[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] SOxR -- enough already

To: "'Greg Fields'" <gwfields@comcast.net>,<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SOxR -- enough already
From: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:43:13 +0200
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
my 2 cents into this funny everlasting discussion.

It does not matter how big advantage SO2R gives ot how hard it is do it. Of
course it gives you advantage and of course it requires some skill do it.
But the same way operating split using two VFO's on 40m SSB requires 2 VFO's
and some skill. It is not so hard to listen to mixed signals. SO2R is not
difficult. Anybody who has two ears (or even one for that matter) can do
SO2R if he has the equipment and can get some advantage.

It is of course possible if the majority demands and organizers decide so to
make SO2R a different category by trying to define using more than 1
receiver. But you will still have only 1 signal in the air. And it will be
very difficult to define more than one receiver. Any tranceiver with 2 VFO's
has it and should be classified SO2R. Otherwise people with new equipment
like FT9000's will get away with having SO2R in one radio. It is virtually
impossible to define it properly and clearly not rational and sensible to
try make that a separate catergory given the state of sophistication and
different varieties in nowadays radios. And it is true that it is comparable
to suggesting making separate category for any other equipment related
advantage in the field of antennas or station automation.

Categories for different power levels are clearly justified stemming from
history and overwhelming need for LP and assisted vs non-assisted probably
the same. Although the cluster cheating is too widespread in EU now those
guys will go down soon and will learn their lesson and we get order in this


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg Fields
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:55 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SOxR -- enough already

> A station with only one radio can not compete against one with two.
> Other factors being equal, they will lose every time, just as an LP
> station will lose to an HP station every time.  Some people will want
> to add a second radio just as some people will want to add an
> amplifier, but nobody should have to do either to be competitive. That
> is why the various classes exist in the first place - to keep
> competition as equal as reasonably possible and make it fair and fun
> for all.

Adding a second radio isn't like turning on an amplifier. Heck, anyone can
go out and buy and amp and run it in a contest. It's easy. Hook it up, turn
it on, and go!

Adding a second radio doesn't make one competitive if they don't know how to
do SO2R. In fact, I say from experience a second radio at first is such a
distraction that it subtracts from the score. I have been working on SO2R
for about 8 years now in SS and NAQP. It has taken a lot of time to get to
the point where the second radio has actually become productive for me. It
takes a log of mental gymnastics to be able to make it work. It's definitely
a skill one must learn and that's the whole point. SO2R is a skill an
operator learns to be competitive. It's not throwing a switch and instantly
being competitive. For those who don't want to make the effort you can still
enjoy the contest but, don't expect to beat someone who has put all the time
and effort into becoming proficient at S02R.

Contesting is also not about being fair for all. If that were the case then
some sort of new rule needs to be put in place for us in the Black Hole to
compete with the rest of you in propagation advantaged areas. Come to
Minnesota and you'll see what I'm talking about. :-)


Greg K0OB

CQ-Contest mailing list

__________ NOD32 2659 (20071115) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>