Paul,
The SO2R operator is just like every other entrant in the Single
Operator entry class - he is limited by the same six band changes
per clock hour rule. The "six band changes per hour" rule only
applies to multi-single (multi-operator/single transmitter)
classes and is intended to prevent a multi-multi from using an
interlock ("octopus") and competing against multi-single stations.
If contest sponsors want to "level the playing field" (and cripple
the SO2R operating technique) band change limits - e.g., the six
band changes per clock hour rule - is the best way to do it.
However, if a sponsor wants to attract the maximum number of
entrants, a six band change per hour rule will kill participation
as there are many operators - both "one radio" and "two radio"
operators who will not bother to turn in a log if the contest
has a band change limit.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Cavanaugh [mailto:paulcavanaugh@cox.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 7:32 PM
> To: 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Tom Moore'; rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
>
>
> Here is the problem with SOR2, some contests limit band
> changes (usually
> 6/hr). If you are calling CQ on 20, listening to 15, and work
> me on 20, and
> then work someone else on 15, go back and answer another call
> on 20, you
> just did 3 band changes. It doesn't take long to violate the
> 6 band changes
> / hr rule. This is my biggest objection to SOR2 being in the
> SO Class. You
> want to run SOR2, then make that a separate class. If a SO
> makes more band
> changes than the rules allow, they are penalized, and
> therefore so should
> the SOR2 operator, if they operate under the SO rules. Quite
> frankly I do
> believe that SOR2 is just a way to beat out another person
> who works a band
> at a time. No BS about propagation, skill, or whatever. I
> have two radios
> and two antennas, what are you going to do about it. If
> nothing else, if it
> is about skill then shouldn't you be competing against other
> SOR2 and not
> SO.
>
> Just my 2 cents worth.
> Paul
> W1HY
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On
> Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 7:02 PM
> To: 'Tom Moore'; rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
>
>
> Tom,
>
> > Please consider this:
> >
> > WHEN ALL ELSE IS EQUAL
>
> You can't make that argument - period. All else is NEVER equal.
>
> Alternatively: when all else is equal take two identical, extremely
> competent expertly skilled CW operators with identical CW stations
> and identical propagation. Limit one to 10 WPM and allow the other
> to operate at 40 WPM. The operator capable of 40 WPM operation will
> trash the 10 WPM operator simply because he can make a QSO in 1/4
> the time that it takes an operator at 10 WPM.
>
> It's skill, skill, and nothing but skill. I don't care whether
> the skill is understanding propagation and knowing the operating
> habits of the rare DX station like K3ZO (who doesn't, to the best
> of my knowledge, operate SO2R), "bionic ears" like other well
> known low band experts, or the ability to multi-task at a level
> beyond mere mortals like some other top operators.
>
> Every top operator uses the tools available to him to achieve the
> top score. If you would deny a certain group of top operators
> the right to participate against ALL single operator stations
> because one of the tools they choose is SO2R, then I maintain
> that you must deny others the same right because their tool of
> choice is big antennas; you must deny still others that right
> because their tool of choice is QRQ; you must provide a schedule
> that says each operator must operate only on 20 meters at a
> certain time and every operator must switch to 40 meters at
> the me time; of course you must prohibit operation during the
> rare long-path or gray-line openings that only a few seasoned
> propagation experts know about.
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom Moore
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 4:57 PM
> > To: rtty@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
> >
> >
> > Please consider this:
> >
> > WHEN ALL ELSE IS EQUAL
> >
> > Take two identical, extremely competent, expertly skilled
> > SO2R ops with
> > identical SO2R stations in the same propagional locale (lets
> > just say two
> > AA5AU's). Drop one back to SO1R only. In 'any' contest then,
> > the SO2R op
> > will win hands down, by a considerable margin - by as much as
> > 40% according
> > to AA5AU. This 'fact' has been acknowledged publicly my most
> > of the top
> > SO2R ops. To say or suggest otherwise is simply to say
> they, the real
> > experts, are wrong.
> >
> > "When all else is equal", I believe, is the reasoning contest
> > sponsors
> > implemented the HP and LP categories. Though they failed to
> > consider the
> > difference between 500, 1000 or 1500 watt amplifiers which I
> > feel sure was
> > at one time or another a big rub for some contesters.
> Sponsors didn't
> > consider these differences, I suspect, simply because of the
> > administrative
> > burden of making yet additional categories and the time and
> > paperwork to
> > score the contests (this was way before computerized log checking).
> >
> > Yes, its very possible for an SO1R op to beat an SO2R op.
> > Being SO2R does
> > not automatically mean you'll be in the top 10, top 20 or
> > even top 100. What
> > it does mean is, that when done efficiently, it will increase
> > YOUR score -
> > significantly. Yes, it takes skill as does the successful
> > competitive use of
> > any additional station equipment. But its no big secret. Its
> > been proven
> > time and again that if you can be competitive as SO1R, you
> > will be more
> > competitive as SO2R when you develop and learn the necessary
> > skills - again,
> > which is true for the application and use of any new station
> > equipment. Said
> > another way: If you have the intelligence to be a competitive
> > SO1R op, you
> > have the ability to acquire the skills to be a competitive
> > SO2R op. You just
> > don't have to be a rocket scientest to do this. I highly
> > encourage those,
> > who can, to pursure becoming a competitive SO1R and
> subsequently SO2R
> > operator.
