Contesting Online Survey

Survey Question Current Survey Question

Do you plan to enter the CQ WW DX Contest?
Recent Surveys

Recently the RDXC committee reclassified P3F to high power from low power without publicly providing strong evidence that any infraction had occurred. They concluded was that the contestant was running HP on 80/40m but not full-time, just 10 minutes here and there without any convincing evidence. It appears they used the RBN as their source of information. Should the RXDC contest have to publicly provide convincing evidence before reclassifying a station from LP to HP?
2021-10-27

Randy, K5ZD, wrote a sidebar titled " Convergence and Change" in the 2015 CQWW CW printed results in CQ magazine. He wrote that the "convergence of personal computers, Internet access, DX clusters, and CW Skimmer have changed the nature of CW contesting". He goes to say that it is "more difficult to police the line between the single operator working alone and those who are using the assistance of DX spotting." In light of this convergence and change is it time to recombine SO and SOA into a single category?
2016-05-28

What's your primary Software for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF ! )
2015-07-17

Are you ready the this year's winter contest season
2015-07-05

What ways have you found to be effective to attract newcomers to our hobby?
2015-04-28

View All Survey Questions
Have a good idea for a Contesting Online Survey question?
Enter your idea!

Should SO2R be a different class of contest operation than SO1R?
Posted: Aug 31, 2006 (346 votes, 52 comments) by VE5ZX

Yes
No
Don't know
I don't care
(346 votes, 52 comments)

Survey Results

Yes 57% (196)

No 36% (126)

Don't know 3% (10)

I don't care 4% (14)

Survey Comments

Contesting is all about finding and developing an advantage (contrary to popular opinion it is NOT about a level playing field).

If an SO radioman can master the skill of SO2R, then he should not be denied the use of that skill.
Posted by K0HB on November 17, 2006

My opinion matters not

I have to disagree with my friend.... oh wait - I don't have any friends! :-(

Well - I rarely get on for RTTY contests - but I think that people that use two radios in RTTY contests should not be in a different category. But - does my opinion really matter if I never get on in RTTY contests?

I figure it was a slow month at www.contesting.com - and they have decided to recycle some of the more active polls in an attempt to boost ratings before the CW Sprint.

73 N6TwoRadio
Posted by n6tr on August 28, 2006

SO2R

IMHO, people who complain about SO2R are simply unwilling to make the commitment to it. It *DOES* require a second (usually contest-grade) radio/amp, and some reasonably-priced switching hardware. It also requires some dedication to learn the necessary skiils. But neither of these are justification to make it a separate category. It's still ONE operator, and ONE transmitted signal. These same people will probably next want to outlaw stereo headphones and rigs with sub-receivers. Yes, this is not SO2R, but it is hardware that provides advantage over those unwilling to adopt it.
Posted by K8CC on August 27, 2006

Why?

Why is the antenna issue continually glossed over?

OK....y'all get a separate category. Then someone shows up with 5/5/5 on 20M vs someone with a TH6 at 40'. Both guys only use one radio. Are you telling me the guy with the big stack isn't tapping into stuff the guy with the tribander will never hear? I would guess the guy with the stack has quite an advantage. Probably works more mults than the other. Probably works more with the big hardware than the other guy would even if the other guy was using two radios.

So is the next topic in this forum whether or not guys with big stacks should be in a different class of contest operation?
Posted by K9NW on August 27, 2006

