I've always maintained that SO2R and SO1R should be entirely different
categories. Whenever I bring this up, the mandarins of radio sport are quick
to argue that they should be allowed to compete in the same classifications as
SO1R because "it takes practice to get good at SO2R". No doubt that's true,
but it's also specious. SO2R takes money, practice, and real estate. Let
those that have the resources compete among themselves and let those that don't
do likewise.
73, Alan (some of my best friends operate SO2R) K6SRZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Durham" <W1md@W1md.net>
To: "Ria Jairam" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Cc: "Barry" <w2up@comcast.net>, "N2TK, Tony" <tony.kaz@verizon.net>,
"CQ-Contest Reflector" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:53:06 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] PJ4G ARRL DX SSB Recording by N2IC
Interesting data points from 2016 cqww cw
Combine the top 30 SOHP and SOHPA, and 87% of the top 60 stations were SO2R
73% of the top 30 SOHP stations were SO2R
60% of the top 30 SOHPA stations were SO2R.
The top nine SO2R unassisted were higher scores than the top SO2R assisted.
Yes, just one contest worth of data points but interesting.
Maybe the SOA 1 radio guys are getting the short end of the stick.
AND...there were only 30 entries total in MM. probably half of those stations
have the capability (my guess) to run two stations in band.
All the data was taken from 3830scores so there could be some calls that didn't
submit a score there.
Marty
W1MD
On Mar 14, 2017, at 4:27 PM, Ria Jairam
<rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>> wrote:
Never understood that myself...
THAT is something I'd like to see addressed. SO2R is essentially almost as
advantageous as multi-op.
This, IMO, is more "unfair" than a few people using unclaimed assistance and
entering as SO unassisted.
Ria
N2RJ
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:45 AM, N2TK, Tony
<tony.kaz@verizon.net<mailto:tony.kaz@verizon.net>> wrote:
So if using twice the spectrum, which I agree, why are SO2R and SO1R in the
same category? One could be running on two bands while the other can only
run one band at a time.
N2TK, Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>]
On Behalf Of
Martin Durham
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 9:30 PM
To: Barry <w2up@comcast.net<mailto:w2up@comcast.net>>
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] PJ4G ARRL DX SSB Recording by N2IC
That's not using two frequencies?? A good SO2R is cqing on one freq and
either dueling CQs on a second freq or working multi. If time right
transmits and receives make this a finely choreographed dance. Absolutely
SO2R is using twice the spectrum that a SO1R is using.
Marty
W1MD
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:21 PM, Barry
> <w2up@comcast.net<mailto:w2up@comcast.net>> wrote:
>
> SO2R ops aren't using two freqs. They are CQing on one and answering
stations on another freq already in use by someone else.
>
> Barry W2UP
>
>> On 3/13/2017 14:59, Martin Durham wrote:
>> Not the issue. SO2R wouldn't be on a second frequency if it were not
producing contacts.
>>
>> SO2R operators have twice the spectrum use of SO1R.
>>
>> THAT is the advantage. Why do multi ops exists? To sit on a frequency
calling CQ into dead air??
>>
>> I've been doing multi operator contests for over 30 years.
>>
>> Marty
>> W1MD
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Ria Jairam
<rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com><mailto:rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>>>
wrote:
>>
>> Not necessarily since propagation varies widely within that space.
>>
>> Ria
>> N2RJ
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:46 PM Martin Durham
<W1md@w1md.net<mailto:W1md@w1md.net><mailto:W1md@w1md.net<mailto:W1md@w1md.net>>>
wrote:
>> Hmmmmmm
>>
>> What if you look at the spectrum as 1.8 - 30mhz. One station cq'ing
>> on two frequencies is using twice the spectrum. Regardless of the
>> 'band' you are on. Riiiight?? :)
>>
>> SO2R operators effectively get to use twice the spectrum that SO1R
operators use...right?
>>
>> Marty
>> W1MD
>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Ria Jairam
<rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com><mailto:rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>>>
wrote:
>>>
>>> Some bands are more limited in space than others.
>>> 40m - 75kHz
>>> 20m - 200kHz
>>> 15m - 250kHz
>>> 10m - 1.4MHz
>>>
>>> Some bands are more productive than others, depending on propagation.
>>>
>>> So with two CQs by one station on the same band the station engaging
>>> in this practice takes up twice the space and denies others the use
>>> of the productive or limited space band.
>>>
>>> CQing on two bands is different because the other band may not be as
>>> productive, and even underused in low solar years.
>>>
>>> Ria
>>> N2RJ
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:58 PM
>>>> john@kk9a.com<mailto:john@kk9a.com><mailto:john@kk9a.com<mailto:john@kk9a.com>>
<john@kk9a.com<mailto:john@kk9a.com><mailto:john@kk9a.com<mailto:john@kk9a.com>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As far as spectrum usage goes what is the difference between this
>>>> and a single op CQing on two bands?
>>>>
>>>> KK9A
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To:
>>>> cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com><mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] PJ4G ARRL DX SSB Recording by N2IC
>>>> From: W0MU Mike Fatchett
>>>> <w0mu@w0mu.com<mailto:w0mu@w0mu.com><mailto:w0mu@w0mu.com<mailto:w0mu@w0mu.com>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:32:05 -0600
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeff,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the comments. I agree with your interpretation of the
>>>> rules, I don't like that it is allowed and like many have asked the
>>>> ARRL to close this loophole.
>>>>
>>>> Many believe that if everyone adopted this philosophy that the band
>>>> would be a mess. People would have a very difficult time finding a
>>>> place to CQ unless you were a big gun etc.
>>>>
>>>> 73 and thanks for all the contacts from everywhere!
>>>>
>>>> W0MU
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com><mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>>
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com><mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>>
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com<mailto: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
|