[CQ-Contest] What's your Opinion on 2BSIQ ?

Wed Jun 3 09:26:15 EDT 2020

Don’t come contests have overlays for these?

Tri band wires
Classic
Rookie

73
Ria
N2RJ

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:38 PM <dj7ww at t-online.de> wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> That is not dual cqing, it is interleaved operation on two bands.
> Only one signal can be transmitted at the time.
>
> And what about nice tribanders and high dipoles?
> I see not reason for a separate tribander/wire category there either.
>
> https://optibeam.net/index.php?article_id=67&clang=1
>
> Is it fair to use stacked yagis on all bands, and/or distributed yagis to 4
> directions?
> Should that be a different category?
> Or should the use of thick hardline be a different category to the RG213
> user?
> How many categories you want?
>
> 73
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+dj7ww=t-online.de at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Jeff Clarke
> Sent: Dienstag, 2. Juni 2020 18:43
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What's your Opinion on 2BSIQ ?
>
> Ria,
>
> You totally missed the point. I never proposed that the ARRL (or CQ)
> allow dual CQing on the SAME band. The fact is that this practice was
> allowed in the ARRL DX contest up until about 5 years ago because it
> wasn't addressed in the rules. Someone on this reflector called out a
> well known contest station in the Caribbean who was doing dueling CQ's
> on the same band in the ARRL DX SSB as to suggest they were cheating.
> They weren't because they were taking advantage of a loophole in the
> rules, like every competitive contester does. Someone who has a lots of
> clout with the ARRL pointed out this inconstancy in their rules as
> compared to other contests and the rule was changed the very next year.
> If I'm not mistaken I believe this practice was also allowed in the CQ
> contests for a long time before the rules were changed to ban it. The
> examples I used in my comments were for a station doing dual CQs on two
> DIFFERENT bands.
>
> That being said I'm not proposing that 2BSIQ or SO2R be banned. It
> should just be a separate category. The rational I'm using is the same
> that was used to separate SOLP, SOQRP, SOA from the traditional SOHP
> category in most contests. The same could be said for the Classic and
> Tribander/Wire categories in the CQ contests. Think about this analogy
> in motorsports.  Would it be fair for a Formula One race car to compete
> directly with a NASCAR. Those of you who follow auto racing know the
> answer to that question. That's why all motorsports have different
> formulas (i.e different racing series). It seems like some people seem
> to think it's fair to group all single-operators together whether they
> are using one radio or two. Having a 2nd radio to do dual CQs on
> separate bands or to just look for stations/multipliers gives someone a
> huge advantage just like using a spotting network as SOA does.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/2/2020 09:22 AM, rjairam at gmail.com wrote:
> > "The rules for ARRL contests prohibit dual CQing on the same band:"
> >
> > This is also true for CQ sponsored contests. It is general rule IX 7.:
> >
> > "Only one signal on a band is allowed at any time. When two or more
> > transmitters are present on the same band, a hardware device MUST be
> > used to prevent more than one signal at any one time. Alternating CQs
> > on two or more frequencies on a band is not permitted."
> >
> > 73
> > Ria, N2RJ
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:05, Richard F DDonna NN3W <richnn3w at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Jeff, I'm going to have to disagree with you.  The fact of the matter is
> >> that the current rules fully allow 2BSIQ operating.  The rules of most
> all
> >> contests for single operators state that only one transmitted signal is
> >> allowed at one time.  2BSIQ operating fully complies with this
> >> requirement.  This is simply a progression of traditional SO2R
> operating.
> >> SO2R is pretty common at stations these days, and the ability to do
> 2BSIQ
> >> operating is simply an evolution of operator skill and practice - as
> >> opposed to an additional hardware feature that is not available
> >> to any ham.
> >>
> >> Lets remember also that most all other categories are more than simply
> one
> >> operator and one radio.  Multi-single entrants often have three radios:
> >> radio #1 that is running on one band, radio #2 that is picking off mults
> on
> >> a second band, and radio #3 that is working in-band S&P on the same band
> as
> >> radio #1.  As long as there is only one transmitted signal and the rules
> >> permit a mult hunter radio, there is again no rules violation.  Multi-2
> >> stations often have four radios.
> >>
> >> The rules for ARRL contests prohibit dual CQing on the same band:
> "alternating
> >> CQs on two or more frequencies using the same band and mode is
> prohibited."
> >>   The rules are absolutely silent on dual CQing on the same band, which
