[CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net

[KU7Y]

Hi Rudy,

>From my little experience using SO2R I found that it was a very big help
just in knowing when to do things like change bands.  And many multipliers
were found on the 2nd band that I would not have otherwise worked.  And I am
not a skilled SO2R op.

>From my point of view it's a night and day difference.  If you add in
panadaptors it's even a greater difference.  If you add in the Assisted
class it becomes a click and call matter to work multipliers.

There is nothing wrong with any of that.  But the advantage of the 2nd radio
is, in my opinion, to great to lump them into the same class.

And that's without even considering those super operators who can run on 2
bands in the dueling CQ mode. I have a great deal of respect for anyone who
can do that!

OK, back in my hole,

Ron, KU7Y
Arizona Outlaws Contest Club
Northern California Contest Club
Silver Springs, NV
ku7y at qsl.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rudy Bakalov [mailto:r_bakalov at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 7:15 AM
> To: KU7Y
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net
> 
> Why would that be?
> 
> Rudy N2WQ
> 
> Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or
inappropriate
> autocorrect.
> 
> 
> > On Apr 5, 2016, at 9:54 PM, KU7Y <ku7y.cw at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You're not the only one who feels that way Tony,
> >
> > I've said for a long time that SO1R and SO2R should be separate classes.
> >
> > OK, back in my hole,
> >
> > Ron, KU7Y
> > Arizona Outlaws Contest Club
> > Northern California Contest Club
> > Silver Springs, NV
> > ku7y at qsl.net
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf
Of
> >> N2TK, Tony
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 3:20 PM
> >> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net
> >>
> >> For my own selfish reasons I would like to see SO1R and SO2R Unassisted
> >> separate.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> N2TK, Tony
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf
Of
> > Ed
> >> Sawyer
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 1:19 PM
> >> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] cqcontest.net
> >>
> >> Ditto the KD4D post.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Why don't we let the unassisted operators decide whether the concern of
> >> assisted ops invading our category is worth eliminating it over the
> > concern?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No reason to merge the 2 categories and then do an overlay.  Just leave
it
> >> the way it is and clarify reasonable questions like Braco's question.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> By the way, do to great efforts of the organizations and contest
managers,
> >> doesn't the ARRL and CQ contests represent something like 75%+ of all
the
> >> contest Qs made in a year?  Why exactly should this majority follow the
> >> "rest of the world" minority?  Just sayin.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ed  N1UR
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest