[CQ-Contest] SO2R

jukka.klemola at nokia.com jukka.klemola at nokia.com
Sat Jan 25 13:54:04 EST 2003

My thoughts in this:

We will have:

SO2R(A) !

And on top of this separate classes for allowing any number
of radios or transmitters, provided everything is controlled
and operated with a single individual.

To me, that is the most challenging of all single op classes.
Operator skills, complexity of the station and energy
consumption/fatigue creators are drawn to maximum with that one.

And at least theoretically, they should have the biggest scores.
That means they should have most fun.
But postcontest, they should be most tired.

The next, even more difficult issue, creation of valid logged
lines automatically without an individual touching the system
at all can be done in RTTY already today..

Contest organisers will define what is allowed and what not.
Participants should play according to rules and as they do,
fair play is reality.
Different contests will have different classes and different
scoring, that will lead in different individuals favoring
different events.
Maybe some contests will win in number of participants more
than others.

Jukka, OH6LI

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Ron Notarius WN3VAW [mailto:wn3vaw at fyi.net]
> Sent: 25 January, 2003 05:38
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R
> Hmmm.   Considering that for better or worse, SO Assisted is already a
> separate category, I don't see the point in debating whether or not it
> should have become so, nor do I see what said alleged debate 
> has to do with
> SO2R.
> The point I was trying to make is that SO-A evolved as a 
> separate category
> because there was sufficient reason, at least in the eyes of 
> the contest
> organizers, to do so.  I will not debate whether or not SO-A 
> is an advantage
> or a disadvantage over traditional SO -- for one thing, I 
> don't have the
> data, for another, as just stated, it is irrelevant.
> Is 10% an "overwhelming" advantage?  I suspect that if you 
> have to ask, the
> answer may be "no"
> 73, ron wn3vaw
> "Doc?  You built a time machine... out of a DeLorean?"
> "The way I look at it, if you're going to build a time 
> machine out of a car,
> you might as well do it with style!"
> --  Marty McFly & Dr. Emmet Brown, "Back to the Future"
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc at r66.ru>
> To: "Ron Notarius WN3VAW" <wn3vaw at fyi.net>; 
> <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 9:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R
> > SO Assisted -- ie Packet use -- is a good example of fairly recent
> advances
> > in technology that evolved into a separate category, and it 
> makes sense as
> > such.
> > Now maybe I'm wrong, but I have yet to see a body of 
> concrete evidence
> that
> > SO2R gives an overwhelming edge over SO1R.  I'm not saying 
> it is or isn't
> > so -- I'm saying, let's see the data first and then draw a 
> conclusion.
> Just for the sake of argument... where is the body of 
> concrete evidence that
> packet assisted gives the overwhelming edge? If you compare 
> the top results
> of assisted and non assisted you may draw the conclusion that 
> assisted in
> fact gives disadvantage...
> Sure second radio gives one advantage especially at slow rates. Is it
> overwhelming?
> I do not know.. depends on what you consider overwhelming. Is 
> 10% of total
> qso overwhelming?
> 73, Igor UA9CDC
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list