SO2R Policy?
 

In major contests like SS, CQWWDX, etc., should SO2R be a category seperate from
SO?

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
In major contests like SS, CQWWDX, etc., should SO2R be a
category seperate from SO?

Good question!

I say yes, *if* the definition of SO2R is being able to operate on two
bands almost simultaneously. Two or more frequencies in the same band
is a different story.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

I say yes, *if* the definition of SO2R is being able
to operate on two bands almost simultaneously.
Two or more frequencies in the same band
is a different story.

Most stations engineered for SO2R expect the radios to be on separate bands
(self QRM'ing issues if on same band) but why would you consider it a "different
story" if both were on the same band?

As background, some consider SO2R an "unfair advantage" in the SO class, while
purists claim that SO is SO, regardless of how many radios they can manage, so
long as only a single transmitter is active at any given point in time (In other
words, you can't CQ on your run frequency when working a Q on your mult radio.)

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...
In major contests like SS, CQWWDX, etc., should SO2R be a category
seperate from
SO?

73, de Hans, K0HB



Hello, Hans

Nothing like a Chief to figure a way to beat the odds, eh?

:))


Best regards (and respect, as well)
Jim AA2QA
ps - I'll getcha for this, pal ;)

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

I say yes, *if* the definition of SO2R is being able
to operate on two bands almost simultaneously.
Two or more frequencies in the same band
is a different story.

Most stations engineered for SO2R expect the radios to be
on separate bands
(self QRM'ing issues if on same band) but why would you
consider it a "different
story" if both were on the same band?

Suppose I have a rig with two VFOs. I'm hunt-and-pouncing QSOs on one
frequency and listening to the pile on VY1JA on another
frequency on the same band. I toss my call at VY1JA at appropriate
moments. Is that SO2R or not?

Certainly it's not the same thing as two completely separate rigs on
different bands. But it's more than one rig that is on one frequency.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

As background, some consider SO2R an "unfair advantage"
in the SO class, while
purists claim that SO is SO, regardless of how many radios they can man=
age, so
long as only a single transmitter is active at any given point in time =
(In other
words, you can't CQ on your run frequency when working a Q on
your mult radio.)

The difference (to me, anyway) is that multiband SO2R essentially takes
two complete stations capable of simultaneous operation even if they're
both not in transmit mode at the same moment.
That's where the line is - for me.

OTOH, it could be argued that as long as there is only one signal
actually transmitted at any given time, and only one operator, there's
only one "station", regardless of how much hardware is involved.

---

Now for a topic in the opposite direction: How about an "Iron" category
(as in "Iron Chef" or "Ironman", etc.).

One rig at a time, only. No second VFO, receivers or memories. No
computer logging. No memory keyers for voice or code. 150 W maximum
power.=20

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

Suppose I have a rig with two VFOs. I'm hunt-and-pouncing
QSOs on one frequency and listening to the pile on VY1JA
on another frequency on the same band. I toss my call at
VY1JA at appropriate moments. Is that SO2R or not?

No. At best it's SO1.5R.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

The line has already be drawn --- SO. The purists maintain that whatever an SO
can do to improve his ability to run up a score should be allowed. I'm inclined
to agree.

The difference (to me, anyway) is that multiband SO2R
essentially takes two complete stations capable of
simultaneous operation even if they're
both not in transmit mode at the same moment.
That's where the line is - for me.

Would you draw additional lines at SO3R, SO4R, SO5R, etc?

OTOH, it could be argued that as long as there is only one
signal actually transmitted at any given time, and only one
operator, there's only one "station", regardless of how
much hardware is involved.

Seems like a good argument to me!

Now for a topic in the opposite direction: How about an "Iron"
category (as in "Iron Chef" or "Ironman", etc.).

One rig at a time, only. No second VFO, receivers or memories.
No computer logging. No memory keyers for voice or code. 150
W maximum power.

I wouldn't be in favor of such a category. To me, one of the attractions of
radiosport is that it encourages pushing the limits (within good ethics) and
thinking outside the box on several levels: innovative station design, battle
strategy, skill development, and taking advantage of every available technology.
Your "Iron" category seems like putting hobbles on Secretariat in the Preakness.
Diana Moon Glompers, the General Handicapper, would love the category! (Think
KVG/HB)

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote:

The difference (to me, anyway) is that multiband SO2R essentially takes
two complete stations capable of simultaneous operation even if they're
both not in transmit mode at the same moment.
That's where the line is - for me.

