I don't dispute the 40 per cent advantage claimed by AA5AU, but to even
suggest that same 40 per cent advantage carries over into operator-decoded
modes is, I think, misleading.
There is an advantage to SO2R, no question, otherwise, folk wouldn't bother.
Is it an unfair advantage?
No, because that implies cheating. And because it implies that SO2R is
something not available to all operators. It is. And it is not a money
thing. One extra radio -- which most of us have already -- some coax and a
separate antenna -- again, which most of us have already when we switch from
a tribander to wires for 40 and 80. A check box in our logger (or line in
the .cfg file) and an extra serial port.
Boom! You're SO2R. And perhaps in three or four years of contesting, your
score will be back up to where it was as an SO1R.
Are there degrees of SO2R? Yes. Just like there are degrees of SO1R. You can
add amplifiers, bandpass filters, towers, stacked yagis, RatPak switch boxes
and all sorts of minutae, just like you can in SO1R. But you don't have to.
But just like you can be a budget-friendly SO1R, you can also be a
budget-friendly SO2R.
If you choose not to do SO2R, that is certainly your right.
Am I speaking from the viewpoint of someone trying to protect my own
interests in SO2R? No!
I have two radios, but I'm still at the point that any time I try to do
SO2R, I just get so frustrated I turn the darned second radio off. Lately, I
haven't even bothered to connect it back up.
All this being said, I think there is value in a category along the lines
suggested earlier: a basic station category. Height limits, single radio,
limit on number of elements, etc. And it would be OPTIONAL. You could, if
you choose, opt in to this class if your station qualified. But you wouldn't
have to.
That way, anyone who likes their chances as an SO1R swimming with the big
fish are not REQUIRED to enter any different category. I think this goes
along way to satisfying the "pull up your bootstraps" crowd while still
recognizing it can be of value to attracting newer contesters, who may well
graduate into the full category later.
73, kelly
ve4xt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Turner" <dezrat@copper.net>
To: "Bob Henderson" <bob@5b4agn.net>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO1R vs. SO2R
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 05:36:36 -0000, you wrote:
>
>
> >So why is SO2R different? It is different because it places substantial
> >skill demands upon the operator for benefit to be gained. Without
> >acquisition of these operator skills, which btw aren't so easily come by,
> >SO2R is an operator liability.
>
> ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------
>
> Absolutely correct. What you don't see however, is that when two
> highly skilled operators compete in an otherwise equal situation, the
> two radio setup will win every time, and by a large margin. The
> fundamental advantage is the hardware, not operator skill. Lack of two
> radio skill can be overcome with practice. Lack of a second radio can
> not be overcome by any amount of skill or practice.
>
> I should point out that I'm speaking primarily of RTTY contesting, not
> CW/SSB. I don't do enough CW/SSB contesting to have an opinion there.
>
> One of the top RTTY contesters, AA5AU, who has won every plaque in
> sight, stated that going to SO2R gave him about a 40% score advantage.
> That's for the SAME operator, SAME location and SAME station except
> for the second radio.
>
> That is an advantage roughly equal to that of HP/LP, SO/MO or
> assisted/unassisted and it deserves its own category just as those do.
> When contests are often won or lost by a percent or fraction of a
> percent, having a 40% advantage is too much to ignore.
>
> And of course, that's why the two radio guys go to all the trouble to
> do it in the first place.
>
> Bill, W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|