Perhaps it comes down to a fairly simple rule of thumb - don't CQ on the
second radio unless you're prepared to answer when the CQ finishes. In
Sprinting, there is zero reason to CQ to "hold a frequency", so it makes no
sense to CQ unless you want an answer now.
73, Pete N4ZR
At 10:44 AM 9/14/2007, David Pruett wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>I have to agree with you on this one. I've heard K5ZD say many time
>that good SO2R is undetectable to others on the band, and its my opinion
>that this is true for those contesters who are good at it. Not actively
>listening for responses on a frequency you're CQing on does not fit that
>description. Sure, it's easier, but I think it makes you a lid in most
>people's minds, simply because they're trying to work you and you're
>operating in a way which precludes this. Sounds like the definition of
>a lid to me.
>
>And since when is it legit for a single-op to transmit simultaneously on
>two frequencies? I know the ARRL does not allow it, but what is the
>Sprint's stance on this? Again, if you're CQing in two places and not
>processing in real time the receive stream resulting from those CQs,
>you're a lid as described above.
>
>As a fan (and early adopter of SO2R), it really irritates me that
>certain people are giving SO2R a bad name through their poor operating.
>Going back to the statement attributed to K5ZD above, if SO2R were
>practiced in such a way that it's undetectable on the bands, nobody
>would be complaining (well, nobody except K4WW). It seems to me that
>the "first generation" of SO2Rers (going back to N2NT, K3UA, K3LR and
>others in the 70s) knew this, but it's been lost on the "second
>generation" of newcomers who seem to think it's "all about CQing".
>
>73,
>
>Dave/K8CC
>
>ku8e wrote:
> > It's interesting this topic came up. Just the other day while having
> lunch with K4BAI (and talking about the Sprint) I made the comment to
> John that "I sure had a hard time working N4AF" I think I called him 20
> times and never made it through to him. Finally,
> > he called me on 80 CW while I was CQing". John's reply was " Yeah that
> was probably because he was doing SO2R and working someone on his other
> radio."
> >
> > Personally I would like to see SO2R go away. Before you SO2R diehards
> start telling
> > me to learn SO2R so I can become a good operator too...done it... I
> did SO2R for many years when I lived in Ohio and got to be very good at
> it. Of course you guys that are doing it are going to find a reason to
> defend SO2R because it gives you a competitive advantage over those that
> don't do it. Those small advantages are often the difference between
> winning and losing.
> >
> >
> > Now that I more of a casual contester due to station limitations I see
> many flaws in the SO2R concept. There seem to be too many ways that
> people can bend the rules (or loop holes in the rules) and not be
> penalized. Problems always seem to occur when a SO2R operator vacates
> his run frequency and someone else takes it. A frequency fight usually
> occurs in that case with the SO2R operator claiming the frequency as his
> even though he vacated it.
> >
> > N6TR mentioned some who was calling CQ to solicit contacts on two
> bands at the same time, That is definitely breaking the Special QSY Rule
> . Plus, how do you prove that someone is not transmitting on two bands
> and the same time. I don't think most SO2R operators have a lockout
> system. That would break the rules because you be doing Multi-Multi in
> that case.
> >
> > It seems many contests have this loop hole that if you are not
> transmitting on two bands at the same time you are not operating two
> bands at the same time. (even thought you might be in the middle of a QSO
> with someone on one of those bands.) How are you ever going prove someone
> is cheating? The only way I see that you could do it is to have something
> like the 10 minute rule they have for M/S stations in many contests - But
> that would probably take away the competitve advantage you gained doing SO2R.
> >
> >
> > Jeff KU8E
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|