I'll be participating, but probably Saturday only as well, and a very limited rove.  I'll post again when I have it figured out.

John, AA5PR

I will be out roving, route still TBD, but will look for you. 

Wondering if anyone is planning to work the VHF contest this weekend.  I am thinking about going down to Gallinas Peak (DM74cf) on Saturday morning.  See if I can maybe work the locals on 6m, 2m and 70cm back in Albuquerque.  I don't plan to make it an overnight, since I won't have an FT-8 computer setup with my current power budget (45 watt solar panel and a battery), and once the local contacts have been worked, there's not much sense waiting around on 6m for a ssb contact to show up.

I have 23cm, 6cm and 3cm transverters, at ~10mW each, feeding horn antennas, (circuit-board yagi on 23cm) and could take them along to try if anyone will be out roving the south plains.  I doubt I can get back to Abq with them since the Manzano's would be in the way.

Hope to hear some folks around on Saturday.

-- Kyle, KC0LFQ

Scores, operating strategies, activity, and available stations to work are all geographically dependent in VHF/UHF contests. As Keith stated, the Pack Rats analysis and proposals are very much Northeast centric. We have a different set of issues here, and other parts of the country have different yet issues. It is not one size fits all.

Keith also makes a good point that the casual VHF/UHF contesters have gone to FT8 and abandoned SSB. They probably won’t come back. High rates for the veteran contesters that relied on that are probably gone with them.

Instead of monitoring 50.125 prior to the advent of FT8 and joining in the fray when they heard contest activity, the casual contester now hangs out on FT8 and goes with the flow when there is a contest. There is lots of stuff to work, it is straight forward to work, and the casual op works it. Except that now, the rate is much lower for the serious contester because the FT8 rates are lower and that is all the casual operator operates. The casual contester doesn’t notice the low rate much on FT8 because they didn’t have that great a rate on SSB/CW as a casual operator, spending most of their time in search and pounce mode rather than running. In some (many?) cases the casual contester probably has a higher rate on FT8 than on SSB/CW, particularly if the casual operator mainly searched and pounced on SSB/CW. One consequence of this is that the casual contester has become more competitive with the serious contester. I am not sure that this point has been seen or made clearly by those who are concerned with the impacts of FT8 on VHF/UHF contesting.

I offer no simple solutions. Or difficult ones for that matter. Certainly one thing that would help is if the digital guys would go to FT4, which has a faster rate, and although one is probably not going to get to the 150 or 200 an hour, one can probably double the FT8 rates if the activity is there.

The digital impact is not a new phenomena, but more people have perceived its impact negatively with the widespread adoption of FT8. In the January and September contests, the numbers of 6M multipliers has grown steadily with the introduction of FSK441 and MSK144 over the past 20 years. It has been hard to be competitive on 6M and 2M in the last 10 years or so without the additional multipliers that meteor scatter brings. It is even hard to be competitive on 2M without digital EME capability.

I would take issue with some of the points WA3NUT makes in the PackRats article. For one, I am fairly sure that no casual contester is going to remember and use the band/mode code they suggest for QSYing. It is too convoluted. In the July CQ WW VHF contest AA5PR and I made a decision before the contest to QSY to 2M after working on 6M. This worked well except for the time I forgot to do so. Roving with WSJT is not that much of an equipment impact as they make it out to be, particularly if one is already computer logging and computer controlling the rig. I think it does add some additional time at a grid when 6M is open though, but a QSO is a QSO. With an additional op, one can make up for some of this lost time by operating in motion, which WSJT is interestingly enough well suited for.

One of the problems in gathering and analyzing data is that reporting by modes is not required in the VHF/UHF contests, and the digital modes (not RTTY) have only been recognized as a Cabrillo tag for about 5 years. That makes it hard to draw definitive conclusions from available data.

Keith’s point about participation numbers primarily being a good metric for non-contesters and that veteran contesters look at other things is accurate. But it is hard to argue against more participants making more QSOs in more grids with the digital modes than with the analog modes. The narrowing of winning margins may be alarming to veteran contesters but it does make the casual (average?) contester more competitive.

I am not sure what, if any, rules changes can bring back the high rates that many veteran contesters crave. If rates are important, it is important to note that the casual contester, with a modestly equipped station probably achieves a higher rate with FT8 than they did searching and pouncing. It will be difficult to pry the casual contester away from that.

