If this was Nascar what would be happening is that most of us would have
one car in the race. The super stations have 8 or 6 or 4. The rules
should reflect how the vast majority operate not be written for the few.
W0MU
On 5/10/2017 7:02 AM, Gerry Hull wrote:
Hi Yuri,
No offense taken.
Take the NASCAR analogy. Yes, I expect people to push the rules -- like
they do in car racing. When they found certain techniques were causing
completely out-of-bound results, they reigned in the rules.
My point of view is yes, an 8-station M/S certainly is advancing the state
of the technology art -- and I have no problem with the people doing it, in
fact I'm in awe from the technology perspective.. However, what is it
doing for contesting overall? Maybe I'm a bit too altruistic. If the
three or four stations worldwide who use this technique dominate M/S for
many years to come, what have they proven? That they can win by pushing
the rules to the absolute limit. There is inherently nothing wrong with
that -- that is part of what competition is.
What does it do to participation in the category is another question
completely.
I can argue the same point about remote: So far, in general, it have
proven a challenge to generate the same level of scores from a remote as
you can from being on location. As skills and technology improve, I think
you will see this change. The ability to put rare multipliers on, and, the
ability of contesters to come back into the fold (who are QRT in
covenant-restricted QTHs), I would argue, has huge benefit to all the in
the contest community. Just ask a lot of contesters in southern California
or Florida.
The purpose of this reflector, hopefully, other than a bitch session, is to
express ideas. Let's continue the discussion.
Yuri, we can talk about it more over a beer in Dayton...
73, Gerry W1VE
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Yuri <ve3dz@rigexpert.net> wrote:
Gerry, I understood your point.
Please don't take it as an offence.
Just look at it from this angle:
There are RULES in the Contest, and serious contesters study rules, find
the way how to use technology to advance the score without breaking the
rules and then do a great deal of technological, intellectual and financial
investments into realizing their ideas...
And then someone who don't (or can't) do the same start to complaining.
At least that's how it looks sometimes (again, no offence!).
Isn't is the same with the idea of remote contesting, the idea which you
really love and support?
I don't know what needs to be done to attract more competitors to the M/S
category... Maybe creating a new sub-category, something like "Classic",
just for M/S, would help?
Yuri
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Gerry Hull
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 9:29 PM
To: Ria Jairam
Cc: CQ-Contest; Yuri
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What is Multi to you?
If you think I'm complaining, I'm not. You've missed my point. I don't
give a hoot -- I enjoy the game, and finishing behind those 8-station guys
in M/S is just fine with me.
It just keeps eliminating more and more people from the game. Exactly
what we don't want. That's my only worry.
73, Gerry W1VE
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Why all this complaining I wonder? We have stations griping about how
it's not "fair" and how people have "too many advantages."
Guess what - life is not fair!!! In sports the bigger, stronger,
faster one will win. In radio sport the big guns closer to
advantageous areas and who can do SO2R will win. That's just how it
is. If you're out west and tired of being beaten, then come pay the
high taxes and enjoy the harsh winters out east. Or maybe pay a remote
service and use one of their stations in Maine or New York and win a
plaque. Turn key plug and play.
Meaningless in my eyes (YOU didn't build that), but if you're so badly
after a plaque that is one way.
I have a single tower station with one radio and one amp. I do fairly
well. I win the district sometimes and even squeak my way into the top
10 sometimes. I'm happy with that, but I could improve and do better
in the placement. But let's be honest. Someone could dump a ton of
money and build a multi tower station complete with low band 4
squares. They'll beat me. Is that fair? Maybe it isn't. But I'm not
going to knee cap them because I want to win. I just deal with it.
Ria
N2RJ
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org> wrote:
I have no problem with Dual CQ SO2R, Yuri. These are great advances
in technique and show excellent operator skill and innovation.
Time Division Multiplexing 8 operators and radios to a "single"
radio, IMHO, is not the same thing and is not in the spirit of the
rules. It is simply a technology technique which is within the
letter of the rules, but not the spirit.
Yes, I have to accept it if the rules may not change. I DO accept it...
However, I don't think it is a good way to encourage new M/S teams to
participate.
We all have our opinions, these are mine.
73, Gerry W1VE
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Yuri <ve3dz@rigexpert.net> wrote:
Gerry,
Isn't SO2R Dual CQ operation (a-la CT1BOH, N6MJ etc.) is the same
type
of
<quote> "elimination of a lot of people from ever being in
contention
for
top spots in the category" <unquote>?
All that you said below is true for ANY category.
I think it's all about the rules.
If they aren't broken and they allow to do such, then... one either
needs
to change the rules or has to accept the fact. Maybe it's time to
research
some other ways to attract (more) new competitors, like doing more
WRTC-style (live) competitions during June FDays, working more
closely
with
schools, colleges and other youth organizations and so on...
Best regards,
Yuri VE3DZ
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf
Of
Gerry Hull
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What is Multi to you?
Interesting Thread.
I've been contesting over 40 years. In all that time, 99% of my
efforts have been at M/S or M/2 stations.
For more than 30 of those years, a multi-single was a station with
one main radio and one multiplier radio.
With a single tower and a good antenna complement, winning M/S in
North America has been possible with two radios. We did it at more
than one station.
If you read my comments on CQ Contest, you know that I don't live
in the past -- I love technology, and advancing the state of the
art is where
I'm
at.
However, in this case, I think the case of N radios in a M/S is a
bastardization of M/S. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
I applaud the Huge M/S multi-radio efforts by K1LZ and others --
very
cool
technology -- but all that does is eliminate a lot of people from
ever being in contention for top spots in the category. If you
look at the
size
of the scores in these 5-to-10 radio Multi-singles, they are
completely
out
of line with "traditional" multi-singles.
In CQWW, there used to be a category for "experimental" operations ...
I'm sure those guys building those huge M/S operations would not
accept being put in to such a category... However, how do we
encourage new stations, and long-time "traditional" M/S stations to
compete in the category?
Since there are not a HUGE number of these Many-TX-interlocked
M/S, and they love to one-up each other -- why not let them compete
in a
category of
their own?
There's lots of technology/technique happening in the M/S space
without going to such extremes.
73,
Gerry W1VE
_______________________________________________
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
|