That's seldom the case, there are usually two xcvrs networked into the
overall system with a single fast-bandswitching amp and usual
relay-switched antennas. Or a tribander for the high bands.

OTOH, it could be argued that as long as there is only one signal
actually transmitted at any given time, and only one operator, there's
only one "station", regardless of how much hardware is involved.

One guy in one seat is SO end of.

Now for a topic in the opposite direction: How about an "Iron" category
(as in "Iron Chef" or "Ironman", etc.).

One rig at a time, only. No second VFO, receivers or memories. No
computer logging. No memory keyers for voice or code. 150 W maximum
power.

That's you're normal mode, you da pro there. Take it into the next CQ
WW bash and show 'em how it's done. Maybe you'll impress the contest
desk enough with your results that they'll go for your category.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

"Jim Hampton" wrote


ps - I'll getcha for this, pal ;)

"Old and devious" trumps "young and enthusiastic" every time!

dit dit ----- Reverse Farnsworth "I"
de Hans, K0HB

Jim Hampton wrote:
"K=D8HB" wrote in message
ink.net...
In major contests like SS, CQWWDX, etc., should SO2R be a category
seperate from
SO?

73, de Hans, K0HB



Hello, Hans

Nothing like a Chief to figure a way to beat the odds, eh?

:))

Which USN CPO holds the all-time high number of Acey-Duecy wins?


Best regards (and respect, as well)
Jim AA2QA
ps - I'll getcha for this, pal ;)

wrote

Which USN CPO holds the all-time high number
of Acey-Duecy wins?

Don Rickles? (aka CPO Steve Sharkey)

dit dit
de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Suppose I have a rig with two VFOs. I'm hunt-and-pouncing
QSOs on one frequency and listening to the pile on VY1JA
on another frequency on the same band. I toss my call at
VY1JA at appropriate moments. Is that SO2R or not?

No. At best it's SO1.5R.

Then we agree!

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

The line has already be drawn --- SO. The purists maintain
that whatever an SO
can do to improve his ability to run up a score should be
allowed. I'm inclined to agree.

Yet at the same time, there are usually power classes so the QRP' er
isn't up against the big gun. In some contests, packet spotting puts
you in a different class.

So there is a precedent for different categories.

The difference (to me, anyway) is that multiband SO2R
essentially takes two complete stations capable of
simultaneous operation even if they're
both not in transmit mode at the same moment.
That's where the line is - for me.

Would you draw additional lines at SO3R, SO4R, SO5R, etc?

Sure - but does anyone do those?

What about multiple simultaneous transmissions - say, calling CQ on
more than one band at a time?

OTOH, it could be argued that as long as there is only one
signal actually transmitted at any given time, and only one
operator, there's only one "station", regardless of how
much hardware is involved.

Seems like a good argument to me!

Now for a topic in the opposite direction: How about an "Iron"
category (as in "Iron Chef" or "Ironman", etc.).

One rig at a time, only. No second VFO, receivers or memories.
No computer logging. No memory keyers for voice or code. 150
W maximum power.

I wouldn't be in favor of such a category. To me, one of the
attractions of
radiosport is that it encourages pushing the limits
(within good ethics) and
thinking outside the box on several levels: innovative station
design, battle
strategy, skill development, and taking advantage of every
available technology.

Yet at the same time, there are power classes, and packet spotting
puts you in a different category.

Your "Iron" category seems like putting hobbles on Secretariat
in the Preakness.

Not at all! No one would have to be in that category if they didn't
want to be. It would be optional - an alternative only.

----

How about this:

Suppose someone builds a true robot station - automated sending and
receiving. Sure, it won't handle QRM well, but when things aren't
jumping in a domestic contest like SS, it could do the job on a slow
band while the op eats, goes QWC, or takes a rest. Or maybe works
another band.

Or maybe not a total robot station, but rather a "new one finder".
Computer-controlled receiver scans up and down each band, looking for
callsigns that are not in the log already. Alerts the op to a new one
automatically. There could be several of them, scanning each band
simultaneously. (Useless early in the
contest, but as time goes on they could be very helpful).

How about putting the entire FCC callsign database in the computer in
such a way that the op is given "pointers"? These "pointers" could be
things like "callsign not in database", section/state/country, etc.
Could give best-guesses from partial callsigns too.

Would those things be OK in SO?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

Yet at the same time, there are usually power classes
so the QRP' er isn't up against the big gun.

Makes sense to me. I don't think a 5W station out to be required with a 1500W
station. But within those power classes each operator ought to be able be a
creative as he desires in how he configures his station.

In some contests, packet spotting puts you
in a different class.

Packet spotting is a form of outside assistance, in effect a "Multi-Op" effort.
An SO entrant ought not be required to compete with Multi-Ops.

What about multiple simultaneous transmissions - say, calling
CQ on more than one band at a time?

No contest (that I know about) allows that in SO category. "Single transmitted
signal" is what defines SO.

Suppose someone builds a true robot station - automated
sending and receiving.

It would be a novelty, but not competitive. There is in fact a standing
"challenge" (side bet) for anyone who can field a robo-contester in one of the
popular events, maybe ARRL DX. Forget the details, but it must be able to
"participate" in the contest for some minimum time (6 hours?), and submit it's
own log untouched by human hands.

Or maybe not a total robot station, but rather a "new one
finder". Computer-controlled receiver scans up and down
each band, looking for callsigns that are not in the log already.
Alerts the op to a new one automatically. There could be
several of them, scanning each band simultaneously. (Useless
early in the contest, but as time goes on they could be very
helpful).

That's a logical extension of SO2R, and I believe that the station designer who
makes it work ought to remain in SO category and not be "punished" for his
innovation and design effort.

How about putting the entire FCC callsign database
in the computer in such a way that the op is given
"pointers"? These "pointers" could be things like
"callsign not in database", section/state/country, etc.
Could give best-guesses from partial callsigns too.

Would those things be OK in SO?

Similar things already exist. CT and NA both have a feature called "Super Check
Partial" which provide "matches" from a database of calls harvested from
previous contests. For example, if you enter the partial call "K0H", it will
show you several choices of calls like K0HA, K0HB, SK0HL, IK0HBN, all of which
contain the sequence "K0H". Because that's information not gathered "off the air
during the contest", purists consider it "outside assistance" and feel it should
disqualify the entrant from SO and place them in an assisted category.

Purists draw only this line between SO and "multi-op" or "assisted". Every bit
of information which goes into an SO log must be gathered off the air during the
contest period by a single operator and his equipment without outside assitance
such as packet clusters, harvested data-bases, and similar aids.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:

I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:

1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware, i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting, and
perhaps some others,

-and-

2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.

Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.

The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its present
form.

Comments welcome.


the rules of contests are up to the individual sponsors. contact the
specific organization that runs the contests if you want to try to convince
them to change their rules. general discussions in open groups do little
besides generating lots of messages that aren't getting to the targets that
can make the changes. you might also want to look at the details of some of
the larger contests, there are some that have things like a 'tribander and
wires' catagory, or the 'limited multiop', or 'band limited single op', and
even the various single band or single mode entries for those who either
can't or don't want to compete with the all band guys... and then of course
most contests have low power and qrp catagories where there is much less of
the so2r type of operation.

"Dave" wrote


the rules of contests are up to the individual sponsors. contact the specific
organization that runs the contests if you want to try to convince them to
change their rules. general discussions in open groups do little besides
generating lots of messages that aren't getting to the targets that can make
the changes.

I don't think we expect that this discussion will be acted on by the radiosport
sponsors, but can't we have the discussion, just for discussion sake? (You
don't need to participate if you'd prefer not to.)

and then of course most contests have low power and
qrp catagories where there is much less of the so2r type
of operation.

Actually the LP layer (100-150W) is where the greatest number of stations
specifically engineered for SO2R seems to be. Surprising on the surface, but
makes a lot of sense when you consider the issue of self-induced noise.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Turner" wrote

Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must spend a small
fortune to be competitive..........

I don't think money is what makes you competitive. Innovation and thoughtful
design of your station, honing your skills, and picking the fights you can win
are what make a station competitive.

I'll use my station as a prime example. In the major contests in which I
compete I have an excellent record of success with lots of section and division
wallpaper and walnut on the wall. Any time I get whupped it's due to better
operators, not the cost of the station.

My SO2R setup consists of a 10-year-old Icom run rig and a 17-year-old mult rig.
The city-lot antenna farm consists of a single tower with a tribander, a
selection of wire antennas, and a couple of verticals. Station control is an
8-year-old 'consumer grade 486', CT by K1EA (freeware), and homebrewed
SO2R-relay/wiring system. "Hamfest value" of the entire station is well below
the "small fortune" level.

You only need a "small fortune" if you're adverse to a little "sweat equity" and
decide to buy it all at 1-800-rigs-r-us.

In fact, if you depend on "rigs-r-us" to win I'd guess your station probably
could benefit from some thoughtful design efforts, not more money.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
wrote


Yet at the same time, there are usually power classes
so the QRP' er isn't up against the big gun.


Makes sense to me. I don't think a 5W station out to be required with a 1500W
station. But within those power classes each operator ought to be able be a
creative as he desires in how he configures his station.


In some contests, packet spotting puts you
in a different class.


Packet spotting is a form of outside assistance, in effect a "Multi-Op" effort.
An SO entrant ought not be required to compete with Multi-Ops.

I'm aware of stations who use packet spots during contests and who claim
SO status. There's no real way to put that genie back into the bottle.

What about multiple simultaneous transmissions - say, calling
CQ on more than one band at a time?


No contest (that I know about) allows that in SO category. "Single transmitted
signal" is what defines SO.


Suppose someone builds a true robot station - automated
sending and receiving.


It would be a novelty, but not competitive. There is in fact a standing
"challenge" (side bet) for anyone who can field a robo-contester in one of the
popular events, maybe ARRL DX. Forget the details, but it must be able to
"participate" in the contest for some minimum time (6 hours?), and submit it's
own log untouched by human hands.


Or maybe not a total robot station, but rather a "new one
finder". Computer-controlled receiver scans up and down
each band, looking for callsigns that are not in the log already.
Alerts the op to a new one automatically. There could be
several of them, scanning each band simultaneously. (Useless
early in the contest, but as time goes on they could be very
helpful).


That's a logical extension of SO2R, and I believe that the station designer who
makes it work ought to remain in SO category and not be "punished" for his
innovation and design effort.

I disagree. The robot is, in effect, a second op.

How about putting the entire FCC callsign database
in the computer in such a way that the op is given
"pointers"? These "pointers" could be things like
"callsign not in database", section/state/country, etc.
Could give best-guesses from partial callsigns too.

Would those things be OK in SO?


Similar things already exist. CT and NA both have a feature called "Super Check
Partial" which provide "matches" from a database of calls harvested from
previous contests. For example, if you enter the partial call "K0H", it will
show you several choices of calls like K0HA, K0HB, SK0HL, IK0HBN, all of which
contain the sequence "K0H". Because that's information not gathered "off the air
during the contest", purists consider it "outside assistance" and feel it should
disqualify the entrant from SO and place them in an assisted category.

I don't even have the files in CT and I'm with the purists on this one.

Purists draw only this line between SO and "multi-op" or "assisted". Every bit
of information which goes into an SO log must be gathered off the air during the
contest period by a single operator and his equipment without outside assitance
such as packet clusters, harvested data-bases, and similar aids.

I'm with K3ZO on the SO2R scene: It is a lot of extra work and trouble
and I'm of the opinion that a good SO can usually equal or beat the 2R op.

I don't think automation has necessarily been a good thing for
contesting. Computer logging aside, it has removed a good bit of the
"fun factor" in contesting. I've never even used the keyboard or
computer for sending during a contest and don't do much with a memory
keyer. I'm beginning to think that Father Time and automation have
combined to reduce my interest in going for score in most contests. I
find that my interest in single band efforts is increased, mostly
because it allows me to get some sleep.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote


I'm aware of stations who use packet spots during contests and who claim SO
status. There's no real way to put that genie back into the bottle.


If that so, an examination of their log side-by-side a print out of the cluster
log is an easy DQ. Rather than put the cheater (genie)back in the bottle, a
quiet note to the contest sponsor with evidence will expose them.

That's a logical extension of SO2R, and I believe that the station designer
who makes it work ought to remain in SO category and not be "punished" for
his innovation and design effort.

I disagree. The robot is, in effect, a second op.

We'll have to disagree.


I'm with K3ZO on the SO2R scene: It is a lot of extra work and trouble and
I'm of the opinion that a good SO can usually equal or beat the 2R op.


