I doubt that KE0L and N2TK are talking about N6MJ's performances at
ZF2MJ and KP3Z. Maybe they can clarify.
Since you left out what they originally said, I'll repeat it here:
On 04/05/2016 08:15 PM, Jim Fielder wrote:
Me too! I think so2r is a huge advantage over so1r. I bet we would see more
newbies stay with contesting if they felt they had a fighting chance to win
with their so1r setup. They put in a FT effort only to find out someone has
50% more Qs than they have. After all this is a competition so they should be
in their own class. Then when they are ready they too can invest in multiple
towers with stacked beams and so2r. If it is the goal to increase activity in
contesting I feel we should not scare away those SO1R operators but rather
recognize their efforts.
73, Jim
KE0L
On Apr 5, 2016, at 5:20 PM, N2TK, Tony <tony.kaz@verizon.net> wrote:
For my own selfish reasons I would like to see SO1R and SO2R Unassisted
separate.
73,
N2TK, Tony
On 04/06/2016 09:19 AM, john@kk9a.com wrote:
I used to also believe this but it is incorrect. Look how many 2nd radio
QSOs N6MJ made in CQWW CW. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no8nGGa99cE
John KK9A
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net
From: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
Reply-to: n2ic@arrl.net
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 08:09:16 -0600
SO2R has a very small effect on the number of QSO's made in a contest. The
number of 2nd radio QSO's I make in major contests is always less than 10%
of the total number of QSO's. The primary advantage of SO2R is finding
multipliers, not QSO's.
As a reminder, CQWW has a "Classic" overlay category that is SO1R-only.
It's also 24 hours - you pick the 24 hours. Lots of fun.
73,
Steve, N2IC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|