[CQ-Contest] SO2R -- revised opinion?

Bill Turner dezrat1242 at ispwest.com
Fri Nov 11 11:28:56 EST 2005

At 05:59 AM 11/11/2005, Kelly Taylor wrote:

>I sympathize, but like many practices we accept, I don't think that because
>some people aren't yet adept at SO2R is a reason to punish those who are.
>It's still a legitimate skill worthy of reward and worthy of allowing an
>operator to rise above the pack if he's able to do it.
>73, kelly


I don't think anyone wants to "punish" the SO2R station. I admire the 
guys who go to the max to increase their scores. My only objection is 
lumping SO2R scores together with SO1R. The two-radio advantage is 
huge, much like going from low power to high and deserves its own 
category. SO2R stations can both listen and transmit during 100% of 
the contest, whereas SO1R is limited to about 50% of each. Its 
roughly like having twice as many hours to operate. Nobody would 
think that was fair, would they?

Those of us who prefer the traditional one-radio style should not be 
categorized with the multi-radio stations any more than QRPers should 
be categorized with the kilowatt guys. The time is long overdue to 
fix this basic unfairness.

Yes, I realize contesting will never be totally "fair", but this is 
one area where the playing field could be made more level with very 
little effort. In years past this was done with LP vs HP, single op 
vs multi op, and the time has come to equalize the multi-radio issue too.

73, Bill W6WRT

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list