[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] High Rate Dual Radio CQing

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] High Rate Dual Radio CQing
From: "Stephen Bloom" <sbloom@acsalaska.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 07:35:19 -0900
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

Agree with all with one additional factor.  For most of us ....dueling pileups 
is just something that wouldn't cross our mind.  The best operator out there 
...operating from W6 or W4 ...just isn't going to generate pileups ..at least 
not for very long.  It would be great to have that skill level ...it would give 
one the big advantage of being able to do something with Radio 2 in that first 
hour or two of pure running but that would be about it for those of us working 
from non rare mults.  One thing I'm learning as I do the travel thing is 
...every contest is a completely different cat dependent on where one operates.

It seems to me ...rather than go through all the agita of category shopping 
..it's easier to add a couple of extra categories for the guys who aren't 
interested in staying at the leading edge.  The "Classic 24 hour" example for 
WPX.  Understand that most "cheating" in any category is dependent on self 
enforcement.  People don't get caught unless they do something blatant.  
Speaking for myself ..  as an example ..I won SOABHP Assist in WW CW last year 
for Oceania (from E51), got the cert etc.  Didn't give any thought to it.  I've 
always assumed the serious ops would be assisted except for SS.   Were I non 
assisted ...I would have been sixth.  No intent on category shopping, I just 
didn't realize that in that part of the world, the competition was in 
Unassisted.  If I'm back there, I'd go Non Assist so it would be clear how I 
compared ...but even without that ...anyone looking at "All scores single 
operator" can tell that Assisted doesn't help in that contest from that part of 
the world.  No biggie.

Steve KL7SB

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 6:06 AM
To: n2ic@arrl.net
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] High Rate Dual Radio CQing

Hi Steve,

I submit that's not the point of SO2R, it's merely the level of proficiency 
most users have settled into. These folks have simply evolved past that level.

I was reacting to the suggestion, though admittedly not by you, there was 
something illegal about the practice or that there needed to be a new category. 
Contesting is unique in that it's one sport where people of all different 
abilities compete. If you were a sprinter but can't get your time in the 100 
down to the 10-seconds range, guaranteed you're not going to line up next to 
Usain Bolt. If you're a driver who has trouble driving safely at 55, guaranteed 
you're never lining up behind Jeff Gordon. 

But in contesting, the bad drivers and slow sprinters are in the same field as 
the Usain Bolts and Jeff Gordons. To some people, it seems that means we need 
to tie an anchor to Usain or give Jeff Gordon a restrictor plate. I would 
prefer we marvel at and celebrate the abilities of ZF2MJ et al. 

I'm pretty sure I will never be at that level, but that's my fault. It's not up 
to these folks or contest organizers to dumb anyone down to my level. 

73, Kelly 

Sent from my iPad

> On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/06/2015 07:27 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>> Granted, however, if you have good antenna systems on both bands (and good 
>> propagation on both) and you’re running dueling CQs, isn’t a potential 
>> outcome of both CQs an answer to each, and the ability to answer each in 
>> sequence? Wasn’t that the point of SO2R in the first place?
> No. The point of SO2R, for the vast majority of SO2R users, is to run on one 
> radio, while S&P on another radio, with a lockout to prevent transmitting on 
> both radios simultaneously.
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
CQ-Contest mailing list

CQ-Contest mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>