Field Day ROVING rule changes

[VK4GHZ]

BTW, I personally think it's a bit strong to label the proposed changes as stupid.

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"?

Agreed.
It was a bit over-the-top, but didn't want to be reading about rule changes that directly affect what I enjoy doing, and only 36 hours before the next contest.
However, referring back to the original quote, it suggests the changes were decided, and beyond the proposal/consultation phase.
Now, this appears not to be the case.
Through discussion, we should be able to arrive at a situation that will, hopefully, benefit all... rather than discourage any aspect of activity.

Have edited topic title to "Field Day ROVING rule changes".

[VK5NE]

I have already forwarded my views on this to the Contest manager but I am also posting them here so they can be considered.

I believe that introducing a Rover category is a bad idea for the following reasons:

1. The only way to win the Rover category would be to have a purely mobile operation and to travel long distances during the contest period. This means the winner would be the operator with the most mobile equipment and money to spend on fuel.
2. If the rover category does happen to gain popularity in future contests then high speed, long distance and dangerous driving become the main winning attributes. How will you feel as an advocate of the Rover category when we have the first fatal road accident caused by escalation of the Rover category competition?
3. In order to win, Rovers will concentrate more and more on the highest scoring strategy and that strategy is activate as many grid squares on as many bands as possible and making as many contacts as possible will only be a secondary consideration.
4. With the current limited number of stations participating in Field Days we do not want extra contest categories unless they provide more contacts to all participants. A Rover category will not give all participants more contacts.

I suggest the following single additional rule:

“Once a grid square is activated by a station making at least one QSO, the station may not activate the next grid square until 3 hours have elapsed.”

This should have the following effects:

1. Roving stations will need to make contacts with as many other stations as possible rather than with each other to gain their points, but they still have some advantage from roving.
2. The ‘Pack up and move Portable Stations’ will not be unduly restricted by this rule.
3. Considering the midnight to 6 am time period as being rather non productive this will limit the practical number of grid squares activated to 3 for the 8 hour section and 6 for the 24 hour section.

Paul
VK5NE

[VK2IDM]

Paul,

You've raised some excellent points, particularly the H&S issue. I would go further and would recommend restricting Rovers to 12 or 15 hours of operating - in a 24hr period, but would allow rovers the luxury of being able to break up their operating times into 4x3 or 5x3 hour segments of their choice (tbd). This would allow rovers the time to relocate themselves into the new locations and it would also give them a good night's sleep. Actually I probably wouldn't mind if the 4X3 rule applied to all portable stations in the 24 hr sections, because there are almost always down times due to unplanned events like the passing of a big thunderstorm or equipment failures etc.
As far as other rule changes go, I would also like to see a specific category for home stations to encourage participation and log entries. As I've previously stated I think there should be multiplier points for distance (per 100km) as well as grids worked. I often hear the argument that a large number of grid squares automatically implies distance, but this does not consider the plight of the station in a remote area who can only work a relatively small number of stations, and with a high degree of difficulty and not to mention good luck. Indeed the element of luck needs to be a key imperative, and as such the 'vagaries' of RF propagation should always play a role in any contest outcome.

Stating the obvious but - regardless of rule changes adopted there will always be fine tuning needed to address the (expected) exploitation, and evolutionary shifts in participation methods and techniques.

73,
David

[VK2IDM]

"There already is a contest with distance bases scoring. Best to leave the field days alone. LOCs worked and activated is popular and understood"

Yes and it's in mid to late March which is way past the prime time for Es and coastal / ocean troppo on 144 and above.
Does this mean that we need yet another contest??

[VK5ZD]

Hi

There seems to be a lot of different opinions here so could we have a one or more polls on the forum to get some actual numbers. I'm not sure how to create a poll, so I leave that to someone (Adam ?) who knows what they're doing. For starters, I'd like to know the following:

Regarding possible rule changes for the VHF-UHF Field Day contests, do you think that:
(a) the rules should be left as they are
(b) a separate rover category should be created
(c) the rules should be changed to prevent rovers getting huge scores
(d) don't care

I'm sure the contest manager would be interested in the result.

73
Iain

[VK4GHZ]

I have already forwarded my views on this to the Contest manager but I am also posting them here so they can be considered.

Paul, glad you did.
Open discussion will lead to a better outcome for all, as secret-squirrel direct e-mails don't allow for public debate.

