Contesting Online Speak Out

Speak Out: SO2R and Rules

40 opinions on this subject. Enter your opinion at the bottom of this page.
[Speak Out Home Page]

Anonymous on 2001-07-29
This isn't any different than jamming SO2R down my throat. If anything, the case could be made that packet is more of a hinderance than a help, since SO-Assisted scores rarely if ever exceed SO-Unassisted scores.

I don't understand why other technical innovations resulted in separate categories, but SO2R doesn't. Amplifiers did, we get HP and LP. Packet did almost immediately.

The only point I'm trying to make is that there are thousands of guys who are in no position to implement SO2R, who may be more active in contesting if they feel they have a reasonable chance to do well. I don't run SO2R because I'm a luddite or because I don't want to put out the effort. I don't run SO2R because I don't have the resources or the real estate. I'd like to think that contest participation for me would mean more than padding somebody else's log.

Finally, I don't think SO2R guys should be "dragged down" or have their hard work eliminated by a rules change. That would be tremendously unfair to SO2R guys who have put in the effort and expense to operate that way. Let's face it: The SO2R guys are competing against other SO2R guys already. I'm just asking that the SO1R guys get to do the same.

Thanks !

73 Steve K0SR

k2ua on 2001-07-29
K0SR wants to lump SO2R ops and packet together, suggesting that it "might satisfy everybody." My thoughts: Don't try to jam packet down my throat--I am a single operator!

As to what might satisfy everybody: There's room in contest results tabulations for a field that shows Y or N for people who wish to declare that they operated with one radio or more than one radio. This has been done on the 3830 reflector for at least two full contest seasons.

If contest results were published showing who is SO1R and who is SO>1R, then those who wish for a "level playing field" and those who wish not to "compete against" those of us running two or more radios could do their own mental filtering so they can feel better about the results.

Anything else would unfairly segment, and undesirably dilute, the true spirit of the single operator competition. More single-op categories than we have today in, for example, the ARRL DX Contest, would be a very bad thing for contesting.

Contesting is by its very nature competition. Those who enjoy it, whether as competitors or participants, will continue to do so in the category that makes the most sense to them. Those who don't enjoy it should explore the many other aspects of ham radio rather than trying to turn our hobby--contesting--into something that true contesters don't want: an operating exercise with diluted, meaningless results.

Lest this should come across as just so many sour grapes, let me state that I do SO2R not because I have to do it to win, but because it makes contesting much more fun to me than SO1R ever was. Better scores, and much better skills, happen to come along for the ride. I welcome them with the fun, but the fun is what it's all about.

N2MG on 2001-07-29
Steve, why is being in two places at once more important than being able to bust a pileup in a single call? Or being able to beam JA and EU at the same time? Sure, technically they are different, but I'm asking WRT the final score - where it really matters. Stacked antennas get one in and out of pileups faster, hold run freqs better. Multiple rotatable antennas get you beaming several areas at once. This kind of equipment provides more to the bottom line (score) than SO2R. In fact, all the work with multiple antennas and stacks is done before "contest time" and so put VERY little burden on the operator during the contest. SO2R puts a huge burden on the operator during the contest.

Anonymous on 2001-07-28
N2MG: You're right, there are numerous factors that "tilt the playing field". Geography is huge. Operate from up here some time! :)

On the other hand, you can compensate for Some of the other factors. Take signal strength. I'm not going to sit in a pile up with stacked mono banders or try to run on 14001, I'd get my butt kicked. But I can run higher up the band, I can sneak through the pileups with good timing, and I can find other multipliers before the mob does.

What I can't do is be in two places at the same time. That's a difference that can't be overcome no matter how good you are. It's worse than competing against a multi-op.

Steve K0SR

Anonymous on 2001-07-28
The main objection to differentiating SO1R and SO2R is that we would clutter the results up with to many categories. If we assume SO2R has a tactical advantage over SO1R that's at least as significant as HP versus LP, then let me make a suggestion.

We can resolve single operator into two categories: SO and SO Unlimited. SO would be restricted to one rig and low power. SO unlimited could use high power, two radios, packet, whatever they could handle.

The SO guys wouldn't be seriously impacted, and would have an opportunity to compete agaisnt similarly equipped stations. (Sounds like WRTC, doesn't it ?).

The SO Unlimited guys could compete against each other and go nuts with every technical innovation they can concieve of.

I think that might satisfy everybody !

Steve K0SR

N2MG on 2001-07-28
Steve wrote:
"It's the investment part I have a problem with"

What's the difference between ops with one tower competing with ops with three towers AND ops with SO1R competing with those with SO2R?

What's the difference between ops with single monobanders competing with ops with stacked monobanders AND ops with SO1R competing with those with SO2R?

What's the difference between ops with automatic antenna switching and self-tuning amplifiers competing with ops with manual antenna switches and amplifiers AND ops with SO1R competing with those with SO2R?

The question is not that there is AN ADVANTAGE. THIS IS OBVIOUS. The entire idea with adding hardware to one's station is to gain AN ADVANTAGE. This h/w takes an investment. Always has...whether SO2R or multiple towers or...

My question is why does SO2R matter so much (to some) and the other difference (IMO, much more important) NOT?

Anonymous on 2001-07-28
The fix is to that not only can single ops transmit on one frequency at a time, they should only be allowed to receive on one frequency at a time. Dual VFO's would work well with this method, Dual watch would not and of course SO2R would not.

The NAQP's were two radios really puts you head and shoulders above everybody else.

K4WW on 2001-07-28
Much has, and will be written about the need to establish a separate category for those of us that, for whatever reason choose to enter contests, hoping to be able to compete on somewhat of an equal opportunity as possible! The need for this separate category was never more evident that in the past RTTY NAQP! With several, myself included, attaining new �personal best� scores, those of us using only one (1) radio, still fell more that 150 contacts below the top SO2R operators! There are many reasons why �we� choose to contest with only one (1) radio, and those reasons are not nearly as important as the fact that �we�, simply choose to do that! I have neither the desire nor property available to allow SO2R, as I live on a 100X50 subdivision lot! I am fortunate and grateful to have my current antenna system, and there simply isn�t enough room for an efficient vertical, much less another tower! Those that choose to operate SO2R should be allowed to do just that, unrestricted! Those of �us� that choose not to do so, for whatever reason, should be allowed to compete among ourselves, in a separate category! Most, if not all, SO2R are accomplished and experienced enough to most likely win using one (1) radio, and if that should be their choosing, they should be allowed to compete within that category! There is no attempt to �drag� SO2R stations down, just an attempt to allow SO1R stations to compete on as �level as possible playing field�! We all accept the fact that the �playing field� will never be level, for many reasons beyond our control, however it should not require additional expense, especially to those that �really� have no desire to operate SO2R, to try an level the �playing field�! The ability to CQ on one band, and listen on one or more others, without changing bands on the transciever, is, over the duration of a contest, an insurmountable advantage! While most contesting software is equipped with �transmit lockout� features, stations have been observed calling CQ on more than one band at the same time! Whether intentional or accidental, it is still a violation of the rules and should result in a DQ? SO2R operators have their own category, SOAB! Should those of �us� that choose SO1R be required to SOSB, in those contests that allow this category, in order to compete on the same level? When was the last time a SO1R won a contest, if they were in direct competition (same location, whether DX or domestic) with SO2R? When �everything else is equal�, SO2R wins, as it should be! After all they have done what they feel is necessary to win! It has been said that 97% of the entrants couldn�t care less about how many radio�s, what kind of antenna system or, generally, much less about the contest, they just are in to give out points? I don�t know if the percentage is correct, if it really matters, however I happen to consider myself in the 3% that do care! There are several contests that I �tune the band giving out points� and may never even submit a log. When I do choose to operate in a �serious� manner, I would like to believe that, before the contest starts, I have a chance of winning! By choosing SO1R, and competing directly against SO2R, that chance has disappeared! By competing �directly� against other SO1R operators, I can, after the contest, compare, not only their score, but other determining factors in their operation, that I can apply to my own situation, in order to improve it! SO1R, as a category, has a place in today�s contest scenario, if for no other reason, than to allow possibly, the majority of the entrants to compete equally?

SO1R = one (1) person using (1) radio, regardless of whether is has dual VFO�s, and if it does, not using that second VFO! How can this be enforced? The same way HP/LP is enforced!

N0RKX on 2001-07-27
Good post Steve.

How many would be contestors have given up contesting because they can't compete with the five or six digit, multi-tower, technologically advanced stations?

I do have to admit that I do have some fun trying to keep up with the big dogs. I wonder how they feel about a little dog staying within 10-20% of their score? Make 'em run out and throw up some more steel and aluminum?

Kevin, NØRKX

Anonymous on 2001-07-27
Out numbered is out numbered....There is no doubt that SO2R will kick the crap out of SO1R, otherwise people wouldn't make the
investment. It's the investment part I have a problem with. A lot of us are in no position to buy 2nd radios, extra towers, not to mention the real estate to fit all of this stuff. And don't even bring up a multi-band trapped vertical, that antenna would be pretty worthless from where I operate.
So, am I to assume that because I can't afford to play SO2R that I'm not committed to contesting ? That I'm not a "serious operator"? I don't think so.

It occurs to me that us SO1R guys might be better off entering their results as M/S, as long as the M/S guys have a 10- minute rule.

I'm not being bitter here, guys. I had a very good correspondence about this subject with N5NJ and he made some very good points. Just remember that a lot of guys who can't afford SO2R hardware don't like being treated as second class contesters.

Steve K0SR

Page 1 -->

Enter your opinion about SO2R and Rules:

The opinions expressed within Contesting Online Speak Out are those of the contributor, and not necessarily that of Contesting Online. Contesting Online simply provides a forum for people to express their opinions on various amateur radio contesting subjects of interest.

Do you have an idea for a Speak Out topic? Email our Speak Out Manager with your ideas.