I really enjoyed this and the post from KR6X.
I suggest that anyone who thinks SO2R should be a separate class try an
all-out serious SO2R effort in the next contest. Borrow a station if you
have to. You will find that it's incredibly difficult -- a whole new level
of skill is required. My scores dropped the first season I tried SO2R, and
it took a couple more seasons before I even began to get the hang of it. I
still have a long way to go, and I think I'm going on four full years of
SO2R. Also, I suggest you ask yourself if SO2R is such a big advantage, why
W1WEF consistently makes the top ten as SO1R (and just a stack of
tribanders.)
My thesis is that the three most important things for a winning score are,
in this order -- skill, skill, and skill. Yeah, bigger antennas help a lot.
Hardline helps. Two rigs help. An understanding XYL helps (can we have a
separate category for people whose spouses don't like towers or contest
weekends?) But you will never win unless you develop your skills to the
highest level. I've seen incredible scores for partial efforts posted by
some of the nation's best contesters -- I can think of one case where the
score made the top ten with only about 30 hours put in. You want a separate
category? How about "Northeast QTH"? How about "Towers over 150'"? How about
"Three stacks or greater"? How about "Much better op than me"?
C'mon! This game is about doing what it takes to improve your score, whether
that means developing your skills (the best way), putting in more hours (the
second best way), building better antennas (the third best way), or
optimizing your radios (a distant fourth.) If you do the first two items,
you won't need a so-called level playing field. Stop grousing and get with
it!
73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Art Boyars [mailto:art.boyars@verizon.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:57 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Chiming in -- SO2R
>
>
> Having just finished my now-standard last-22-hours of the CW
> DX test at W3LPL, and seeing all the discussion going on here
> on the CQ-Contest Reflector (not subscribed; I read it on the
> Web), I feel like I have to get my opinions out there. I'm
> starting with SO2R; more to follow.
>
> Myself, I think that 2R should not be a separate class, but I
> can understand why others would disagree. (An aside -- I
> wish we could keep the personal attacks off the Reflector; if
> you must get personal (but why must you???), make it
> private.) The only valid rationale that I've seen is that 2R
> "doubles" the available listening time.
>
> However, there is a flaw in that thinking: you are assuming
> that "two radios" means two transceivers. Before SSCW 2004 I
> used separate TX and RX, without transceive. (In one
> write-up, I joked that that was not what they meant by two
> radios.) Many of you remember when that was all there was --
> and when a computer would have cost more than all the radios
> in a M/M station. Well, with separate TX and RX, all you
> need for listentening on another band while calling CQ or
> sending your report is a separate antenna, a CQ wheel (like
> W4KFC) or tape loop, and a little switching. Just like SO2R,
> but with only one receiver. Of course, you could set up a
> spare receiver just for listening, and bandswitch the main
> rig when you heard something good on the apare RX. Or you
> could set up a whole second rig. And I'm sure many good op's
> did. I have a vague memory of some people keeping one rig
> permanently on 40M for SSCW, and bandswitching the other rig.
> And I don't think there was any consideration of making this
> a separate class.
>
> So, then, the advantage of modern SO2R is in the increased
> agility that you get with modern transceivers and computer
> control (I remarked on that in my return to SS CW about four
> years ago; you could look it up). You can still get part of
> the advantage with just a second non-computered receiver
> (wanna buy an old R-4B?), and I don't think we'd consider
> THAT to be a separate class. From "spare RX" to modern SO2R
> there is pretty much a continuum, and, IMHO, there is no
> clear point at which the advantage merits a separate class.
> Heck, it's just more hardware, and it's too hard to satisfy
> everybody with distinctions there. And it's still one
> operator, showing amazing skills that are way beyond me (can
> anybody address the similarity with playing organ masterworks?).
>
> So, I'd like to know who is one-RX and who is 2-RX, but I'm
> willing to have them all in the same class. But you may
> disagree (civilly). And, if we have polite disagreement,
> let's settle it with some polite vote-taking. Gee whiz, it
> IS just a hobby.
>
> BTW, since the advantage of 2R is the increased listening
> time, perhaps anything else that gives you extra operating
> time should merit a separate class. Like, say, the OT's who
> learned to send with their off-hand so they could send while
> writing the info in the log. Or memory keyers, that let you
> do the same thing. Or computer logging. Or electronic
> keyers (didn't K5RC bring this one up a few years ago?). Or
> straight keys -- let's make everybody send by pumping the
> handle of a monster knife switch immersed in oil.
>
> Next on the docket -- "fixing" SS, and packet.
>
> 73, Art K3KU
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|