[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] So2R

Subject: [CQ-Contest] So2R
From: W4EF@dellroy.com (Michael Tope)
Date: Sat Jan 25 11:48:10 2003

The real trick is defining SO2R. If I have two rigs that are on
during the contest, does that make me SO2R? Not necessarily.
Perhaps I just listen occasionally on the second rig to see if
another band is open. Would you want to discourage a "single
operator" from doing that? Is that the same as a guy who
is calling CQ on another band while he is copying the exchange
from a yet to be completed QSO? How about the guy who
has one of these fancy rigs with two receivers? Which category
would he fall into? SO1R, SO2R, or SO1.5R?

I suspect the only practical way to distinguish between SO1R
and SO2R is by the number of band changes. This shows up
in the log, so it would be enforceable (very important). The
SO2R guys could make an unlimited number of band changes
each hour, whereas the SO1R guys would have some finite
number that they would have to ration. A guy with a full SO2R
station could still compete in the SO1R class, but he would be
limited in is ability to make second radio QSOs as would
the guy with one rig and 1 set of antennas.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about this subject. While
the emergence of SO2R has raised the level of competition
in the single operator class, it has to some extent made orphans
of the folks who aren't in a position to invest in the extra hardware
needed to be competitive. Of course one can make the same
argument about the guy who isn't in a position to invest in a
100' tower and yagis. If a separate class is created for SO1R,
it should be the class to carry the pejorative stigma (kind of like
single op-assisted or single operator, tribander w/wires), not
SO2R. SO2R should continue to be permitted in the mainstream
"single operator" category. After all, even in SO2R, one guy
(or gal) is making all the QSOs (e.g. Single Operator).

73 de Mike, W4EF......................

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sylvan Katz" <jskatz@sk.sympatico.ca>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] So2R

> > SO2R ops win not because they have an unfair advantage, it's because
> > have taught themselves to be better operators. We should celebrate that,
> not
> And if you believe that I have a bridge for sale :)
> Common sense tells us that Formula One race cars should not be allowed to
> enter the  local stock car race. Just like common sense tells us that
> multi-single stations should not be entered in to the same category as
> single-op. SO2R should be a category of its own UNTIL it becomes main
> stream. For example, packet is almost mainstream - I could live with
> dropping the assisted category but SO2R is far from mainstream and I
> it will remain out of the mainstream for some time to come.
> >The bottom line in my opinoin is that SO2R is just one of the 'tricks of
> the trade' that
> >folks use. Some are good at it, some are EXCELLENT at it, some are not.
> Some will use
> >it, some won't.  Until a body of evidence exsists for analysis to arrive
> a valid
> >deduction.. all the rest is, as Ron puts it, personal agenda and/or
> conjecture.
> Let me see high power is a 'trick of the trade' -- it has its own
> Packet is a 'trick of the trade' --  it has its own category for single
> Multiple operators is a 'trick of the trade' -- its has two categories.
> There seems to be something missing from the logic of the above reasoning.
> ... Sylvan
> Sylvan Katz, VE5ZX
> Saskatoon, SK
> http://www.dynamicforesight.com/~ve5zx
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>