[CQ-Contest] SOxR -- enough already

[Scott Robbins]

--- Bill Turner <dezrat at copper.net> wrote:

> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
> 
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:06:41 -0800 (PST), Scott Robbins
> <w4pa at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >Do we need MS1R MS2R MS3R MS4R categories?  
> 
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
> 
> No, we don't. Nobody is calling for all those categories. 

Well, why not?   Why aren't we calling for those categories for M/S?  There is
no reason to segregate one category that is ostensibly "single transmitter"
using two rigs as a single op when the exact same thing is going on in the
multi-operator categories.  Hell, there are 3, 4, 5 rigs being used in M/S
efforts.  Those are fair to compete against more traditional M/S entries, but
SO2R is not?  

There are stations using interlocked dual radios on the run band in the M/S
category.  It has the potential to be a serious advantage over using a single
run radio.  I wouldn't have dreamed of doing a serious M/S from my (now
defunct) contest station without two rigs on the run band.  It was essential!

> A station with only one radio can not compete against one with two.

Oh, I dunno.  P40W won the 2006 CQ WW SSB contest using only one radio.  That
sounds pretty darn competitive to me...

> Other factors being equal, they will lose every time, just as an LP
> station will lose to an HP station every time.  Some people will want
> to add a second radio just as some people will want to add an
> amplifier, but nobody should have to do either to be competitive. 

I disagree -- if others are doing something competitively advantageous, then to
compete it is almost essential that other serious competitors do the same.   

I had an epiphany moment in 1996 on this very reflector when I read that some
guys were using a second radio in the single op category in an effort to run
their score up.  I wanted to be like them -- so I did it too.  I was sick and
tired of losing, to put a point on it.  They had an edge -- I wanted to play on
their (competitive) terms, not mine.  

> That is why the various classes exist in the first place - to keep
> competition as equal as reasonably possible and make it fair and fun
> for all. 

It's not going to be equal, Bill.  It's way beyond two radios.  There are too
many other factors in play.  My SO2R set up with wires in Tennessee is more
advantageous than a single radio with a tower full of yagis in New England?  

> Neither I nor anybody is "against" two-radio operation. It should just
> be scored separately.
> 
> It is as simple as that.

You don't make a compelling argument for this except for altering the single 
operator category out of a sense of 'fair play'.  SO2R was a technique publicly
known and developed within the existing rules of the contests going back many
years.  There is no reason to change those rules now.

Scott W4PA


W4PA Contest Blog - http://w4pa.journalspace.com
What Is Radio Contesting? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contesting


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs