I've never understood the reasoning by contest sponsors that you are
only considered to be running one transmitter if you are doing SO2R.
Most of the serious SO2R guys are running on two bands at the same time
so they are occupying two frequencies. They might be not transmitting on
both of these frequencies simultaneously, which is a loophole in the
rules for them to be considered to be the same as a single-operator
using one radio. Plus they vigorously defend both of their frequencies
and won't hesitate to chase you off if you try to grab one of their
frequencies when they are transmitting on their 2nd radio. Then the
contest sponsor will group you all into one single-operator class which
really isn't fair. The rules should really state the number of radios
you are using not the number of transmitted signals you have to classify
you.
The truth is that no one using one radio can come close to competing
with someone doing SO2R. I'm not saying that SO2R should be banned. What
I would like to see is maybe an unlimited class where you can use
spotting networks, skimmer and also do SO2R. Then have an other class
which is more like the traditional single-operator. One radio and one
band at a time. Remember years ago when operating strategy was
important? What band should I be transmitting on to maximize my score or
should I stop running and QSY to some other band to find multipliers?
All this assistance that's available with today's technology and being
able to run on more band at a time has thrown that strategy out the window.
I remember years ago a famous contester we all know wrote an article in
NCJ that stated Multi-Multi should be banned. I think the goal of the
article was to provoke some thought s because the guys in these
categories always had the prime frequencies on every band and maybe that
wasn't fair. I would sure like to see some thoughts about my perspective
on SO2R.
Jeff
On 8/17/2018 09:33 AM, Yuri wrote:
I think the definition of the category should be really based only on a number
of operators and number of transmitted signals at a time.
Single OP or Multi Op (different numbers of TX's). That's it.
If a single Op can do what a bunch of people together can't - why should he be
handicapped?
If he can utilize all of the technology and all by himself (without physical help of
other people) - why should we call him assisted? Only because a bunch of
"ordinary" people can't do the same?
Of someone is using OCF dipole instead of monoband Yagi, or if someone doesn't have
Internet in the shack - that's his own choice. Everyone else doesn't have to
"downgrade" because of that.
Yuri VE3DZ
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Trent
Sampson
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 5:47 PM
To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted
Assisted is really not assisted - 2BSIQ Two Band Synchronised interleaved QSOs
have left the assisted operator in its dust...
It is really time to reconsider whether Assisted is truly an advantage anymore
and deserving of its own category...
Assisted by my definition is the sourcing of callsign, band and frequency
information from any source other than your radio system.
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Stanley
Zawrotny
Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2018 1:06 AM
To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Assisted
Ken,
Is remembering a well-known callsign assisted?
Stan, K4SBZ
"Real radio bounces off the sky."
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
--
*Jeff Clarke*
Information Technology Professional
Ellerslie, Georgia
KU8E.com <http://www.ku8e.com/>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|