CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again

To: "'ak0a'" <ak0a@kc.rr.com>, <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
From: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:12:25 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> From:  ak0a
> 
> I agree with you Bill. the only people who are against this 
> are the SO2R ops. Why? I cant figure out. What are they scared of?

You are 100% dead wrong ... I do not do SO2R but have absolutely 
no problem understanding that a better equipped station with a 
more proficient operator might choose to have a second rig on one  
band looking for mults, checking propagation, etc. while running on 
a different band.  It has been that way for at least the nearly 30 
years that I have been around the contest game and only for the 
last few of those years has the chorus been "discriminate against 
the elite stations!" 

If you are arguing for separate categories, then a separate category 
for towers over 22 meters and multiple antennas per band should be 
implemented long before a separate category for SO2R.  

In truth, competing against the big antenna stations is far more  
frustrating to the bulk of the "vertical and wires or A3 on the roof" 
stations than competing against someone with a trap vertical 
connected to the second receiver input on his FT-1000D or a "Windom" 
in a tree connected to an older [second] transceiver.  A station can 
gain far more by improving antennas than can ever be gained by adding 
SO2R.  Only when one has optimized the antenna system does SO2R add 
significantly to the score.   

73, 

   ... Joe, K4IK 
 

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>