> So if the playing field rules eliminate your advantage, you
> won't play?
Since I'm more interested in multipliers than QSOs, why should
I bother to submit a log if by chasing multipliers, I have exceeded
a band change limit?
However, on a larger scale, why would an AA5AU who uses SO2R to
equalize his disadvantage against the "big antenna" stations bother
to enter a contest that did not allow him to use the tools to
compete effectively. If your antennas were all monoband stacks
on 200 foot towers, would you bother to enter a contest if you
were told you could only use a tribander fed with 100' of RG-58
at 50 feet and an trapped inverted V for 80/40?
Why would anyone who was told they could not use the tools and
techniques of their choice bother to COMPETE when the rules
were designed to prevent them from competing effectively?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike Watson
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 8:35 PM
> To: [RTTY]
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
>
>
> -----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
>
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|