SOe2Rx appeal

I got into contesting because regular old ham radio didn't seem to be the chick magnet that a lot of my friends told me it would be. Then I thought, maybe becoming a contestor will draw in the babes and wow did it ever. Then some of them found out I was using two radios and I suddenly became as popular as Milli Vanilli at a truth tellers conference. I lost my job, my dog left me...my coax got pinned. Now I just take long walks in the rain and think about the good times. I hope I didn't hurt anyone too bad those long Sunday afternoons when I was listening on the ole 520 while transmitting on the 101. I might as well confess I was also watching the ball game on TV. I never thought it'd be so easy to finally admit it. Actually, lots of things are easier now since the labotomy. I mean, since the labotomy I don't think I could do SO2R if I had to. But, it is very peaceful.
Posted by k7bg on August 27, 2006

so2r

I must admit that I have been considering going to so2r because I see an advantage to it. It is obvious that those in the top ten also see the advantage or they wouldn't be using so2r. If it didn't help the score it wouldn't be around and no one would be arguing for it. However if there were to be a new catagory I would choose antennas as the basis for it. You can buy all the hardware that you want but if you don't have acrege or the right zoning you are tribander/wires limited. NB7V
Posted by NB7V on August 27, 2006

Nonsense

A single operator is a single operator argument is nonsense. If it were a valid argument then an SO with 100w would be considered the same as an SO with a KW but it isn't!

And it doesn't matter if both radios are in one box or the same room -- it is still SO2R!

Posted by VE5ZX on August 27, 2006

SO2R

The reality is when you are running stations on one band, you are not using the second radio (if you have one). It is only when rates slow down that you even have the chance to listen to the second radio and occassionally pop in a call. It is only a matter of time before one of the equipment makers comes out with a "single radio" that has SO2R functionality. Would that still be a two-radio class? I don't think so. Should we include radios that have two receivers in a separate class, too? A single operator is a single operator. An SO2R operator only emits one signal at any point in time. And, there is no second operator sitting there lining up mult stations to work.
Posted by K6RB on August 26, 2006

poor vs rich

Yes, SO2R is a great addition for the score.

But should it be a separate category?

Why just SO2R?

Just imagine, you can use 200w, but can't 1kw (country/licence/money/TVI limit).
200w definitely adds points to the score over 100w. Should I reduce the power to 100w
and compete with the other LP or try to compete with those who have 1kw? I'd like to have a MP (middle power category, up to 200w).

The same is for antennae used, let's
make more categories (TS is not enough).

The same is for QTH, let's make separate categories for each town.

The same is for single TRCVR, let's make separate categories for FT1000mp, FT9000, TS2000, IC735, DRAKE etc.

The same is for money, let's make categories by money earned by station owner or money wasted for HAMRadio ;-)

Now we should combine those categories,
like follows:
UT2UZ SO1R AB 95w 5ANT MODERATE KIEV FT1000MP

Then we'll have enough categories for everybody, each participant wins the first place in his category.

To be serious, there are too many variants
and SO2R is not the main advantage.

Good antenna adds much more to the score then SO2R, so subdivisions by antenna
systems is more logical.

73!

Posted by UT2UZ on August 26, 2006

Advantage

There is an advantage in a second radio - but is all in the SINGLE OPERATOR being able to use that radio.

A geometric advantage is also realized by the ham who has 6 over 6 on 20, 15, and 10 versus the ham who has a G5RV.

But, again it is the single operator who is doing the work, and is accomplished at using the tools available to him.
Posted by nn3w on August 25, 2006

WHY do we participate in contesting?

Because:
A) For the fun of it.
The largest part of the audience is 'little pistols' size only. For the future of contesting it is important to recognize their need for rewarding their participation. Any kind of "Tri-bander&wires" class is much required here.

B) For competing, winning that is (=also fun). To compete with the best of the best you upgrade on location, soft&hardware, rigs, antenna's and mostly 'skills'. SO2R requires some hardware, but mainly is about skills.

Equalizing the game by entering (again) more classes & rules does not solve the need for rewarding & recognition in the long run.

I find myself in both A) and B) during all contests and enjoy both.
73
Posted by pa5mw on August 25, 2006

Add a 2nd radio?

There are some of us who are lucky to have one radio. I think it is patently unfair to suggest that those who can afford SO2R deserve the advantage solely on the basis of economic circumstances! Jack, NA7RF (ex AE7DX)
Posted by ae7dx on August 23, 2006

SO1R vs SO2R

I found that as soon as I added a second radio with all of the necessary filtering etc I got an immediate increase in my score. With almost no experience I was able to work just a few extra mults and due to the geometric nature of scoring these few extra mults significantly boosted my score.

SO2R provides immediate gain over SO1R even without experience.

SO2R is definitely a different class of contest operation!
Posted by VE5ZX on August 22, 2006

SO1R vs SO2R

Since one person is doing all of the work, I see no need for a seperate category. The present system is fine. From what I've read, we've had SO2R ops for years in one form or another. If you think it's unfair, build your own SO2R station. I imagine that most 1 radio contesters will find adding the second is not an automatic boost to your score.

Mike, K9MI

Posted by K9MI on August 21, 2006

Comments and a proposal

Discussion of categories will always be clouded because the average contester believes that (s)he is an above-average operator with a below-average station...

The multioperator categories are subtly and fundamentally different from single operator in that they must regulate the transmitted signals because they do not regulate the number of operators at each station. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

A new contester is going to get beat (err "crushed") by a lot of people running one radio, too.

I remain unconvinced that there is a meaningful argument for separate 2R and 1R categories in CW and phone contests (I don't operate RTTY; but, the argument makes more sense there.)

However, I would propose that if a new "average ham" category were to be introduced, it should be very specific and address more points than just SO2R in order to mitigate "category creep." For instance, exciter max, single-feed T/S at max 20 meters, one radio, etc. (Oh yeah, limit entrants to the Black Hole, too. HI)
Posted by K8GU on August 21, 2006

SO2R category

True, single operator is single operator. However, think of the new ham who decides he wants to try a contest. He buys a radio, has a logging computer, and gets CRUSHED by guys running with 2 radios. He doesn't really need 2 radios, so why would be buy another one for that one contest a year he works? He wouldn't, and there goes someone else who could have been a good contester. Okay, some contests have a rookie category, but usually after the first year or so, one is no longer eligible for that. Contests are already challenging enough to place in. Why shut the door on 90% of the ham population?
Posted by K1KAA on August 17, 2006

I would have to say......

Awe shucks, I can hardly handle one radio anymore let alone two at a time. Who cares, just get on the air and make some contacts.
Posted by oldfart13 on August 15, 2006

Of course not

You win contests by sharpening your skills to the max and piling up as many towers, antennas, rigs, amps, computers and support software as you can manage to gather and operate. Ading more radios, adding more towers, adding more anything other than more operators is not a different class - its just doing the best you can. N4GG
Posted by N4GG on August 15, 2006

It has nothing to do with money, whining, antennas, or building a competitive station.

It's a different approach and should be a different class.
Posted by k0rfd on August 15, 2006

Haves vs. Have Nots, Absolutely Not, Irrelevant

They just can't get it. I never heard anybody saying, he is participating in QRP category, because of having a 100W rig was prohibitively expensive, or using a straight key because he could not afford an electronic one. Neighter is so to have a second radio. I personally participate in SO1R if and when I want to be SO1R, and participate in M/2 when I want to be M/2 and SO2R when I feel like.
This is something like a shooting range. You shoot with a pistol if you feel like trying your "pistol skills", and use a sharp shooter rifle, when you feel like, but don't compete with a machine gun against those who use a pistol and vica versa. Make no mistake, I don't want "level playing field". Sure "bone crushing sigs into EU don't come from SO2R", but again looking at top scores on 3830 more often than not the top LP stations score is way above some of those "bone crushing" HP guys. To think, that winning contests is a privilage of the "bone crushing" and "elite" stations is something like being still in the dark.
Posted by ve3nz on August 15, 2006

Absolutely Not

The whole question confuses the issue of what makes for a competitive contest effort.

The prime mover of contest scores is skill. The WRTC is proof of that. Here we've had three or four of these events, with competitors in the same geographical area, with the same equipment, yet their scores differ by a range of 2:1 or more.

Having two radios does not automatically convey an advantage. The skill of being able to use two radios effectively does. If a single operator has this skill, they should not be relegated to a separate category.

Having two radios is NOT prohibitively expensive -- which is often the complaint amoung those who answer Yes. A second radio can be added to a station for a relatively small expenditure. It does not require a separate set of monobanders, separate amplifier, etc. Even a barefoot rig tied to a modest vertical antenna can supplement a single radio score, *IF* you have the skill to use it effectively.

Although SO2R ops are usually more competitive and frequently show up in the top ten, SO1R ops can still do quite well. Fred K3ZO often grabs one of these top spots, and yet he only uses one radio.

Bottom line: SO2R as a separate category is a tempest in a teapot.
Posted by AA4LR on August 15, 2006

Should SO2R be a different class of contest operation than SO1R?

YES, definitly.
Not because I want to have more categories, we already have enough. But the argument "single operator is single operator" just does not cut it. No wander the voters said 54% YES and only 39% NO, sofar.
With the same silly argument we could make multi-single, multi-two and multi-multi all the same category. They are all multi op, right?
What makes the main difference between SO1R and SO2R is not the skills and the investment into private hardware. It is how they take advantage of the bandwith, a public property. SO2R is occupying twice as much bandwith than SO1R. (Just try to call a CQ on the frequency where an SO2R is silent for 30 seconds and you will see.) This is a significant difference and could result in 40 to 50% more QSOs when the rate is slow, given the same operator (so skills are not in question).
By the way the question was not about software, antennas, computer and other hardware inside or outside the shack, so let's leave those out of the debate.
Posted by ve3nz on August 14, 2006

From the RTTY perspective

A SO1R installation cannot receive while transmitting like the SOxR station. The SO1R operator is handicapped by this fact during the entire contest period. So let's take 1 receiver away from both contestants and see how well the SO0R operator fares in the contest. This would be the same principle, just a different timebase.

I continue to be amazed that a technical based group of operators fail to see the advantage of a duplex ciruit compared to a simplex circuit. The advantage has nothing to do with "hardware", per se. The SOxR advantage is inherent in the extra amount of receiver time available. As was pointed out, it doesn't take many Q's and Mult's to substantially increase a score.

In a 48 hour event with a 5% transmit duty cycle, the SOxR station gets an "extra" 2+ hours of receive time to hunt down those few extra Q's and Mult's. Multi-transmitter is already a separate category and provides a similar advantage. The multi-tx gets extra transmitter "time".

SO1R and SOxR should be separate categories like QRP/LP/HP. If not in the rules, at least in the contest results to enable peer to peer comparisons. Life's too short to investigate the station configurations of thousands of competitors.

Posted by K0RC on August 14, 2006

Haves vs. Have Nots

I have to disagree strongly with KU8E ...

SO2R is a technique that any single operator, even one with wires and low antennas, can use to improve his score. Far from being a tool for only the "big" stations and elite operators, SO2R allows the little guy with smaller antennas to compensate by being smarter and quicker ... by finding that double multiplier, the part-time station from the rare zone/country/section/etc. or by moving needed multipliers to open bands.

Every station can't have the big towers with stacks of monoband antennas for 40 through 10. Any station (or any station without HOA/tower restrictions) can have an extra multiband vertical or a second tribander on a 30 or 40 foot tower off to the side. Coupled with an older transceiver, some bandpass filters and attention to station design, SO2R gives those stations who do not have the big antennas a chance to close the gap with the big antenna stations.

Posted by K4IK on August 13, 2006

Single Op

I wonder how many of the people that voted �yes� actually tried SO2R. I find it difficult to find a need multiplier, especially since many stations identify infrequently, and work it on the second radio while also running stations and not loosing my rhythm on radio one. I know that there are super operators who are very proficient at SO2R, but for me there are many times during a contest that I cannot do it and I just turn off the second transceiver. It�s nothing at all like M/S where the multiplier station can concentrate 100% on finding and copying the multiplier's callsign and working him and the run station can concentrate 100% on copying callsigns and on keeping the frequency free from QRM or being taken over. I have to agree with W4PA, this is a silly question - one operator unassisted is single op. Certainly geographical and antenna differences are a bigger factor than SO2R or even SO3R.

John KK9A / P40A
Posted by kk9a on August 12, 2006

Re: Survey Comments

Sorry, but I have to disagree with my friend KU8E.

Re: "Doing SO2R is no different then M/S"

Well, actually they are different. SO2R = Single Op Two Radios. M/S = Multi-Op Single Transmitter. Single is not Multiple. They do not compete with each other and whether or not a SO scores higher than a M/S is irrelevent.

Re: "I am stuck with wires and low power. Isn't it fair that I should be able to compete with a station who has the hardware that is equal to what I have?"

So what is really being asked for is categories broken out by antennas, right? There already exists a split between low and high power.

Re: "Would it be fair for an open wheel F1 race car to race against a NASCAR?"

Maybe not. Last time I checked, though, they aren't racing on the same tracks on the same days. Wouldn't this argument be better if we were debating high vs. low power? (It's still one driver, though, right?!) :-)

73, Mike K9NW

Posted by K9NW on August 11, 2006

Sorry, but I have to disagree with my friend W4PA. Doing SO2R is no different then M/S. The only difference is one person is doing the operating. In fact a SO2R station doesn't have to deal with a 10 minute rule like a M/S. A skilled SO2R person can QSY at will and usually put in a higher score then a M/S entry.

It doesn't surprise me that the "haves" ( those with big stations and operating SO2R) say this is silly. SO2R is the competitive advantage that they use to compete in their category. Some SOAB just don't have the interest in SO2R and they build a big station that they can just CQ and "own" a frequency all weekend.

I am one of the "have nots" right now - which means I don't have boatloads of $$ to build a big contest station. I am stuck with wires and low power. Isn't it fair that I should be able to compete with a station who has the hardware that is equal to what I have ??? Some have said that adding additional categories would "water down" the results. I have to disagree.

Would it be fair for an open wheel F1 race car to race against a NASCAR ??? It would be no contest !!
Posted by KU8E on August 11, 2006

so2r

If you are using a voice keyer to hold your run freq. while while working a mult on the 2nd radio you belong in multi catagory.
however, no one would do this right?

Posted by NB7V on August 10, 2006

Why have MS,M2,MM ?!

SO1R and SO2R is the same issue as multi op. stations. If it was all the same, then we would have only 2 categories. SO and MO. Now ask MS stations if they want to compete against multi/multi stations...

I am definitely for separate qualification for SO1R and SO2R!

Vy 73 de Alex, S50DX
Posted by s50dx on August 9, 2006

NO

I think the question makes no sense. Isn't a Single Operator a Single Operator? Power class makes sense because it is outside the realm of operator skill. Should there be different classes for CW operators that can only send with a hand key, a bug, an electronic keyer or computeer generated CW? What about memory keyer vs non memory? On phone, what about operators who can speak faster than others? Maybe microphone vs voice keyer? Bottom line, technologies that hams can afford and learn to use do not require a new class. It might be interesting to compare identical stations, but ultimately, there could be as many classes as there are entries. To me, a Single Operater is just that. How he/she makes contacts is up to him/her.
Posted by w6rtw on August 8, 2006

SO1R vs SO2R

I agree with W4PA and others that this is silly!

I don't have SO2R but if someone can master that and have a higher score, so long as there isn't outside assistance, more power to them.

You can, if you feel strongly enough about it, have your own SO2R setup then.

And, how are you going to enforce it if it was a separate category?

Ham radio contesting is one of the very few sport activities where there is no referee present to assure compliance with the rules.

I believe the same arguement was there when computer logging first came out.

Some people have bigger antennas, better locations, better developed operating skills,
better propagation, better computer programs that automate some of the functions.

I still work guys that indicate they are using paper and pencil for logging!

The world isn't, and will never be, totally "fair" so lets all think about that and move onto more important items.

My two cents and thanks...

Jim, K1PX

[email protected]
Posted by K1BNQ on August 8, 2006

Irrelevant

As long as the score is mostly defined by geographical location and how much aluminum you have in the air, the SO2R question is totally irrelevant. In my opinion, the tribander single-element class of WPX is the only noticeable advancement in contesting categories in the 25 years I have had a license.

-Jari
Posted by OH3BU on August 8, 2006

What's the big Deal

SO2R Op's make a big deal with this! I don't understand, aren't now competing with other SO2R op's anyway. Look at the contest results and you will see that SO2R op's make up 90% of the top ten scores.

Ask the top SO2R ops and they will tell you it is because it gives them a big advantage in SO Class. I vote for a separate class is SO!!
Posted by na5q on August 6, 2006

Simply NO

As above mentioned, the category is Single Operator.

There are categories enough, but some wanted nearly a separate category for each entrant ... to have a lot of winners ... possibly without a QSO!

The Power and TB/Wires divisions are more than enough!
Posted by ok1rr on August 3, 2006

Categories

The proponents of separate categories usually argue that they want to compare SO1R to SO1R scores to see how they stand with their peers. Possibly some of these ops are running single tower "Triband/Single Element" type stations (though certainly not that's not always the case.)

So along comes someone operating one radio driving 4-High stacks on 10-15-20, 2-High stack on 40, and 4-Squares on 80 & 160. Are you really really telling me you want to compare CQWW scores between these two SO1R stations?

It seems to me that the more appropriate comparison should be with the hardware outside. Unfortunately, that's very hard to do because there are so many variables. One radio vs two is much easier....there are only two variables. The skills required to effectively work SO2R and the outside hardware issue are too often glossed over.

73, Mike K9NW
Posted by K9NW on August 2, 2006

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The original question was:

"SO2R is a different class of contest operation than SO1R?"

and I placed my vote to that question. Now that the question has been reworded it has totally changed the meaning of the question. Because of this the results are skewed and meaningless.

Posted by oldfart13 on August 2, 2006

Huh???

Can we create categories for those who use voice keyers? Or maybe a category for those who have a computer-controlled radio? How about one for those with no-tune amplifiers? Categories for those with 200 hz filters versus 500 hz filters?

While we're at it should be create different categories of golfers because some golfers use "metal" woods while others use "oak" or "hickory" woods?

When does the parsing stop? Folks have learned to do SO2R through advancements in technology and a desire to win. If you have the moxy and skillset as a single op to operate two radios at once (transmitting only on one mind you) and do it successfully, more power to you.
Posted by nn3w on August 2, 2006

I won't disagree that SO2R is an advantage. But, I invite anyone who wants a new SO category to be careful what they wish for. (see N1UR's post)
Posted by K8GU on August 2, 2006

The category is Single Operator

We already have a category in contests, Single Operator.
It's already broken up in some 'tests to low/high power,
assisted/unassisted and the like. SO1R vs SO2R is
unnecessary; regardless of how much hardware the
operator has in his shack and how he/she chooses to use
it, as long as he/she is the only one operating, it's
***Single Operator***.

If the operator has multiple radios in the shack and is
skillful enough to use them in a way that is helpful to his/
her score, that's an addition to his/her skill set. I don't
agree with the mindset that if another operator has
improved his/her skills more than I have, he/she should
go in a different category so I don't have to compete
against him/her.

I'm a single-radio contester and probably always will be,
but I have no objections to competing in a Single Operator
class with any other Single Operator. That's why it's called
a contest.
Posted by K8AJS on August 2, 2006

Its all about antennas and location

I had the less than normal path of being SO2R with wire antennas and a couple of very low beams and then "graduating" to Big Antennas and a great hillside location (I also operate SO2R from there).

If I had to choose between my old location SO2R and my new one SO1R, I wouldn't even think about it for an instant...I would take the BIG antennas and hillside SO1R HANDS DOWN over SO2R at the old location.