> >> clearly implies that as the ARRL general rules specifically prohibit
> >> in-band dual running, the rules contemplate two band running.
> >>
> >> I personally am not up to nuff on 2BSIQ on CW. I can do it on SSB.
> >> Probably because I havent practiced it enough.  I will say for certain
> that
> >> I have done some 2BSIQ on CW - but usually when one band is runnable and
> >> when one band is just getting going.  I find it to be a valid technique
> in
> >> assessing which band is "hotter".
> >>
> >> Could the rules be amended to expressly prohibit simultaneous "CQs"?
> Sure,
> >> go ahead and try.  I'm not sure how it really helps anyone.
> >>
> >> 73 Rich NN3W
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:39 AM Jeff Clarke <ku8e at ku8e.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are about 2BSIQ ? Do you think
> >>> it's fair to group those who operate this way in with a traditional
> >>> single-operator or should it (and SO2R) be a separate category? I've
> >>> found by looking at the 3830 claimed scores that those who do 2BSIQ
> come
> >>> close to doubling the score of everyone else.
> >>>
> >>> There's also a technically in the rules for most contests that you
> >>> aren't really on a band unless you are transmitting. I just happened to
> >>> come across a video on YouTube of a well known contester who recorded
> >>> himself operating 2BSIQ. What he did is when he was operating on one
> >>> band and in the middle of a QSO  he would be CQing on another band. So
> >>> he was basically doing a Multi-2 minus transmitting at the same time
> >>> with one operator and managing two pileups of stations calling him.
> Also
> >>> consider that if you are Multi-Single you're limited to how many QSY's
> >>> you can make on a 2nd radio while doing Single-Op SO2R there is no
> >>> limitation. Is that really fair?  For M/S why not just allow unlimited
> >>> QSY's on your 2nd radio  if you're only working multipliers on that
> >>> station. It would be pretty easy to for those checking your log to
> >>> validate this.
> >>>
> >>> CQ kind of addresses these issues but why are the Classic rules
> >>> different between CQWW and CQ WPX? I want to operate more than 24 hours
> >>> in CQWW.  There isn't anything classic about only allowing 24 hours in
> >>> CQWW. It's basically a category for old guys that can't do more than 24
> >>> hours anymore. Also why isn't there a Tribander/Single Element category
> >>> in CQWW?  Plus this category in WPX says you can't use a receive
> >>> antenna. What's going on with that?
> >>>
> >>> Why not make these categories consistent between all CQ sponsored
> >>> contests using the WPX definition of Classic and Tribander/Single
> Element ?
> >>>
> >>> *CQWW Rules :*
> >>>
> >>> /1. Classic Operator (CLASSIC): The entrant will use only one radio, no
> >>> QSO finding assistance, and may operate up to 24 of the 48 hours – off
> >>> times are a minimum of 60 minutes during which no QSO is logged. If the
> >>> log shows more than 24 hours of operation, only the first 24 hours will
> >>> be counted for the overlay score. The one radio must not be able to
> >>> receive while transmitting. Single Operator Assisted entries are not
> >>> eligible for this category./
> >>>
> >>> *CQ WPX Rules :*
> >>>
> >>> /1. Tribander/Single Element (TB-WIRES): During the contest an entrant
> >>> shall use only one (1) tribander (any type, with a single feed line
> from
> >>> the transmitter to the antenna) for 10, 15, and 20 meters and
> >>> single-element antennas on 40, 80, and 160 meters. Separate receiving
> >>> antennas are not permitted in this category./*
> >>> *
> >>>
> >>> /3. Classic Operator (CLASSIC): The entrant will use only one radio, no
> >>> QSO finding assistance, and the one radio must not be able to receive
> >>> while transmitting. Operator Assisted entries are not eligible for this
> >>> category./
> >>>
> >>> /
> >>> /
> >>>
> >>> *ARRL DX Rules :*
> >>>
> >>> The Multi-Single rules for ARRL DX are even worse. You have to take
> time
> >>> away from your run station to work multipliers on a 2nd band. But there
> >>> aren't any QSY limitations for a single-operator. So like the CQ
> >>> contests you can operate like a traditional multi-2 station in a CQ
> >>> contest without any limitations. ARRL - Why not add a Classic -
> >>> Tribander/Single Element category like CQ has?
> >>>
> >>> /3.4.4 Band Changes. Single Transmitter and Two Transmitter
> sub-category
> >>> entries are limited to six (6) band changes per clock hour per
> >>> transmitter./
> >>>
> >>> /
> >>> /
> >>>
> >>> I hope those who operate 2BSIQ in contests  don't take my comments
> >>> personally. I'm not against the technological advances we have in
> >>> contesting these days. I just think it's fair to those who don't have
> >>> the means to have all the equipment necessary to do this not be grouped
> >>> in with those who do.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jeff KU8E
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>