[CQ-Contest] SO2R vs SO1R

[Dick Green]

W7TI wrote:

> What makes you think I haven't?  I have done about six or seven contests
> SO2R.  That's how I know whereof I speak.

Then I'm very surprised that you made these comments:

>If all a person wants to do is maximize their score, then SO2R is the
>way to go. Think of all you don't have to worry about:
>
> 1.  No band strategy. You're monitoring all of them all the time.
> 2.  No knowledge of propagation. When a band opens, you're there.
> 3.  No decision whether to CQ or S&P. You are doing both.
> 4.  No real radio smarts required. Only manual dexterity.

Let's look at the claims:

1. No band strategy. I spend several hours before each contest studying
recent rate sheets of top stations and working out my band strategy. Not
only do I have to work out a plan for the run radio, I have to work one out
for the S&P radio. Of course, the plans get modified during the contest.
Sometimes it's because I've found a band opening with the second radio, but
more often it's after CQing for a few minutes and deciding one band isn't as
good as another. The second radio does not allow me to monitor all bands at
the same time. If I want to check another band, I have to stop S&Ping and
QSY, effectively slowing the S&P rate. Yes, I don't have to stop the CQ, but
the QSY and check are distracting and lower the rate on both radios.

2. No knowledge of propagation. The SO2R ops that win certainly know a lot
about propagation. For example, K5ZD recently told me that he's just getting
a real handle on East Coast propagation. For example, he knows that when 20M
sounds a certain way, 15M and 40M will have certain characteristics, or that
there are certain times when we can hear EU but they can't hear us very
well. None of this has anything to do with SO2R. The second radio does not
allow you to be there instantly when a band opens because usually you are
pounding it for QSOs and mults on another band and don't have time to
constantly check other bands.

3. No decision whether to CQ or S&P. While one of the goals of SO2R is to be
CQing all the time, it's not always possible. Sometimes it's more efficient
to stop CQing and focus all of your attention on the S&P radio. When 40M
opened in IARU, I S&Ped about 15 HQ stations and 10 zones in less than ten
minutes, but I had to stop my high CQ rate on 20M in order to do that. I
lost my 20M frequency in the process. K5ZD says that chasing mults on the
low bands always costs him rate on the run radio. On 160M, I usually have to
stop CQing and focus on one radio to hear through the static.

4. No real radio smarts required. You could have fooled me. I'm constantly
making decisions about propagation, how to optimize reception, where to turn
the beams, etc. In addition, I have to think about two radios, two bands and
a host of antenna alternatives. That's why it's so hard to do. The important
skill isn't manual dexterity -- it's being able to concentrate on multiple
events at the same time when you're dog tired. Call it multi-tasking under
extreme pressure.

There is some truth to the claim that the second radio helps you find band
openings, but it's not as big an advantage as one might think. If the rate
is moderate-to-low, an SO1R op can quickly check another band on the second
VFO. That's hard to do when the rate is high, but if the rate is high why do
you need to QSY? You can check a band without switching VFOs if you have a
second receiver. Is that SO1R or SO2R? Even better, you can use FT-1000D
with a sub receiver that has its own bandpass filters -- i.e., you can CQ
while you listen to another band. You can also instantly switch to the sub
receiver and transmit. Is that SO1R or SO2R?

I do believe that SO2R offers a distinct advantage over SO1R, but only if
you can master it -- which isn't easy. Further, I  believe that you have to
master SO2R in order to have a shot at winning these days. But you also need
to be an incredibly talented operator and you need a highly effective set of
antennas, too. No matter how hard I try, and no matter how good I get at
SO2R, conventional wisdom says that my two low tribanders, 40M 4-square and
low 80/160 wires are not going to beat a top operator with tall towers,
stacks on the high bands, a 40M beam, an 80M 4-square, a full-size 160M
vertical, beverages in every direction and a 360-degree unobstructed hilltop
location. Should there be a separate category for me ("Wimpy Antennas, but
Better than Tribander Single"?) Maybe I would win a plaque, but it wouldn't
mean much to me -- my object is refine my skill and equipment (and maybe an
antenna or two) enough to rank with the top operators with the heavy
hardware -- or occasionally beat them when everything goes right for me and
wrong for them.

There's just no way that station differences can be fairly used to determine
categories. I use two autotune amps and never have to spend time retuning
for another band. Should there be sepatate categories for manual and
autotune amps? There are simply too many ways that an operator can add
something here or there: another 30 feet of tower, longer booms, a low beam
fixed NE, another beverage, a better receiver, sharper filters, a DSP
processor, etc. More often than not, it requires developing new skills to
take advantage of the upgrade, just like it does to take advantage of SO2R.

To me, the borderline case is high power versus low power. Technically,
these shouldn't be separate categories, just as we don't have separate
categories for people with 100-foot towers and people with 50-foot towers.
In fact, one could make a case that big differences in antennas are much
more important, because they help on receive as well as transmit. But
there's certainly a palpable difference in operating with and without an amp
in terms of one's ability to hold a frequency. I used to be able to hold a
frequency (barely) in CQWW with a multiband vertical and a 1500W amp, but
couldn't do it barefoot with a low tribander. The same argument applies to
QRP versus low power -- there's a really big difference.

But in all other respects, I think the correct way to establish categories
is by considering the number of people involved: one op, two ops, many ops.
Since the brain and body are far and away the most important factors in
contesting, and the purest  basis on which to compare performance, we should
keep the categories as they are. As long as there is one op, the category
should be the same whether the station has one radio, two radio or ten
radios. The important concept is that all activity threads through one brain
and one set of hands (and feet if you use a footswitch.)

K0IL asked why we don't allow CQing on more than one band. Until he raised
this point, I took it for granted that the rule restricting single ops to
one transmitted signal at a time was a good idea. It certainly has caused me
to develop certain skills and to harangue the developer of my contest
program to add features that allow smooth, legal switching from one radio to
the other. As it stands now, several log programs forbid transmission on
both radios at the same time and allow fairly rapid automated alternation of
transmission. But do we need the restriction in the first place? After all,
if the purest definition is that all activity threads through one mind and
body, it doesn't matter how many signals are present on the air at the same
time. Besides, it's very difficult to enforce the rule. I don't see a whole
lot of harm in allowing one CQ and one S&P signal to be present at the same
time -- it still takes an enormous amount of skill to manage that situation.
But I'm much less comfortable with allowing two simultaneous CQ signals,
because the rate could go through the roof to the point where SO1R ops would
have no chance at all. Further, single ops would consume twice as much
frequency spectrum, which would be horrible in big contests. It might be fun
to find out just how high a single op can push the rate, but beyond that I
think it would be detrimental to contesting. Although it would take a lot of
skill to manage more than two simultaneous CQs (it's very hard to mix the
audio in such a way that you would know where a response was coming from),
there are those who would try and they might succeed. If a lot of single ops
had six radios calling CQ at the same time, it would be as if every entrant
was a multi and what little real estate is left for single ops would be
gone. This would surely destroy the fun of contesting. I suppose we could
have a rule that says it's OK to have one CQ and multiple S&P signals at the
same time, but not multiple simultaneous CQs. But this gets awfully specific
and could be difficult to enforce.

So, once again, the categories and rules are pretty good as they stand.

73, Dick WC1M


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