Why all this complaining I wonder? We have stations griping about how it's
not "fair" and how people have "too many advantages."
Guess what - life is not fair!!! In sports the bigger, stronger, faster one
will win. In radio sport the big guns closer to advantageous areas and who
can do SO2R will win. That's just how it is. If you're out west and tired
of being beaten, then come pay the high taxes and enjoy the harsh winters
out east. Or maybe pay a remote service and use one of their stations in
Maine or New York and win a plaque. Turn key plug and play. Meaningless in
my eyes (YOU didn't build that), but if you're so badly after a plaque that
is one way.
I have a single tower station with one radio and one amp. I do fairly well.
I win the district sometimes and even squeak my way into the top 10
sometimes. I'm happy with that, but I could improve and do better in the
placement. But let's be honest. Someone could dump a ton of money and build
a multi tower station complete with low band 4 squares. They'll beat me. Is
that fair? Maybe it isn't. But I'm not going to knee cap them because I
want to win. I just deal with it.
Ria
N2RJ
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org> wrote:
> I have no problem with Dual CQ SO2R, Yuri. These are great advances in
> technique and show excellent operator skill and innovation.
>
> Time Division Multiplexing 8 operators and radios to a "single" radio,
> IMHO, is not the same thing and is not in the spirit of the rules. It is
> simply a technology technique which is within the letter of the rules, but
> not the spirit.
>
> Yes, I have to accept it if the rules may not change. I DO accept it...
> However, I don't think it is a good way to encourage new M/S teams to
> participate.
>
> We all have our opinions, these are mine.
>
> 73, Gerry W1VE
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Yuri <ve3dz@rigexpert.net> wrote:
>
> > Gerry,
> > Isn't SO2R Dual CQ operation (a-la CT1BOH, N6MJ etc.) is the same type
> of
> > <quote> "elimination of a lot of people from ever being in contention for
> > top spots in the category" <unquote>?
> > All that you said below is true for ANY category.
> >
> > I think it's all about the rules.
> > If they aren't broken and they allow to do such, then... one either needs
> > to change the rules or has to accept the fact. Maybe it's time to
> research
> > some other ways to attract (more) new competitors, like doing more
> > WRTC-style (live) competitions during June FDays, working more closely
> with
> > schools, colleges and other youth organizations and so on...
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Yuri VE3DZ
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> > Gerry Hull
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 10:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What is Multi to you?
> >
> > Interesting Thread.
> >
> > I've been contesting over 40 years. In all that time, 99% of my efforts
> > have been at M/S or M/2 stations.
> > For more than 30 of those years, a multi-single was a station with one
> > main radio and one multiplier radio.
> >
> > With a single tower and a good antenna complement, winning M/S in North
> > America has been possible with two radios. We did it at more than one
> > station.
> >
> > If you read my comments on CQ Contest, you know that I don't live in the
> > past -- I love technology, and advancing the state of the art is where
> I'm
> > at.
> >
> > However, in this case, I think the case of N radios in a M/S is a
> > bastardization of M/S. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
> > I applaud the Huge M/S multi-radio efforts by K1LZ and others -- very
> cool
> > technology -- but all that does is eliminate a lot of people from ever
> > being in contention for top spots in the category. If you look at the
> size
> > of the scores in these 5-to-10 radio Multi-singles, they are completely
> out
> > of line with "traditional" multi-singles.
> >
> > In CQWW, there used to be a category for "experimental" operations ...
> > I'm sure those guys building those huge M/S operations would not accept
> > being put in to such a category... However, how do we encourage new
> > stations, and long-time "traditional" M/S stations to compete in the
> > category?
> > Since there are not a HUGE number of these Many-TX-interlocked M/S, and
> > they love to one-up each other -- why not let them compete in a category
> of
> > their own?
> >
> > There's lots of technology/technique happening in the M/S space without
> > going to such extremes.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Gerry W1VE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|