards

Dallas
VK3DJ

[VK3KM]

Hi all,

A couple of comments on the points made by Adam.

I hope you will reconsider the idea of not sending in your log. It is an over-reaction to make that kind of protest against rule changes that haven't been made. It would only exclude you from having your achievements in the last Field Day recognised. I have heard what you are saying, and you don't need to withhold your log in order to get my attention!

As for letting a few more contests go by to see how the trend was going - done that. Five contests have gone by and the trend was clear after the second one.

The changes are not a knee jerk reaction, because they haven't been finalised yet. But I agree that it was a knee-jerk to mention certain possible changes before I had spent enough time to fully analyse the options and the effects that they would have.

Since then I have spent a few days looking at the options, and it has become clear that the only possible change will be to create a rover category. Any other changes would complicate the rules and restrict activity, which I said I would not do. The main question remaining is whether the rover category should be for stations that activate more than one square, or more than two, or more than three. There is a case for allowing stations in the non-rover categories to make location changes without being forced into direct competition with the mobile-oriented "power rovers".

John VK3KM

[VK2IDM]

Hi John,


Another option would be to create a time limit (between 1 and 3 hours) for stations to work each other again after moving GS's. This would reduce the abuse of the rules.
I know it adds to the scoring complexity but If we could have a distance multiplier as well as a grid square multiplier then there may be no reason to include a new rover category. The scoring fareness could be fine tuned by adding an additional multiplier factor (that applies to all rovers) for the number of grid squares that they activate from.

I believe it should be possible to strike a good balance that gives competitors with varying interests (and in some cases limited means) something to strive for, while at the same time maintaining the core theme of VHF > SHF contesting which is the exploitation of propagation modes and the challenge of higher frequencies.

BTW, I personally think it's a bit strong to label the proposed changes as stupid.
Thanks again for the time and effort you've given to the field day contesting cause.

Cheers, 73
David
VK2IDM

[vk1da]

Tonight I wrote to the VK-VHF mailing list:

I agree with a new category being created to cater for rovers.

I have suggestions for the definition of a rover.

However I have observed at meetings of many different organisations that if a discussion of a new proposal gets bogged down in details, it tends to go nowhere.

To avoid that trap, I recommend a decision first on the principle of adding a rover category, before going into discussion of details. I think it best to get a group of operators who are active in these events to work out a proposal of details in conjunction with the contest manager.

At the time I wrote that, I didn't realise that John (the Contest Manager) had indicated in this thread that he believes it will be best to add a category for rovers. So maybe the discussion can already more to the next question: how many grids activated constitute a rover. I don't know how many of the people commenting in this thread have operated as a rover, or even performed two setups/teardowns on one weekend. But it does take a lot of planning and work at the time. It was suggested above that more than 2 grid locators should qualify as a rover, but I think we should really start at "more than one". How many "portable" stations would have been affected by that during any of the vhf field days during the past 5 years? ie. who operated from one grid square on Saturday and a different one on Sunday? Not many?

How about keeping this rule change as simple as possible for the first year. Or do we as Australians, thrive on complexity born out of compromise?

Complexity usually discourages activity. It took many years to convince people not to give out signal reports in the RD contest. Then it became required, then optional. Now it just wastes time as people demand a signal report when it's not required. So change the rules with care.

PS: I agree with David's remarks that I would prefer this thread not be given such a strongly worded title. Can the thread title be changed to "field day rules"?

[VK5ZD]

Hi

In answer to the question who operated from one grid square on Saturday and a different one on Sunday?, I did. The number of stations participating in the contest is somewhat limited in and around the Adelaide CBD and, once it gets dark, the numbers dwindle to almost zero. Consequently, it's generally not worth operating all night. I started the contest from a hilltop about 410m ASL overlooking the CBD in PF95. At 4pm (4 1/2 hours into the contest) I decided to move to a new location in PF96. To pack up, drive to the new location then set up again took 2 1/2 hours. I operated from the new location for about 1 1/2 hours and then, when the contacts dried up, packed up and went home. On Sunday morning I operated the last 2 1/2 hours of the contest from a hill a few kilometres from my home QTH in PF95. This also involved a move. I worked some stations to the north from one location and then moved to another spot more favourable for contacts to the south (both these locations were in PF95).

Having done the "extreme grid-hopping" exercise (as VK5LZ operator), this was, to me at least, completely different. True, I changed grid squares to gain the extra points, but I wouldn't categorise myself as a rover.

There seems to be a group of people who feel that a rover category is required. If you're just in the field day for the fun of it then what possible difference does it make to you if some people decide to drive all over the countryside? Answer; none. In fact, there's a good chance they might actually provide more contact opportunities for stations in more remote areas.

I would suggest that those driving the change fall into the "in it to win it" category. Let me be the first to say there's nothing wrong with this; after all, it is a contest! Having said that, there's been nothing to stop anyone else doing the roving exercise, but, as has been pointed out, this is not in the same league. Therefore, on balance, I have to agree with the concept of a rover category. This then leaves two questions: (1) What is a rover? (2) What are the rules for a rover?

For the first question suggestions have been made in terms of either how many squares you activate (more than 1/2/3/4 = rover) or how long you spend in a square (less than x hours = rover). I don't think it can be based on the vehicle configuration (e.g. all radios and antennas mounted on the vehicle) as this would affect a mobile station that just parks on a hill for a few hours without moving. My vote would be to base it on the number of squares activated, although the actual number is still open for debate.

