-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
So if the playing field rules eliminate your advantage, you won't play?
Mike - W0TMW
- --
"Lose not thy airspeed, lest the ground rises up and smites thee." Anon.
Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> 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
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG7x0dakodlddMd1ARAgU/AJ99kAGi3ofsbRDwg4XMF4E/rnDMaQCfYib7
oCmIvrigrCEg1Hm8GlpyS+g=
=ABKe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|