> >
> > When all else is equal
> >
> > Inevitably it follows: well what about antennas and antenna
> > height. This
> > might well be a logical concern in some contests,
> > particularly DX contests.
> > However, I've seen 50' tribanders out perform 100 ft monobanders in
> > stateside contests due to high vs low angle of radiation. I
> > have also seen
> > verticals out perform low tribanders for the same reason.
> Wires have
> > outperformed verticals and tribanders depending on height,
> > take-off angle
> > and contest variables etc. And then there's location. East
> > coasts stations
> > don't need as good antennas as west coast stations when
> > working Europe. And
> > every body knows about the 'black hole' of the midwest,
> > right? It seems to
> > me it would be virtually impossible to even come close to
> > defining contest
> > categories based on antenna type and height.
> >
> > Contest rules are the sponsors decision. None of them are
> > 'fair' nor will
> > they ever be. They could not possibly be; simply because of
> > the 'volumes' it
> > would take to define them. Look at the ARRL's rules which
> are already
> > ridiculously lengthy. Some contest sponsors have implemented
> > the 10 min band
> > change rule while others have implemented the 'expert',
> > 'unlimited' etc
> > categories. Others have 'assisted' and 'unassisted'. And,
> > thank goodness,
> > most all are different in one way or another. And, of course,
> > the ole saying
> > still applies: "If ya don't like the rules, nobody's makin
> > you come to the
> > game". Others say: "but I do like it but I think the rules
> > need changing a
> > bit". (Heck, look at congress and the crazy way they make new
> > and change old
> > laws). Most rules are unenforceable. There's hardly any way
> > to catch anyone
> > for violation of any rule so everything pretty much has to be
> > on the honor
> > system. If you think someone's cheating, provide the evidence
> > and demand
> > they be disqualified.
> >
> > When all else is equal
> >
> > In recent years, the use of SO2R has grown significantly. In
> > 2003, I took
> > 1st place CQWPX RTTY USA SOABLP and CQWW RTTY North America
> > SOABLP both
> > running SO1R. Both were a fluke because most of the SO2R top
> > dogs ran in the
> > HP or assisted categories. In 2004, I made it up to 3rd place
> > SOABLP SO1R in
> > the ARRL RTTY Roundup. I certainly don't consider myself to
> > be a great or
> > expert operator, just a tad above good. But now its more
> > abundantly clear
> > than ever. If I want to be competitive in the Single Op
> > category, I'm going
> > to have to move up to the SO2R capability. I'm in the process
> > of doing that
> > now but not because I think I can be more competitive. I've
> > already done it
> > with dummy loads, radios, software and computer. But the
> > remaining problems
> > are costs involved with buying amplifiers, tower, antenna,
> > SO2R box, filters
> > or building effective stubs, getting as much antenna
> > separation as possible,
> > etc. Will I ever be a competitive SO2R opr. Not likely. Not
> > because I'm not
> > smart enough or don't have the money to acquire the equipment
> > I think I need
> > or want; but more importantly, because I'm just plain ole
> > gettin old! I
> > don't have the eye/hand coordination I did just a year or
> > two ago; can't
> > stay awake for even a 24 hr event; and all the other 'old
> > people' reasons.
> > But I'll have fun and who knows, I might even be a bit
> > competitive in a few
> > contests a year. But as someone recently quoted somebody else
> > at Dayton this
> > year, "contesting is for young folks"!
> >
> > When all else is equal
> >
> > Yes, I believe there should be separate SO1R, SO2R
> > categories. I'm not
> > against SO2R. I'm probably one of the biggest admirers and
> > supporters of
> > SO2R. I don't understand why some people are taking this
> subject so
> > personally. Nor do I understand what the big deal is. Its a
> > very simple
> > addition of just one category. With today's computerized
> > scoring, it'd be
> > easy. It hurts no one. It leaves out no one. What it does do
> > is raise the
> > bar for SO1R ops. It just might make them want to try a
> > little bit harder;
> > get us a few more contestors; and subsequently more QSO's for
> > the SO2R ops.
> > There's nothing to loose and everything to gain!
> >
> > Everybody has an opinion. Opinions are free. I respect
> > people's opinion as
> > long as they don't personally attack or slander anyone else's
> > opinion. When
> > you google my callsign WX4TM, also google my ex call KL7Q.
> > You'll see I've
> > participated in a lot of RTTY contests; not as many as some,
> > but alot. As
> > you do, google the calls and ex calls of the experts who have
> > strenuously
> > approved or opposed separate SO1R SO2R categories on this
> > reflector and be
> > curious about what and why these opinions are what they are
> > or seem to be.
> > Do they (or I for that matter) really know what we're talking
> > about? HI HI
> > You draw your own opinion....When all else is equal
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Happy Contesting, see ya in CQWW - if I can stay awake long enough
> >
> > Tom WX4TM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RTTY mailing list
> > RTTY@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|