VHF Field Day 2025 – Results Published

You are encouraged to share this post with your friends, acquaintances, colleagues and family by all channels available to you.

News posts, such as this, published on the SBARC website are reposted via a number of other channels including social media feeds and our Groups.io mailing lists. These external services may alter the formatting or layout of the original News Post. If you want to see this News Post in its original form please visit the SBARC website News page and follow the link or links to the story or stories of your choice.

Summary

We have a more operation specific summary of our onslaught on VHF Field Day in 2025 our website at https://www.sbarc.co.uk/club-activities/vhf-field-day/vhf-nfd-2025/; this page is just the results.

We participated in the Low Power Class on the 50MHz, 70MHz and 144MHz bands. There were a total of 6 clubs participating in this class although a couple more had low power entries in the “Mix and Match” category:

• North East Surrey Contest Group operated low power on 144MHz and 1.2GHz in addition to their other entries on 50MHz, 70MHz and 432MHz.
• Northern Fells Contest Group operated low power on 70MHz, 144Mhz and 1.2GHz in addition to their other entries on 50MHz and 432MHz.
• Salop ARS operated low power on 1.2GHz in addition to their other entries 50MHz, 70MHz, 144MHz and 432MHz.
• Swindon and District ARC operated low power on 1.2GHz in addition to their other entries on 50MHz, 70MHz, 144MHz and 432MHz.
• Trowbridge and District ARC operated low power on 432MHz in addition to their other entries on 50MHz, 70MHz, 144MHz and 1.2GHz

The results on each band in the low power class are presented below:

50MHz Low Power

One QSO was found to be in error due to an incorrect Locator, all information was passed correctly as there were no reverse errors.

Our error rate on 50MHz was 4.17% compared to the contest average of 5.00%.

70MHz Low Power

Four QSOs were found to be in error: one with an incorrect received signal report, one incorrect callsign and two callsigns were logged without the /P. There was one reverse error which does not cost us any points but shows that the Camb Hams team didn’t log our QSO.

Our error rate on 70MHz was 21.05% compared to the contest average of 4.76%.

144MHz Low Power

Eleven QSOs were found to be in error, all but one of these was incurred on the Saturday. The errors were varied: there were a couple of obvious typos where additional letters crept into the callsign despite the built in error checking within the logging program. A number of callsigns were logged with omitted suffixes along with a couple of incorrect suffixes and an incorrect RST.

There were also a number of reverse errors which did not cost us any points. Again 4 of the 5 Reverse Errors occurred on the Saturday. A number of these were caused by having a received serial number that was consistently out by one which is probably a systematic error with the wrong part of the screen of the logging program being read.

Our error rate on 144MHz was 16.18% compared to the contest average of 5.68%.

432MHz Low Power

We did not participate in the 432MHz band.

1.2GHz Low Power

We did not participate on 1.2GHz.

Observations

There are insufficient entries on the 50MHz band to make any comparisons but the very low average score per QSO, which correlates directly with the average distance per QSO since 1 point = 1km, supports other comments in the VHF Field Day 2025 Contest Committee report. As the only entry in this class on 50MHz the small amount of errors recorded had no impact on the placement.

On 70MHz, although we managed a very small number of contacts, when compared to the other Low Power participants our average distance was better than the third place entry and our best DX distance was on a par with the second place entry so our performance wasn’t as poor as the total score and position would suggest. Although we lost some points due to logging errors these made no difference to our final position as, based on the averages, we only lost about 600 points and the group above us were 1256 points ahead.

On 144MHz we were a mid placed operation but our average distance and our best DX distance was very comparible with other entries. The loss of points due to logging errors cost us, based on averages, 2062 points. As the North East Surrey Contest group, who were placed 3rd immediately above us, were 7959 points ahead the loss of points due to logging errors had no effect on our final placement.

Final Results

We can compare our performance with these other low power operations as the normalisation process takes into account all scores in the class even if the operation will be in the “Mix and Match” category.

Our performance this year was better than anticipated, helped clearly by a quirk of the scoring system: