|
SO2R
|
I salute those with independently tunable ears, duplicate top-of-the-range radios, big aluminium, tight filters, rig-PC links and no-brain switching. Good luck to them - they deserve their medals for all that effort. Maybe in time I'll join them. For now it's hard finding the time and energy to get even one radio on the air, so I just enjoy operating not winning. But always I try to do better than last time!!
73
Gary G4iFB "When it works, work it"
PS Judging by the number of people who call on top of the DX in any pileup, even SO1R is apparently difficult for a lot of hams :-)
Posted by
G4iFB
on August 9, 2003
|
|
SO1R and SO2R
|
Why should we have a SO2R catagory. We dont have a High Speed catagory in the CW tests.
I say lets go back to 4 catagories, Single op.,Multi op., High Power, and Low Power.
SO2R is a skill I havent aquired as is 35 wpm cw. Why penalize an operator for his skills. If you think its easy try it.
Posted by
wd5jnc
on July 13, 2003
|
|
comments
|
Just one comment:
If you want a rule that prevents SO2R from being a large advantage, the way to implement it is simple: restrict the amount of time between band changes. No separate category needed.
Posted by
n4ogw
on May 22, 2003
|
|
Single Operator (2R)
|
The whole issue here is really how many brains are operating, not how many radios are being used. I have an SO2R capable setup and try to use it as such, but it's added functionality is limited by my ability. This ability dwindles with age! Having been involved in such things, I would suggest that the skills required for good SO2R are like those required for the Top Gun course or helo deck-landing at night. Very few have the aptitude to master it, but why should they be put in a separate class. Their skill should be rewarded, when compared with the others who also only have one brain. Neither money nor real estate are required to create an SO2R shack, so it's just skill that would be penalised.
73
Stewart
Posted by
gm4aff
on May 21, 2003
|
|
SO2R
|
I really do know all the arguments people will throw out to show why SO2R should not be a separate category, and I understand those arguments. The only problem is...I disagree. At the end of the day, this is how I see it for my own situation:
(a) I have a terrible time keeping just one set of antennas in the air and keeping just one radio working. My station is right on the beach in hurricane alley, and the corrosion problems are incredible. I am not willing to spend more money and more time trying to maintain a more complex station than I already have.
(b) I do understand that I am at a serious competitive disadvantage in multi-band categories when going up against well-equipped SO2R stations. Thus the way I have found to have fun and be competitive is simply to avoid those situations where I would be at a competitve disadvantage. That means sticking to single band categories or picking those contests where SO2R does not offer an advantage.
If enough people feel as I do--and I suspect there are many--then the emergence of SO2R over the last few years could well be limiting activity that would otherwise be there in some contests such as CQWW. Another downside I see is that I really think there aren't more than a couple dozen people in the world who can operate SO2R without causing major problems. The rest--and here I mean almost everybody trying to do SO2R--are the ones who don't come back to me with an exchange after I pull them out of the pile-up and answer them or who want to fight to reclaim a frequency they haven't used in several minutes.
The solution: find a good way to define it and make SO2R a separate category. And yes, it CAN be done.
Posted by
ZF2NT
on May 16, 2003
|
|
SO-S&P -- An Appealing Category
|
Single Operator, Search and Pounch Only -- The idea here is that many contesters don't have the antennas, power, or location to hold a frequency, yet getting a good run going is imperative if you wish to win. Perhaps a separate category for people who only choose to answer CQs will encourage those who, as a practical matter, can only S&P most of the time anyway. I notice that S&P results are much more a function of skill, while holding a frequency is much more a function of LOUD. The guys who run will benefit from increased participation if those who can't run don't have to compete with them. I often wondered if it was fair for a loud multi-multi on Sunday afternoon to dominate 14155, chasing all interlopers off the frequency when he only works 1 person for every 15 CQs, while a modest station new to the band could have generated a pile-up if he could just find a clear frequency. I don't mind someone hogging a frequency if he gets answers, and this category might give the running station more QSOs. If the big guns won't give up the frequency, then at least hand out lots of certificates to S&P participants. (Another appealing thing about an S&P category is that it could be more effectively policed than how many radios you use, or how much power you run.)
Posted by
N2BA
on May 10, 2003
|
|
SO2R -- An Inexpensive Way for a Good Operator to Improve
|
|
I have a modest LP station on a suburban lot with tribanders, and a bigger rural station on with big towers and stacked mono-banders and 1.5KW. The difference between the two can be expressed in DOLLARS more than anything else. To builld the big station, all that I had to do was get a really good bonus one year. To make SO2R work, I spent verly little money, but I had to greatly upgrade my skill level. I think that we should not create different categories where skill is the primary differentiator. Mastering SO2R is a good, cheap way for an operator of modest means to improve results, while the poor operator is more likely to just complain about leveling the field. If the goal is to make contests more broadly appealing, there I believe there are better ways...I'll post suggestions separately.
Posted by
N2BA
on May 10, 2003
|
|
Good Observation
|
|
N5ER makes a good observation. Indeed why should a large minority have such a competitive advantage? Of course, as N5ER points out, the question is valid only if the survey statistics are significant. Few contests have more than 5000 enteries - in fact as of today the CQWW site has nearly 4100 logs lists as received for the 2002 SSB contest. Generally speaking, a sample size of 10% of the community or 500 contestants is quite representative of the community's structure and desires -- provided, of course, that the security of the on-line survey system is robust i.e. few if, any contestants, get to vote more than once. A few people will be registered at contesting.com under more than one call and will vote more than once. This and other things will add some error to the survey results and some biases will occur because, for example, not all contestants have access to the Internet or can read English. However, a 3:1 ratio of SO1R:(SO2R+SO2R-) in the current survey is quite significant. I am not quite certain how to interprets the last survey question in light of the new results that are emerging from the current survey! Recall that the last survey question results suggested about equal numbers of SO ops were opposed to and in favour of a separate SO1R category. Perhaps we need to think about this a bit more. Any ideas? [Oh - please submit your ideas for new survey questions along using the form on the this website] - 73 Syl
Posted by
VE5ZX
on May 8, 2003
|
|
SO1R SO2R Categories
|
Ya'll almost changed my mind after reading the comments during last month's survey. But..... if we can trust these numbers in this survey, why have a category (single op) that has such a large minority (3 to 1) haveing a competitive advantage. It would be interesting to see where those SO2R op's really end up in the standings? Again if the numbers in this survey are correct. Maybe it is more about what the size of the pile that one ends up on top of -vs- actually competing with ones piers.
N5ER
Posted by
N5ER
on May 8, 2003
|
|
SO1R- and SO2R
|
|
I believe the difference is mainly in the operator, with SO1R- he might have the radios but he does not fully use it, maybe just a quick listen now and then on the second radio. Also fully implemented means radios, computers and antennas as well as filters, allowing the operator to transmit on same band without damaging the other radio , often the antenna bit comes last allowing full SO2R. I wonder how many people are using SO3R in a big way ?
Posted by
zs6dx
on May 8, 2003
|
|
SO1R and SO2R categories
|
As a newcomer, I'm interested to know what the difference is between "SO2R-" and "SO2R". I don't understand what "fully implemented" means in the context.
Also, do radios with built-in dual receive (e.g. FT1000) automatically count as "SO1R+"?
An article on the different contest categories would be useful for beginners like me.
Posted by
ZS1AN
on May 5, 2003
|
|
SiO2R
|
How about SiO2R (Single inept Operator, Two Radios)? I have the station in good shape, now the op just needs to learn how to do it right!
73 de Glenn K3PP
Posted by
K3PP
on May 3, 2003
|
|
To post a comment, you must be logged in.
If you are not a member, become one now!
|
75% (637)