At the risk of being in the minority here, I really have trouble believing
that the new Multi/One category, which will replace the old Multi/Single
category is an improvement in several respects.
First: let's face reality. For those running M/S, which was theoretically
single Run station plus an optional Multiplier Station, you really had not a
"true" or "traditional" M/S station -- ONE and only ONE transmitting station
-- but something that fell in between a "true" M/S and a M/2, or at best a
limited M/2. With the M/1 category, you can either run a "true" M/S or a
"true" (unlimited) M/2.
To my mind, this opens up a multi-op situation to more of the smaller
stations. Yes, you may see some shuffling of some stations from SO/SOAB
categories, or M/S or M/2 categories, to M/1. So what?
Those who wish to run M/2 can now do so without band switching limitations.
And compete, apples to apples, with other M/2's. So?
Second: The new M/1 can have up to 8 band changes a (clock) hour (defined
as between 00 & 59 minutes, so the number of changes per hour resets at the
top of the hour) The old M/S had to stay on a band for a minimum of 10
minutes at a time -- a limitation that M/1 will NOT have. So... an M/1
station that is using an additional radio or radios for receive only (not
prohibited in the rules that I can see) can feed other-band mults to the
"run" station, and if it is deemed worthy, can hop back and forth multiple
times. This can make for some interesting strategies... especially in the
period of roughly 15 to until 15 past the hour. This sounds like it could
be challenging, and fun.
And, if you want to stay on the band for so long, then hop to another, 8
changes per clock hour means you can change bands 60/8 times...every 7 and a
half minutes. And this is inferior to the 10 minute minimum because...
Third: Apples to Oranges. M/1 stations are competing against other M/1
stations. M/2 against M/2, SOAB against SOAB, etc. So, in a given entity,
an SOAB op running SO2R manages a higher mathematical score against the M/1
in the same entity. So? They're in different categories, right? If
anything, I'd say that gives the M/1 guys incentive to maximize operating,
and challenges the SO's to prove themselves superior. Incentive to operate
and maximize score. Imagine.
Fourth: Past performance. More than a few people have commented on the
fact that the past M/S scores won't "fairly" compare to the new category
scores. Well, there's a reason I've been saying "M/1" not "M/S," because if
you look at preliminary rules PDF that Randy posted...
http://www.cqwpx.com/2010_wpx_rules_preliminary%2015Nov2009.pdf page 3, to
be precise... you'll see that the name of this category IS Multi/One. So...
consider that the old M/S records stand for this to-be-retired category that
was called Multi-Single, and we start with new records for M/1. And, should
sometime in the future, the M/S as we know is re-instated, well, then pick
up the records from there. This is a problem because...?
Bottom line is that if you really think about it, I just don't see how one
can say that the new M/1 category will "kill" interest in use of a single
transmitter by multiple operators.
Is it a change? Yes. Is it a good change? I think so. Will it pay off in
the long run? If we let it.
I say, let's give it a try. If we give it a fair shake, and it doesn't work
out, the old M/S category can be reinstated in 2 or 3 years. But let's give
it a chance.
73, ron w3wn
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|