[MiQP-Mail] Rover or Portaable Category for MiQP?

[David Pruett]

Hank,

Thanks for your ideas concerning a rover/portable category.  The problem 
with adding more categories (beyond having to award more plaques and 
more complexity in the scoring writeup) is that it dilutes the 
competition, particularly in a small contest like MiQP.  MiQP is already 
more complex than OhQP - in the mobile category we have single-op and 
multi-op, while OhQP only has multi, and in the fixed station 
multi-operator category we have single transmitter and multi-transmitter 
while OhQP only has multi.  Not saying the OhQP is wrong, but this is 
indicative of where the MiQP committee has chosen to invest in more 
categories.

In SO QRP this year, there were only two in-state entries.  One got a 
plaque and the other got a certificate.  The third place certificate 
went wanting for a recipient.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing 
we get rid of SO QRP, just that its important to offer a set of 
categories which can provide competition.

Jim/K8MR have on occasion wrestled with the question of adding a rover 
category.  I know he is a fan of it.  I also believe he is disappointed 
in how little activity the category generates in OhQP.

As for multi-county operation, such operation used to be allowed in 
MiQP.  But a number of years back, a couple entries went overboard with 
such operations, and caused a tremendous amount of on-air ill will and 
chaos.  It was the first change made when MRRC took over MiQP in 1999, 
and nobody complained.  So it's not coming back in the near future.

The MiQP committee is always interested in hearing suggestions from 
anyone, so thanks again for your note.

73,

Dave/K8CC

Hank Greeb wrote:
> Just a thought - OQP has a Rover category, ILQP has a portable category 
> (they even allow "parking" or "setting up" on the intersections of 
> counties, and claiming up to four contacts/counties per station worked - 
> which proved very interesting this year for me).
>
> For example, I've located three spots in public locations within about 
> 10 miles of each other for Ionia, Montcalm, and Kent counties.  It would 
> be interesting to set up in each of these places with portable antennae, 
> and rotate between them every two hours or so (so that propagation 
> variations could be washed out and each location given the same 
> probability to be worked by stations at various distances from these 
> locations).  The first round would include antenna erection, though I'd 
> plan to leave the antennae up until the end of the contest.  (In Ohio it 
> seems that folks are penalized because they have to move their antennae 
> when they're operating as rovers - they can't come back to the same spot 
> without suffering the downtime of antenna erection.  Therefore the early 
> counties favor 40 and 20 metres, often with skip zones on 40 so Ohio 
> stations don't hear those counties, and the out of state stations may 
> not hear the later counties because propagation on 80 isn't all that long.)
>
> Either allowing setting up at a county line (for both mobiles and 
> portables), or allowing portables/rovers to operate with antennae which 
> are initially transported in one vehicle but left up during the contest 
> period, might add a bit of a "zinger" to the contest.
>
> Now, I'll run for cover while the flak descends upon me for such a brash 
> suggestion.
>
> 73 de n8xx Hg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MiQP-Mail mailing list
> MiQP-Mail at miqp.org
> http://mail.miqp.org/mailman/listinfo/miqp-mail_miqp.org
>
>
>