[CQ-Contest] What is Multi to you?

[Gerry Hull]

Hi Yuri,

No offense taken.

Take the NASCAR analogy.   Yes, I expect people to push the rules -- like
they do in car racing.   When they found certain techniques were causing
completely out-of-bound results, they reigned in the rules.

My point of view is yes, an 8-station M/S certainly is advancing the state
of the technology art -- and I have no problem with the people doing it, in
fact I'm in awe from the technology perspective..  However, what is it
doing for contesting overall?   Maybe I'm a bit too altruistic.    If the
three or four stations worldwide who use this technique dominate M/S for
many years to come, what have they proven?   That they can win by pushing
the rules to the absolute limit.  There is inherently nothing wrong with
that -- that is part of what competition is.

What does it do to participation in the category is another question
completely.

I can argue the same point about remote:  So far, in general, it have
proven a challenge to generate the same level of scores from a remote as
you can from being on location.  As skills and technology improve, I think
you will see this change.  The ability to put rare multipliers on, and, the
ability of contesters to come back into the fold (who are QRT in
covenant-restricted QTHs), I would argue, has huge benefit to all the in
the contest community.  Just ask a lot of contesters in southern California
or Florida.

The purpose of this reflector, hopefully, other than a bitch session, is to
express ideas.  Let's continue the discussion.

Yuri, we can talk about it more over a beer in Dayton...

73, Gerry W1VE





On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Yuri <ve3dz at rigexpert.net> wrote:

> Gerry, I understood your point.
> Please don't take it as an offence.
> Just look at it from this angle:
> There are RULES in the Contest, and serious contesters study rules, find
> the way how to use technology to advance the score without breaking the
> rules and then do a great deal of technological, intellectual and financial
> investments into realizing their ideas...
> And then someone who don't (or can't) do the same start to complaining.
> At least that's how it looks sometimes (again, no offence!).
>
> Isn't is the same with the idea of remote contesting, the idea which you
> really love and support?
>
> I don't know what needs to be done to attract more competitors to the M/S
> category... Maybe creating a new sub-category, something like "Classic",
> just for M/S, would help?
>
> Yuri
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Gerry Hull
> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 9:29 PM
> To: Ria Jairam
> Cc: CQ-Contest; Yuri
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What is Multi to you?
>
> If you think I'm complaining, I'm not.  You've missed my point.  I don't
> give a hoot -- I enjoy the game, and finishing behind those 8-station guys
> in M/S is just fine with me.
>
> It just keeps eliminating more and more people from the game.  Exactly
> what we don't want.  That's my only worry.
>
> 73, Gerry W1VE
>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Ria Jairam <rjairam at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why all this complaining I wonder? We have stations griping about how
> > it's not "fair" and how people have "too many advantages."
> >
> > Guess what - life is not fair!!! In sports the bigger, stronger,
> > faster one will win. In radio sport the big guns closer to
> > advantageous areas and who can do SO2R will win. That's just how it
> > is. If you're out west and tired of being beaten, then come pay the
> > high taxes and enjoy the harsh winters out east. Or maybe pay a remote
> > service and use one of their stations in Maine or New York and win a
> plaque. Turn key plug and play.
> > Meaningless in my eyes (YOU didn't build that), but if you're so badly
> > after a plaque that is one way.
> >
> > I have a single tower station with one radio and one amp. I do fairly
> > well. I win the district sometimes and even squeak my way into the top
> > 10 sometimes. I'm happy with that, but I could improve and do better
> > in the placement. But let's be honest. Someone could dump a ton of
> > money and build a multi tower station complete with low band 4
> > squares. They'll beat me. Is that fair? Maybe it isn't. But I'm not
> > going to knee cap them because I want to win. I just deal with it.
> >
> > Ria
> > N2RJ
> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM Gerry Hull <gerry at yccc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I have no problem with Dual CQ SO2R, Yuri. These are great advances
> >> in technique and show excellent operator skill and innovation.
> >>
> >> Time Division Multiplexing 8 operators and radios to a "single"
> >> radio, IMHO, is not the same thing and is not in the spirit of the
> >> rules.  It is simply a technology technique which is within the
> >> letter of the rules, but not the spirit.
> >>
> >> Yes, I have to accept it if the rules may not change.  I DO accept it...
> >> However, I don't think it is a good way to encourage new M/S teams to
> >> participate.
> >>
> >> We all have our opinions, these are mine.
> >>
> >> 73, Gerry W1VE
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Yuri <ve3dz at rigexpert.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Gerry,
> >> > Isn't  SO2R Dual CQ operation (a-la CT1BOH, N6MJ etc.) is the same
> >> > type
> >> of
> >> > <quote> "elimination of a lot of people from ever being in
> >> > contention
> >> for
> >> > top spots in the category" <unquote>?
> >> > All that you said below is true for ANY category.
> >> >
> >> > I think it's all about the rules.
> >> > If they aren't broken and they allow to do such, then... one either
> >> needs
> >> > to change the rules or has to accept the fact.  Maybe it's time to
> >> research
> >> > some other ways to attract (more) new competitors, like doing more
> >> > WRTC-style (live) competitions during June FDays, working more
> >> > closely
> >> with
> >> > schools, colleges and other youth organizations and so on...
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Yuri VE3DZ
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On
> >> > Behalf
> >> Of
> >> > Gerry Hull
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 10:28 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What is Multi to you?
> >> >
> >> > Interesting Thread.
> >> >
> >> > I've been contesting over 40 years.  In all that time, 99% of my
> >> > efforts have been at M/S or M/2 stations.
> >> > For more than 30 of those years, a multi-single was a station with
> >> > one main radio and one multiplier radio.
> >> >
> >> > With a single tower and a good antenna complement, winning M/S in
> >> > North America has been possible with two radios.  We did it at more
> >> > than one station.
> >> >
> >> > If you read my comments on CQ Contest, you know that I don't live
> >> > in the past -- I love technology, and advancing the state of the
> >> > art is where
> >> I'm
> >> > at.
> >> >
> >> > However, in this case, I think the case of N radios in a M/S is a
> >> > bastardization of M/S.  Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
> >> > I applaud the Huge M/S multi-radio efforts by K1LZ and others --
> >> > very
> >> cool
> >> > technology -- but all that does is eliminate a lot of people from
> >> > ever being in contention for top spots in the category.  If you
> >> > look at the
> >> size
> >> > of the scores in these 5-to-10 radio Multi-singles, they are
> >> > completely
> >> out
> >> > of line with "traditional" multi-singles.
> >> >
> >> > In CQWW, there used to be a category for "experimental" operations ...
> >> > I'm sure those guys building those huge M/S operations would not
> >> > accept being put in to such a category...  However, how do we
> >> > encourage new stations, and long-time "traditional" M/S stations to
> >> > compete in the category?
> >> >  Since there are not a HUGE number of these Many-TX-interlocked
> >> > M/S, and they love to one-up each other -- why not let them compete
> >> > in a
> >> category of
> >> > their own?
> >> >
> >> > There's lots of technology/technique happening in the M/S space
> >> > without going to such extremes.
> >> >
> >> > 73,
> >> >
> >> > Gerry W1VE
> >> >
>
>
>