On a "H&S" issue, we are all adults and factoring in rules for breaks, rest periods, meals.... Is just another layer of rules to complicate the matter. Inclement weather is another part of the fun in being portable, stuff breaking or forgetting a clamp for antenna X. All part of the fun.

Matt, I couldn't agree more.
This H&S bullshit goes too far.
If we can't find an excuse for something, then drag out the Health & Safety card, and scare people.

...If the rover category does happen to gain popularity in future contests then high speed, long distance and dangerous driving become the main winning attributes. How will you feel as an advocate of the Rover category when we have the first fatal road accident caused by escalation of the Rover category competition?

What is the difference to somebody having a fatal road accident on their way to a one-location only portable site?
None.

If you are worried about accidents, then why on earth would anyone allow these unwieldy antennas to be erected in public places in the first place?
A gust of wind could come along, and topple over the yagis, and kill a nearby person coming over for a look.
A element could come loose, becoming a missile in the wind, killing a child 100's of meters away, or cause a road accident, as it flies through the windscreen of a car.
A sudden rain shower could become an electrocution risk with operating generators.
Somebody could trip over YOUR coax at your one and only fixed location at a public lookout, and break a bone.

We can all instill fear with overly dramatic scenarios, that are just as valid.

If anyone is worried about H&S, then just have a home station station category.
Forget the whole concept of going outside altogether... it's way too dangerous.
And these days, we sure as hell don't want to be taking responsibility for our own actions either.

The more you think about this, a home station-only contest sounds sounds pretty good.
Closer to the fridge.
A flushing toilet nearby.
Internet.
A real shower and comfy bed.
The list goes on....

I might stub my toe on the way to the kitchen.
I might cut myself as I cut that slice of lime for the Corona... and these all become H&S issues, don't they?

Bloody hell.
We better not have any contests whatsoever.

A 3-hour time is too restrictive, even more so if you are participating for 8 hours only, and spend any time rigging and de-rigging.
And why should those who are near the junction of two or more squares be penalised?
If you've made all the contacts you're ever going to make in the first 30 minutes, there is nothing smart at all about not being able to relocate.

[VK2GOM]

That sounds like a full-on risk assessment for contesting completed satisfactorily Tick in the box!

Hazards = medium, likelihood = incredible, risk = negligible. Everything mitigated against by application of common sense and a third party insurance policy. Risk assessor now out of a job

However, I could tell you about the Christmas party that the council said needed a risk assessment completed in order to serve hot mince pies...

73 - Rob VK2GOM / G0MOH

[VK3KM]

Thanks to all who have made suggestions. So far I have come to these conclusions:

There should only be one rover section. This would reduce the pressure on rovers by allowing them to spread their activity over a longer period - but not necessarily as much as 24 hours - rather than trying to cram it all into eight hours. And with only one section, nobody needs to go it alone without the help of others who could take turns driving.

This change will require nothing more than adding one line to the rules, to define a rover station. The only definition needed is: "Rovers are stations that operate from more than a certain number of squares".

What is the magic number? I think reasonable choices would be 1, 2 or 3. I may be wrong, but to me 2 sounds like the most suitable number.

If the number is 1, bear in mind that it would prevent anyone in the non-rover sections from changing location at all without having to compete in the rover category. And if you work all comers in the first hour, boredom sets in.
If the number is 2, it would allow non-rover stations to generate more activity by moving and resetting the repeat contact time limit.
If the number is 3, it could discourage people in the non-rover sections who would like to be as competitive as possible but don't wish to move their stations more than once (or at all). Likewise for non-rovers who don't have access to a good grid intersection.

Whatever the number will be, it can be on a trial basis for the next Field Day and can be changed if it turns out to be not quite right.

John VK3KM

[VK3HZ]

... "Rovers are stations that operate from more than a certain number of squares"....2 sounds like the most suitable number.

I agree - keep the rule change simple and, as I've already said, I also think 2 is the right number.

Regards,
Dave.

[VK5ZD]

Hi All

Now that the new rules have been published I'm wondering how many stations will enter the rover category.
Any takers?

73
Iain

[VK5AGZ]

G'Day Iain

Count me in! I am keen to do a run up the B55 road, up into QF06, over to kulpara and then home.

I will need to get my 23cm tranvserter reliable ( I suspect TX drift). Will try and get along to the next EARC meeting on the 21st.

Cheers
Derek VK5AGZ