[CQ-Contest] SO2R a new category?

Jimk8mr at aol.com Jimk8mr at aol.com
Fri Jun 2 10:28:22 EDT 2000

In a message dated 6/1/00 11:43:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
k8cc at mediaone.net writes:

>  Why are we singling out SO2R?  SO2R is more than just a matter of buying 
>  another radio/amplifier, building some slick control circuitry, putting 
>  individual feedlines on all of your antennas and buying bandpass 
>  filters.  Certainly some station hardware is required, but it also 
>  commitment to learning the skills.  W4AN told me that when he was starting 
>  out with SO2R, he used to practice during the week by working a QSO while 
>  listening to another.  SO2R is a skill to be mastered by the single op - 
>  why discourage this?

I suppose different people will have different reasons, but to me the reason 
to single it out is that SO2R promotes frequency monopolization.  Since a 
SO2R  guy never leaves a CQ frequency to make his needed S&P qsos,  there are 
far fewer frequencies opened up for anyone else to find for running.  This is 
far more significant on SSB, and far more significant at sunspot minimums 
when the 1.5 MHz of 10 meter SSB is useless. 

Anyone with the skills and hardware for SO2R will have the skills and 
hardware for a very good SO1R score, and using only one radio will probably 
beat anyone who does not have those skills and/or hardware.  Whether their 
practice of SO2R results in a worse contest experience for others is worth 
thinking about.

My SO2R opinions aside, I agree with Tree and others that a solid, 
detectable, enforceable definition of SO2R must be developed before any 
category could be considered, and I think coming up with that will be tough.

Jim  K8MR

CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list