[CQ-Contest] SO2R-SO1R from The Yukon??

[Mike Fatchett W0MU]

Agreed Joe!

SO2R requires far more than just buying a neat little box.

SO2R is difficult to master.  There is a unique skill set that allows you to
do two things at the same time.

You will need decent antennas, bandpass filters, antennas that can easily be
shared, two amps, etc.

People have been doing SO2R for a long time.  Some of the hardware solutions
were not nearly as clean and easy to use as they are today.

Being able to listen on other bands is essential if you are a serious
competitor.  How else will you know when 10m will open?

The classification is SINGLE OPERATOR.  We have enough classes already.  If
you want to compete at a higher level,  SO2R ***might** be one way to
improve your score, putting up another tower and stacks on 15m **might** be
another.



On 11/27/07 10:22 PM, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com> wrote:

> 
>> But let's just group the two-radio ops with other two-radio
>> ops and stop claiming "it's just a matter of skill" because
>> there is more involved than that. Or would you say that
>> using an amplifier is "just a matter of skill"?
> 
> Will you stop demeaning the hard won skills of the SO2R operators?
> 
> Yes, there is an element of hardware involved, that is the very
> essence of two radio operation.  However, the second radio is
> no less important that the ANTENNA SYSTEM and even less important
> that the skill with which the operator uses both.
> 
> When you have convinced the sponsors of EVERY contest to create
> an entry class that prohibits any antenna more than 50 feet
> above ground and/or containing more than one, half wavelength
> element, you will have the intellectual and moral basis to
> crusade against SO2R operators.  Until there is a distinction
> based on the greatest single hardware advantage - big antennas -
> this jihad against SO2R is nothing more than a petty case of
> "I don't want them in my neighborhood."
>     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:14 PM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R-SO1R from The Yukon??
>> 
>> 
>> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>> 
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:11:59 -0600, Jim George <n3bb at mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I'll also state that it is absurd IMHO, to argue that SO2R
>> is a different 
>>> class from SO1R. It's one operator.
>> 
>> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
>> 
>> Nonsense. You might as well argue that HP is no different from LP or
>> QRP. It's just one operator, right? How about assisted vs unassisted?
>> Just one operator, right?
>> 
>> Face it guys, having a second radio is a great advantage, just like
>> having an amplifier is a great advantage. Some guys will use an amp,
>> some won't. Some guys will use packet/telnet, some won't. Some will
>> use two radios, some won't. All of those classes should be grouped and
>> scored separately. Let folks choose which they prefer. Fun for all.
>> 
>> Nobody, especially me, is knocking two-radio operation. If you like
>> it, by all means go for it. But let's just group the two-radio ops
>> with other two-radio ops and stop claiming "it's just a matter of
>> skill" because there is more involved than that. Or would you say that
>> using an amplifier is "just a matter of skill"?
>> 
>> I didn't think so.
>> 
>> 73, Bill W6WRT
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest