[RTTY] Two sides

Mon Jul 24 03:45:50 EDT 2006

Ah, but you miss my point. The SOxR guys are running so far
ahead of the SO1R guys as to make any comparison meaningless.

This is the same argument as using multiple operators and 
trying to compare them to single operators. No comparison,
not even close. I remember the big debate back then, same
logic... when multiple operators finally were split into
their own class there was a lot of complaining about how
SO stations would (and I quote) "look so much better than
they really are" . The world didn't end. This isn't a 
case of amateur -vs- seasoned veteran. Rather it's a case
of the "why bothers" for me.

When my last log was 'gleaned' and Qs were thrown out, I
stopped sending logs. Now I hardly ever make a Q during
a contest. I've been 'told' on the air "UR CALL NO PTS"
during a test. Modest SO1R is being stomped right off the 
air. You might say I don't want to compete with the big
boys, and you're right. I'd compete with myself if there
was a place (eq. class) for me to do so.

Otherwise, I'll sit it out and let the big guns fight to
get that very next point to the obsession that it has
become. An alcoholic has to admit to himself that he is
an alcoholic before any treatment can be effective. 
Likewise the "SOxR" operators must recognize that they're
taking the fun out of contesting and replacing it with an
obsession. There is a need for a class for smaller operators who
(for whatever reason) choose not to run complex stations.

If a new class was established, goes one argument, then
what's to stop SOxR from running a big complex SO1R so as
to dominate that class, too? Why nothing -- of course, other
than to drive smaller SO1R stations away from contesting.
You see it's a teeter-totter where a balance is needed.
Instead all the 'weight' is on one side and smaller SO1R
stations are being held worthlessly in the air. (or is that
up in the air?)

Note: I think Dave, NJ4F, expresses the same view. A little
bit of levelling is in order, just enought to put the fun
back into operating with a modest station. 

John, W0DC, appears to agree about the mismatch between
So1R and SO2R.

Carter, K8VT, seems to be aware of the difference.

Bill, W6RGT, is a strong voice supporting this change and
Joe, W4TV, is firmly in opposition with the belief that 
essentially a second radio is merely station tool like a
tall tower or a directional antenna.

If two operators operate one radio or one operator
operates two radios; that is a big advantage over
one operator operating one radio. That seems clear
enough. Beams, towers, wire antennas and locations
aside, they only distract from the presentation.

That is: Does SOxR offer an excessive advantage
over SO1R. The key word is "excessive" and that
seems to be the crux of this discussion.

Respectfully,

Phil Sussman
N8PS

---------------

Quoting "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>:

> 
> Phil. 
> 
> > But in the SO1R / SOmR discussion, it looks to me as if the SO2R
> > side is saying there's really no need for a SO1R restriction. The
> > case being, they have as much of an opportunity of scoring as 
> > does everyone else. Of course the falacy of the argument is that
> > 'little guns' can possibly outperform 'big guns' if they had the
> > right operator or the right location for scoring big. 
> 
> That's not what I'm saying at all ... 
> 
> What I'm saying is that SO2R is one more tool for the operator.  It 
> belongs in the same toolbox as antenna choices, learning propagation, 
> learning how to effectively operate the radio, understanding how to 
> make the station more efficient, etc.  
> 
> Don, AA5AU says on his web site that he started doing SO2R to make 
> up for the handicap of antennas in the "attic dipole" class.  He 
> still does not have an antenna farm that it the equivalent of K4GMH 
> or many of the elite class contesters.  Without SO2R it is likely 
> that Don could not possibly compete at the level he does ... Sure, 
> he might do very well in a "tribander and wires" category but that 
> is because he's that good an operator.  Don is not the only one in 
> that boat ... they use the tools at their disposal to get the best 
> result they can with whatever resources at their disposal. 
> 
> What a "one radio only" category does is punish those who do not 
> have the ability to do big antennas ... who live on small lots 
> and can only have a short tower with a small tribander.  It does 
> not give them the opportunity to use other tools to compensate. 
> 
> If one wants to limit the choice of tools, then limit ALL of them. 
> If the intent is to prohibit me or anyone else from using SOmR to 
> "gain an unfair advantage" over you, then why should those with 
> "attic antennas" say they don't want you to have your directive 
> antennas to "gain an unfair advantage" over them?  
> 
> If the goal is to make contesting more accessible and more inviting 
> to newcomers and those who don't (yet?) have big antennas or SOmR 
> capabilities, why are we not talking about a basic category that 
> is "one transceiver and single element antennas" - specifically 
> "flagpole verticals, trap verticals, inverted L/end fed wires, and 
> dipoles or an inverted V no higher than 30'?  That is the "no tools" 
> (or limited level) ... beyond that it should be up to the individual 
> which tools he chooses to employ.  It should be up to the individual 
> operator to decide if he will get the biggest return on investment 
> by installing a 90' tower with stacked C31XR tribanders or if he 
> will be better served with a 50' tower, 3L SteppIR, trapped vertical 
> and SO2R.  
> 
> Shelby's proposal, whether it is written as a separate category for 
> SO1R or a separate category for SO2R (the effect is the same) would 
> say that SOmR is, by definition, such an overwhelming advantage as 
> to be the equivalent of running high power or receiving assistance 
> (multiple operators).  The problem is, SOmR does not provide that 
> kind of benefit.  Like every other tool in the contesters' kit, 
> the benefit from SOmR depends on the skill of the user and the other 
> tools available to him.  Shelby's proposal to "have a {separate] SO1R 
> category" says that SOmR on it's face and without regard for any other 
> resources and individual station may have is so "different" that those 
> operators cannot be considered on the same basis as those who have only 
> one radio.  Nothing except that second or third transceiver matters. 
> 
> Frankly, that is just plain wrong.  It is bigotry of the first order. 
> 
> 73, 
> 
>    ... Joe, W4TV 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com

> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> 