The second question also requires some consideration. Should there be single/multi operator categories plus 8 and 24 hour sections? I would suggest not, mainly for safety reasons. If there's no single/multi operator categories then there's no reason for someone to try and do it alone. Ideally you would have one person operating, one logging and one driving with the ability of rotating these roles. In terms of operating time I think it should be a fixed period that's (a) less than 24 hours and (b) in no more than two parts. Let's say it's 12 hours. That would mean the rover could operate for one or two periods during the 24 hour contest time that add up to no more 12 hours. This would enforce a rest period. The last thing we need is someone killing themselves (or someone else) because they've been driving for 24 hours.

Finally, there was the suggestion of requiring a 3 hour interval between repeat contacts even if one of the stations has moved. I do not agree with this. All this does is reduce the number of contacts that both fixed and mobile stations can make. As I've said previously, the number of participating stations (around here, at least) is limited and you need every contact you can get. I suggested once before in another thread that just rover to rover contacts should require the 3 hours gap regardless of grid square.

I would like to think that adding a rover category might attract some operators that might not otherwise enter the contest. This remains to be seen, but I'm hopeful.

Finally, getting away from rovers, I would like to suggest that the top scores for (a) 6m / 2m /70cm only and (b) foundation licence holders be acknowledged. I don't think separate categories are required, but perhaps they can get a mention somewhere and maybe a certificate

73
Iain
VK5ZD

[VK3QI]

Iain and others,

The question of rover definition seems to be the latest discussion point.

Knowing our "litigious" US friends have much experience in this matter in their various VHF/UHF contests, the following is copied from an earlier post I made after the Spring FD.

"I have been looking at the Rover category rules that ARRL uses for their various VHF / UHF / 10GHz+ contests and there are some aspects of those rules perhaps worth considering.

>>>>>>>3. 3.3. Rover: A rover is comprised of no more than two operators that moves among two or more grid squares during the course of a contest. An operator may perform any or all rover functions, but a driver's function shall be limited to driving the vehicle. Drivers may be switched out during the event. Any number of observers is also allowed, however observers may not perform any rover function at any time. Rover vehicles with only one occupant are allowed to perform all functions listed above.
1. 3.3.1.A rover vehicle may transport only one station using a single call sign. An exception is provided for in "General Rules for All ARRL Contests" number 3.5 (Family Rule).
2. 3.3.2. A rover may not operate with more than one call sign.
3. 3.3.3. Rover vehicles must transport all the equipment, power supplies, and antennas used at each operating site.
4. 3.3.4. Rovers MUST sign "rover" on Phone and /R on CW and digital modes after their call sign.
5. 3.3.5. All Rovers are encouraged to adopt operating practices that allow as many stations as possible to contact them.
6. 3.3.6. Rover operators may submit separate logs for single operator (fixed station) in addition to their rover entries. Rovers submitting a score for inclusion in a club competition must also include a secondary summary sheet indicating the portion of the score that counts for the club score if any of the QSOs submitted take place outside of their club's territory.
7. 3.3.7. Rovers are permitted to use APRS. Rovers using APRS transmit only their call sign and position. Any multi-op station may access rover APRS data directly or via the Internet.
8. 3.3.8. A rover may not make more than 100 QSOs with any other one rover. <<<<<<<<<

Notice that they also have a primary concern of safety as well, including change of driver allowed
two operators maximum
two grids minimum


Of course, their rules are orientated towards vehicle travel, whereas part of our discussion centres around operating from different grid squares on separate days etc.

Cheers
Peter VK3QI

[VK5ZD]

Hi

You missed a bit, Peter. It also says:

3.4. Limited Rover. Limited Rover. Same as the "Rover" class above, but operation is permitted only on the 222 MHz, 432 MHz, 903 MHz and 1296 MHz bands. Output power limits shall be the same as those defined for the Single Operator Low Power category.
3.5. Unlimited Rover. Same as “Rover” class above, but Unlimited Rovers may use more than two operators and are exempt from rules 3.3.3 and 3.3.8.

The other point to bear in mind is that the ARRL contest is not a 'Field Day' competition. There are basically home stations, club stations (who cannot operate more than a certain distance from their 'designated centre') and rovers. After reading further, one gets the impression that the ARRL regard any field station as some type of rover.

The ARRL field day rules are also somewhat unusual (from what we're used to). For example:
You get extra points if you don't use a generator.
You get extra points if you can persuade an elected government official to visit your site

I'd like to think we're capable of creating our own rules.

73
Iain

[VK4TS]

The standard US format is too use multipliers per band - this is both in the ARRL and CQ contests..

I would think that this would actually make the contest more interesting..also the band multipliers are capped at 1296 and above

Does the portable/rover station need extra points ??? yes because of the effort they have put in ... no because they are at an advantaged location (s) ...

Do we advantage rovers too much ?? when the rover(s) smash the scores of the stationary entries do they get too big an advantage...if yes what is fairer rather than recategorising them ?? We would / could end up with 5 rovers competing against each other and winning those sort of categories does give victory a hollow ring...

I do like the idea of a 6 2 and 70 category...Need to cater for standards - should it be a 2 and 70cm category...??

I do like the idea of a foundation category..NB FM only...