It is unpleasant to live through these abrupt changes in paradigms, whether it be in contesting or other areas. For an understanding of how science deals with this, I recommend “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn. What we are seeing is not too different than the changes that occurred when astronomers transitioned from the geocentric to the heliocentric models of the universe, or when classical mechanics transitioned to relativistic mechanics, or when quantum mechanics took over for the desire that atoms behave continuously.

VHF/UHF contesting has forever changed. We need to adapt to those changes. - Duffey KK6MC

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021, Keith Morehouse wrote:

So, does anybody in CO/NM want to WIN a contest ? Note the number of
Qs in the recent 222 and up contest from both the region including CO
and the region including NM. Don't ever say you can't win anything !

It's not so much about the _winning_ . I just want to compete amongst a
significant group of ops. Being Number One with an asterisk is no great
draw.

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | W3DHJ | W3DHJ | https://W3DHJ.net/
Pueblo, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | __ linux FreeBSD
38.238N 104.547W | jonz.net | DM78rf | 73 SK

"Subsequently, FT8 significantly discourages rover activity "
-- that comment.

This packrats newsletter (attached) has some discussion on FTx in VHF/UHF contests, along with some proposals for making the most of the situation. IMO, a small bandaid on a gaping wound, but at least they’re trying.

Bruce AA5B

Damn! I wish I had known you had 144MHz, AA5PR and I QSYed to 2M after each 6M FT8 QSO. Put more mults in the log. - Duffey

Got ambitious and set up my “Rover Simulator” for the contest — OK but unexciting. Nice to work KK6MC and AA5PR in several grids. Glad I was too lazy to dismantle the rig today.  Went out to the driveway about an hour ago and snagged KL7NC for #50 on 6m. Just back from the wine run!

Jonesy,

Well, you beat me.   I ended up with 20 contacts ( all on Saturday ).  You are right that Sunday was a major bummer here.  Only heard you, Duncan, K0NR, and K0ETT and I had worked all of you.  Still more contacts than I had last year, though and I worked Albuquerque on 2M SSB so that was the crown jewel of the weekend ( other than working you four times that is! ).

73's,
David
KB0KQI

Duffy,

I did copy your CW CQ around 2330z on .200 - Q5S5, when I was in DM77. 
But you never copied or heard my reply, and I never heard you again.

Well, I probably won First Place Colorado Rover, unless
there is a Minimum Qualifying Score for this contest.

At first I was really bummed because I only logged 36 valid
contest contacts. But, I checked back and I had logged
only 31 in the CQ WW VHF 2015, and
only 29 in CQ WW VHF 2016.
So, it was my third worse.
(And, I have no memory of the misery in 2015 and 2016.)

RoverLog QSOs by Activated Grid:
Grid QSOs
DM77 7
DM78 8
DM87 6
DM88 14

RoverLog Score Summary,
Band QSOs Value QSOPts Mults
50 15 1 15 13
144 20 2 40 9

Totals: 35 55 22

Claimed Score: 1210

Old School: SSB & CW

Only 7 out-of-state (6M) contacts -- 6 Calif., and 1 EN16.

It was REALLY GRIM at times on Sunday.
In DM77 I only logged one contact from 1520z to 1655z.
In DM87 I logged NO contacts in my 2 hours there.
In DM88 I logged only 2 contacts in 1.5 hours.

I could have kept the log in my head,
instead of wasting a whole clay tablet.

I'd like to thank Duncan, WE7L, who always seemed to pop
up and engage me in a short QSO when my spirits and Q-rate
were at zero.

And, my cringe-worthy CW notwithstanding, it is damn hard
to send anything intelligible by straight key when you
have horse flies biting you on the arm!

Always demonstrating the triumph of hope over experience,
73 Jonesy W3DHJ
--
Marvin L Jones | W3DHJ | W3DHJ | https://W3DHJ.net/
Pueblo, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | __ linux FreeBSD
38.238N 104.547W | jonz.net | DM78rf | 73 SK

Where I have coverage, I will beacon on APRS. Look on APRS.Fi for me. -Duffey KK6MC/r

James Duffey KK6MC
Cedar Crest NM