It is ironic, quite frankly, that the one area that isn't "legislated" is an ops ability to SO2R, and this is what people focus on. It would be far better to create a separate class for space limited/restricted antenna than for SO2R. If that is what people want, I would support it.

73

Ed N1UR (bone crushing sigs into EU don't come from SO2R, SO3R, or SO4R)
Posted by N1UR on August 2, 2006

I agree with W4PA it's Silly to make SO1R & SO2R different classes..

73, K5DJ
Posted by K5DJ on August 2, 2006

At least the information about SO1R or SO2R should be added to results tables as should be done with the operation time. So one can better compare the result with those having invested about the same in hardware and time.
Best 73, Chris
Posted by dl8mbs on August 2, 2006

NO

I agree, I think the question is clear.

I can't think of any contest where there are different SO1R and SO2R classes.
Posted by AD6WL on August 2, 2006

Seems fine to me... Perhaps he just wanted to know exactly what he asked?
Posted by nk7z on August 2, 2006

This question is not clear. It assumes that SO1R and SOxR are known, sort of like:
Are light blue and dark blue different colors?
A more descriptive question would be:

Is the advantage offered by SOxR over SO1R significant enough to warrant a separate operating class in RTTY contests?
Posted by N8PS on August 2, 2006

I believe it takes more than simply operating an SO2R station to get consistent results if that is what you are looking for. My answer to the question is no. Latitude and geography play a major roll maybe bigger than simply using one or two radios. I find that SO2R is simply a way to close the gap between more and less fortunate ops geographically speaking. It is a lot easier to get a second set going than to put up a full size antenna farm. Two multiband dipoles can get you going ...four new towers don't fit in my lot and I don't own property in North Africa either...
73
Fabi
Posted by ve2fbd on August 1, 2006

Obviously SO2R gives an advantage, else people wouldn't be using it. I think the normal SOAB ("open") class should be open to anyone, SO1R or SO2R, though - what I would like to see is not a separate SO2R class, it is a separate SO1R class for stations with no ability to receive while transmitting.

Instead of a "limited" SO1R-only class (sort of analogous to the TB-WIRES class in WPX), another alternative would be a means to report 1R vs. 2R in the Cabrillo header so that it could be reported in the results (just as LP vs. HP is reported for the Sprints, even though there are no separate entry classes). In fact, there isn't actually a need even for this - just report number of band changes for SO stations along with the QSOs, points and multipliers in the line scores and let everyone figure out for themselves what the number means.
Posted by ve3iay on August 1, 2006

As long as big antennas and computer logging aren't a separate class, SO1R/SO2R should not be either. All operating functions are still being performed by one operator without any external assistance - that's the definition of "single operator" class.

Calls for separate classes for SO1R/SO2R are "contest bigotry" by those who do not want anyone different in "their" neighborhood.
Posted by K4IK on August 1, 2006

A better question would be "Should SO1R and SO2R be different classes?".
Posted by W6WRT on August 1, 2006

Depends

The questions asked is:

SO2R is a different class of contest operation than SO1R?

To that question I answer no. SO2R is not a different class for most contests than SO1R.

But, I would answer Yes that it should be a different class for contest.
Posted by oldfart13 on August 1, 2006

So far, during the arguments presented on the Contest Reflector, nobody mentioned that scores, generally, increase geometricaly. That is, most often, QSOs are multiplied by MULTS. The result is that a small difference in QSOs, especially if most are new (or maybe double) multipliers, creates a big difference in score.

I agree with many that it takes a higher skill level to make full use of an SO2R setup. However, given equal and reasonable levels of operator proficiency, SO2R can, and does, create an insurmountable advantage.

BTW, I have a fully operational SO2R setup and use it as well as my abilities and conditions allow. It has made a big difference in the competitiveness of my scores.

I see no need to compare my efforts with those operating SO1R.

73
Posted by w0uo on August 1, 2006

Silly.
Posted by W4PA on August 1, 2006

To post a comment, you must be logged in.
If you are not a member, become one now!