As others have pointed out, I would also like to see more OVERLAYs.
In the SAC there have been a new OVERLAY called "Wire-only" for two years
now and it is very popular.
Results for Scandinavian stations for 2016 CW can be found here.
http://www.sactest.net/blog/result/region_results.php?&mode=CW®ion=73
It would be nice to change ASS/UNASS to an OVERLAY instead of a category.
And add SO1R, SO2R as OVERLAYs
Then the only 3 classes in every category is HI - LO - QRP.
Vy 73 de OZ1BII Henning
---------------- - - - - - - --------------------- - - - - - -------------
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] På vegne af Mike
Ritz
Sendt: 10. august 2017 17:06
Til: Contest List
Emne: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R vs SO1R
While you don't necessarily need separate categories for SO2R verses SO1R,
it would be interesting to note which is which, at least in the 3830
listings. I know there is a box to checkmark as to whether the SO effort was
SO2R, but nothing seems to ever be done with that data.
If I'm in a contest as a Single Op I'm only ever going to run SO1R, the way
it used to be. It would be nice to at least be able to compare my scores in
3830 with comparable stations. I've never going to beat a SO2R guy, but I'd
like to know how I compare to other stations also running "old fashioned"
SO1R. I do use the "tribander and wires" overlay for CQWW SO contests, but I
guess with triplexers now in use these could also be SO2R now too.
73;
Mike
W7VO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mymts.net>
To: "Ria Jairam" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Cc: "Trent Sampson" <vk4ts@outlook.com>, "cq-contest@contesting.com"
<CQ-Contest@contesting.com>, "Dave Edmonds" <dave@pkministrywebs.com>, "John
Geiger" <af5cc2@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 7:06:29 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R vs SO1R
Hi Ria,
You're right that it's not merely a learned skill, however skill remains the
primary barrier to entry, not equipment.
Many hams already have what they need to do SO2R. A second radio, a second
antenna. For many, coax stubs are all the filtering they need, if it turns
out they need any at all.
Just because some SO2R ops have pairs of IC-7851s, pairs of ACOM2000s,
thousands of dollars in Dunestar gear and multiple stacks on multiple towers
covering multiple acres does not mean such is required.
Those with that level of equipment will most likely do better than a guy
with a tribander at 50 feet and a 5btv on the back fence, but that disparity
is going to exist in SO1R, too.
Indeed, it's likely, all other things being equal, a semi-competitive op
running SO1R at a K3LR-equivalent station is probably going to wipe the
floor with a comparable op running SO2R at any average suburban station.
Moreover, it's not as though you turn on the second radio for the first time
and double your score.
More useful than the SOxR debate may be a discussion about levels of
equipment. As has been pointed out, a JK Big-Tri at 150' and dipoles at 150
and 200 feet qualify for TB-single wires.
Perhaps instead of added categories, have everyone play in the same pond but
have optional overlays, or optional declarations of equipment.
And then offer online a tool to filter results accordingly. Such could be
limited only by the imagination of the coder.
Want to see how well you do against other operators running single-tube
receivers, crystal-controlled transmitters and end-fed random wires? Or
single 100-w radios, 50-foot towers, 3-el trapped tribanders and inverted
vees? Have at it.
You could even offer downloadable certificates at virtually no cost.
73, kelly, ve4xt
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 10, 2017, at 09:32, Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I also don't agree with splitting out the category, however to dismiss it
simply as a learned skill is inaccurate. One must have a SO2R capable
station which takes investment in time and money over a SO1R station.
Usually you have 2x the radios, plus antenna separation (real estate) and
filtering. In contests that allow it, you have two amplifiers as well. This
isn't trivial by any means.
>
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
>
>
>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:21 AM Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net> wrote:
>> I don't support the notion we should create new categories just because
some folks have developed a skill the rest of us choose not to.
>>
>> Harrison Bergeron, a short story by Kurt Vonnegut, explores this issue
very well.
>>
>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Aug 9, 2017, at 23:21, Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > The Flex-6700 and 6600 can do that as well but they are marketed as
>> > SO2R in a box.
>> >
>> > The experience with N1MM+ is virtually identical to using two radios.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ria, N2RJ
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:30 PM, John Geiger <af5cc2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> And don't forget with the Yaesu FTDX9000 series you can run full
>> >> duplex-transmit on one band while listening on another at the same
time.
>> >> You would still be single op-1 radio, though, because it is only one
radio.
>> >>
>> >> 73 John AF5CC
>> >>
>> >>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Trent Sampson <vk4ts@outlook.com>
wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Dave
>> >>>
>> >>> In answer to your questions
>> >>>
>> >>> Is a category for number of receivers needed in the world of
contesting?
>> >>>
>> >>> No - the name of the event is Contest - "an event in which people
>> >>> compete for supremacy in a sport or other activity, or in a
>> >>> quality.
>> >>> "a tennis contest" synonyms: competition, match, tournament, game,
meet"
>> >>>
>> >>> If we were entering a Radio participation event that would be
>> >>> different and everyone can win a Certificate
>> >>>
>> >>> How are SO1R ops doing in other contests competing against SO2Rs?
>> >>> SO2R is dependent on the contest , for a contest rich in activity
>> >>> and multipliers eg the CQWPX the advantage is less although it
>> >>> does help to be able to sample activity on another band
>> >>>
>> >>> Does not having a "number of receivers" category discourage SO1Rs
>> >>> from competing?
>> >>> These days - well, since the FT1000D there are plenty of contest
>> >>> ready radios that have dual band capability built in and with SDR
>> >>> receivers becoming so cheap there is little holding a station
>> >>> back At 100 watts the bar to entry to SO2R is very low - split
>> >>> antenna, a second radio and some coax stubs, a controller (some
>> >>> can be done in
>> >>> software) and away you go.
>> >>>
>> >>> Are there any contests that have such a category?
>> >>> Not that I am aware and to be honest , I feel, we have to many
>> >>> categories as it stands.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Trent
>> >>> VK4TS
>> >>> Po Box 275 Mooloolaba QLD 4557
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
>> >>> Behalf Of Dave Edmonds
>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017 12:43 AM
>> >>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> >>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] SO2R vs SO1R
>> >>>
>> >>> The top 25 players (according to 3830scores.com) in the NAQP CW
>> >>> contest were running SO2R. Congrats to N9NB a SO1R op who broke
>> >>> the chain of SO2R scores.. The concern I saw was that there were
>> >>> no SO1R stations anywhere near the top scores in the NAQP LP
>> >>> category. There was a very wide score margin between the two types of
operation too...
>> >>>
>> >>> Is a category for number of receivers needed in the world of
contesting?
>> >>>
>> >>> How are SO1R ops doing in other contests competing against SO2Rs?
>> >>>
>> >>> Does not having a "number of receivers" category discourage SO1Rs
>> >>> from competing?
>> >>>
>> >>> Are there any contests that have such a category?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>> 73s Dave WN4AFP
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> >>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> >>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> >>>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|