[CQ-Contest] SO2R vs SO1R

[Bill Turner]

On 27 Jul 2001 12:06:15 -0700, Mike Gilmer - N2MG wrote:

>With all the technology that we've come to accept as 
>in the spirit of the single operator, I just don't see 
>any difference in adding a second xcvr.

_________________________________________________________

Ok, I'll fill you in.

When you're operating 1R, you will typically transmit about 35% of the
contest period and listen about 65%.  (My guesstimate; use your own
numbers if you like).

With 2R, your transmit % is about the same, but you are now receiving
during 100% of the contest period.  In a 24 hour contest, that gives you
an extra 8.4 hours of listening time, AND ON MULTIPLE BANDS, not just
the one you're CQ'ing or S&P'ing on.

IMO that is an advantage comparable to HP vs LP, and should have its own
class likewise.

Where am I wrong?

73, Bill W7TI


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


>From Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com  Fri Jul 27 22:12:19 2001
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:12:19 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] SO1R v SO2R
Message-ID: <0a3d01c116e0$d4041fd0$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>



Over the past decade, operating from W6RU and N6UR (same station,
different call), I've typically been limited to one transceiver and
one (sometimes automatically tuned--, sometimes manually tuned--)
amplifier.  It has been putting me at a disadvantage to similarly
equipped antenna farms that have two transceivers and amplifiers.  I
unquestionably lose up to a half hour (that's about 10-15 last-hour
contacts) of operating time per SS contest while making band changes,
and probably lose more contacts because of the habit of staying on the
same band when I'm afraid of moving and losing time moving back.  I'd
love to be out of that hole, and on equal footing with stations with
equal antennas and locations.

But...

I realize that pulling down the scores of others by telling them not
to run SO2R just so that I could beat my way past them in the results
would be an incredibly self-centered act, so I'll never lobby for a
rules change drawing a distinction between two-transceiver and
one-transceiver operation.

In one SS contest in the mid 1990's decade at N6UR I suffered a
transceiver failure on Sunday morning.  I had 12 hours of operating
left, but I was only 10 or 15 contacts behind a better equipped
station farther up the coast from me.  In order to finish the contest,
I was forced to transmit on a KWM2 transceiver and receive on the
broken transceiver (with no muting of the transmitted CW note --
ouch -- 12 hours of ouch).  I finished over 30 contacts behind on 23
and a half hours of operating, but I did finish.

Now, I have to express how thoroughly resentful I'd be if that were to
place me into an SO2R category rather than the SO1R category.  I'd be
limping around the bands slowly, manually tuning the finals of the
KWM2 (and the grid) and turning double the bandswitches of the typical
SO1R station, forced to do 1950's style spotting, but I'd be running
two transceivers.

I'm not going to be stuck using one transceiver forever, but modern
transceivers are not so far behind an SO2R operation in most contests
that they deserve this much attention.

In the 1970's I went to the Fresno DX Convention's contest forum as a
recent winner of the ARRL Phone DX Contest and listened as one
contester -- one that I respected and thought was really one of the
higher ranking scorers -- complained of his plight of being stuck
slightly behind the winners.  He announced that he wasn't really
running that great a station (his was much bigger than any home
station I've ever owned) and complained that he really wasn't that
great an operator, but told everyone there that he thought there
should be a category created that he could win.  I've never forgotten
that moment, but I couldn't respect his point of view, especially
because he was often the winner of his section award in the contests
that he entered.

I'm no youngster anymore, I was never that good at sports, and I don't
want to work out enough to really get back in shape, but I really
would like an Olympic Gold Medal.  Why isn't there a category in the
Olympics for me to win?

I have experience as an SO2R operator, having used twin transceivers
and twin amplifiers from W6HX about 30 years ago.  It improved my
score for part of the contest, then the mental strain of SO2R
operating took control and the second half of the contest didn't go so
well.  The net improvement was slight.  So, even if I'm limited to one
radio by rules changes, I won't really be upset.  I just don't see
what all this fuss is about -- it's guys drawing battle lines between
the winners and the middle aged, out of shape, would-be gold medalists
who don't want to work out so they want a category for themselves.

If we create an SO1R category, then the logical next step would be to
create SO1R1AMP and SO1R2AMP categories with the Alpha 87A amplifiers
belonging to the latter category.  We also need to place anyone with a
back-up transceiver available (even if he has to fetch it from a
neighboring ham's house) into the SO2R category.  Might as well create
a category for spare computers, keyers, dipoles, headphones, ground
rods, ..., [fade out].

Leigh S. Jones, KR6X

"If everybody has his own category, nobody's in a contest so nobody
wins"
"Fading out is what I'm best at!"


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