Ray Rocker rrrocker at
Thu Mar 31 12:15:55 EST 1994

The single/multi thread seems to tie in with other discussions of late
regarding leveling of the playing field, top ten boxes for everybody, etc.

The way I see it, innovation is the very heart of contesting and it's an
injustice to stifle it through rules. Those that go the extra mile and
put in the extra effort deserve to be rewarded.

On the other hand, single/multi represents an upping of the ante to become
a member of the contest elite -- an ante that's already staggering. Every
now and then I see people in this forum lamenting about how young hams
aren't getting into contesting. Here's a clue: most young hams can't afford 
ONE nice rig, tower, stacks, and place to put them, much less two of each.

So, what's the answer? I think a good start would be adding to the line
scores in the contest results some coded information about number of rigs 
used, power (many have this already), and antennas used, so that the little
guys and beginners who don't have the resources or know-how to put together
a sophisticated, top ten quality station can gauge their performance against 
others with similar hardware. Meanwhile, let the serious, seasoned ops
continue to duke it out for the trophies and top ten boxes with whatever 
tricks they can come up with, within reasonable limits.

Though, I do think a "beginner" class, NOT just LP, in the big contests, 
limited to, say, one op, one rig, small antennas (I'll pass on defining 
"small"), and maybe even no computers, would do wonders for bringing in 
new blood, give little pistols something realistic to shoot for besides 
just breaking one's own records, and encourage development of first-class 
operating skills in new and financially strapped hams BESIDES those lucky 
enough to be taken under the wing of a big gun. Something to think about.
[whoa, that sentence was a mouthful]

I'm digressing so I better stop now. Summary: multi/single, good.
Putting ops without that capability in same category with no identifying
marks in the score report, bad!

-- ray // WQ5L // my $0.01 worth, other penny WAS in the stock market
   rrrocker at

>From D. Leeson" <0005543629 at  Thu Mar 31 18:20:00 1994
From: D. Leeson" <0005543629 at (D. Leeson)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 13:20 EST
Subject: S/M
Message-ID: <03940331182030/0005543629NA2EM at>

It appears that some great ops (KI3V, K6LL) don't use two radios, and some
other great ops (KM9P, KR0Y) do.  So the advantage can't be totally 
conclusive (expect perhaps in a time-limited competition such as Sprint).

The bandwidth issue seems to me to be simple:  if you make more QSO's you
will use more time-bandwidth product.  I don't think anyone calls CQ with
the expectation of not answering a reply; it's unanswered CQ's that use up
bandwidth, but except for DX-end contesting, my experience is that score is
directly proportional to CQing, and that you need a 70% duty-factor so that
someone won't tune right by you.  I, for one, regret the need for this
mechanical CQing (which is what irritates non-contesters), but I sure don't
know any alternative.

Regarding CQing while "in QSO" on other radio, I think you have to separate
receiving and transmitting.  Example: While CQing on Radio #1, I am receiving
on Radio #2 (a nontrivial but feasible technical issue, BTW)...I find a
needed station...when CQing stops, I drop my call on Radio #2...station comes
back to me, I CQ again on Radio #1 while I copy his exchange...CQ is timed
to end so I can reply on Radio #2 with my exchange while I (hopefully) am
copying an answering call on Radio #1...I send exchange and QRZ on Radio #1
and process continues.  If I get an answer to a CQ, it always takes precedence
over the S&P, since the station on Radio #2 will be there a while and the
answer to my CQ is perishible.  So long as there is only one transmitted
signal at a time and the QSY rules for the contest are met, this seems well
worth the time and bandwidth.

I have worked long and hard to be able to send and receive duplex in the same
band, which is only way I can compete with W0UN in single-band competition
(and I haven't come out on top yet!)...this combines antenna isolation and
knowledge of phase-noise reduction.

I don't believe that transmitting on the opposite rig intersymbol or inter-
syllable would be all that managable, but I wouldn't quarrel with anyone's
effort to do it, so long as they could really say they were only transmitting
on one frequency at a time...and I also wouldn't quarrel with a contest
organizer's ruling that this was out of bounds, if it came down that way.

Regarding the racing analogy, I am looking at it from the viewpoint of the
competitor, not the spectator...My college classmate, Jim Hall, lost interest
in racing after several innovations were outlawed after the fact...I won
two amateur national championships and quit when politics resulted in 
fiddling with the rules (I was ready to retire anyway, but I was disgusted
with the politics as well...I liked the "simplest is best" type of rules
without a lot of special-interest additions).  Now the racing mags are full
of "court of appeals" BS that convinces me I got out at the right time, and
it costs a quarter million dollars today to do what I did with less than
ten thousand a year for back-to-back championships (and I thought that was
expensive then).

The big thing I've learned in competition is that, if you want to win rather
than just participate, you need to go to extremes in personal performance and
in equipment.  But one factor doesn't compensate much for the other...a
half-hearted or inexpert operating performance won't win with any degree of
hot-shot multi-rigs or magic antennas.  And while you're on your way up,
learning and enjoying the experiences, it's neat to have the examples of folks
who are setting the pace.  And the experience goes beyond just contesting, as
I learned from hiring able contesters as the best of managers in my company.

Bottom line:  leave the S/O rules as is and enjoy the contesting!

73 de Dave, W6QHS

>From Brian Bogh <0006125879 at>  Thu Mar 31 19:05:00 1994
From: Brian Bogh <0006125879 at> (Brian Bogh)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 14:05 EST
Subject: no cats please
Message-ID: <05940331190550/0006125879NA5EM at>

I never agreed with it before but after
sitting through all the arguments over m/s 
two radios ect I'm thinking that my friends
idea of having categories like in bicycle
racing is starting to sound a lot better.
  I can say I,ll probably never have all
the latest toys required to be a top gun, 
considering money, realestate, time and flat 
out know-how. This is not a prob.  
I probably enter just about every major 
and not so major contest going. Yes I'm an 
addict. I hardly ever put a scratch in the
so called top box scores. This is not a prob.
(or is it?) I,m talking to myself..
But to know I'm competing with stations that
are stretching the techno/antenna/limits
is starting to bother me. 
Do we need categories based on contesters
experience, past scores, antenna limitations,
ect.. I don't know. It's just  in my 
particular case the more
the monetary role plays for things like the 
2 radio set up,  the further out of the top
 categories i go. 
Not a prob , just put me in cat 3..  
 Hope to c.u. all in the sprINT
         Brian Bogh the LOXman n7lox

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list