SO2R has a huge learning curve (more like a learning "cliff"), and a casual or
inexperienced operator whose station isn't optimized for SO2R will flounder.
Having said that (and god forbid I disagee with Fred) but a skilled/experienced
SO2R op in the chair at a well engineered 2R station will bury an equally
skilled/experienced SO.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jim Hampton" wrote


ps - I'll getcha for this, pal ;)

"Old and devious" trumps "young and enthusiastic" every time!

dit dit ----- Reverse Farnsworth "I"
de Hans, K0HB




Hello, Hans

Reverse Farnsworth "I"? I thought it was American Morse for "O". ;)

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Bill Turner wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "K=D8HB"
wrote:
Let's go beyond the SO1R/SO2R question and look
at the bigger picture.

OK

I think it's time to revise the basic structure of
contest competition.
Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small
fortune to be competitive, and I think that is hurting
contesting itself.

That depends on what you mean by "competitive" and "a small fortune".

For some hams, "competitive" means winning outright, or at
least making the Top Ten. For others, "competitive" means
winning their section, or maybe division, or maybe getting into
the top ten of same.

And for others it's simply doing better than last year.

In similar fashion, cost is relative. A $5000 station is small
change to some and beyond others' wildest dreams. Same for many
other spending levels.

Just a few years back, having a dedicated computer in the shack
was a major expense. Not any more!

I believe there are two general groups of contesters:

1. People who like the head-to-head competition on a
personal level and
are not motivated by having large amounts of expensive
hardware. These
people focus on operating skill, knowledge and strategy instead of equi=
pment.

-and-

2. People who will do anything legal to maximize their score,
including
spending huge amounts of money on rigs, antennas and any other hardware=
which gives them an advantage.

I disagree strongly!

I think there are many more basic groups, from the casual types
just putting in a few hours and maybe picking up a new state
or country, to the all-out multi-multis, to the middle-of-the-
pack folks, to the special-interest ones (like the QRP types
with incredible antenna farms).

On top of this is the fact that the superstations require
operating skill, knowledge and strategy just like the 100 W
and dipole folks.

Both groups have good points and neither is superior to the
other.

Agreed!

In fact the superstations need the little guys in order to make super
scores. And the little guys need the superstations.

What
is wrong with contesting today is both groups are combined into one when
it comes to competing, and that is hurting contesting.

Well, there's division by power level, by multiop vs. single, and
packet spotting.

I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:

1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware,
i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting,
and perhaps some others,

-and-

2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.

Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power
level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would
remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.

The trouble is where the lines are drawn.

What does "one radio" mean? Is a second receiver allowed? How
about if the second receiver is built into the rig?

One antenna per band could work a hardship on even some modest
stations. At my previous location I had an inverted V for 80/40
that could be made to work on 20. Also had a 20 meter vertical
with elevated radials. 100 W homebrew transceiver. Hardly a
superstation but I did pretty well.

On 20 the vertical was usually better, but sometimes the inverted
V would do the trick. "One antenna per band" would eliminate that.

The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has
acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its
present form.

I don't see it that way at all. I think we need an "iron" class for a
very different reason.

One thing that makes a contest fun (for me) is the competition.
It's radiosport, pure and simple. I think the message that needs
to be emphasized more is that you don't need a superstation to
have a good time.

I know too many hams with "100W and dipole" stations who think
contesting with such a setup isn't practical. And compared to
the results of superstations, they're right. But if they could
see how they did against similar setups, we might get more of
them - which is a good thing all around.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Bill Turner wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:53:51 GMT, "K=D8HB"
wrote:
Let's go beyond the SO1R/SO2R question and look
at the bigger picture.


OK

I think it's time to revise the basic structure of
contest competition.
Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small
fortune to be competitive, and I think that is hurting
contesting itself.


That depends on what you mean by "competitive" and "a small fortune".

I don't agree with the basic premise, Jim. The operator
is a lot more
important than the equipment.

To a point, yes. But the guy with 100 W and a dipole at 40 feet isn't
going to win CQWW or even SS no matter how good he is. He's not even
going to make Top Ten.

That doesn't mean he can't do well, just that winning is a different
game.

For some hams, "competitive" means winning outright, or at
least making the Top Ten. For others, "competitive" means
winning their section, or maybe division, or maybe getting
into the top ten of same.

And for others it's simply doing better than last year.

And if they keep it up, they will eventually become the top
dogs.

But there comes a point where doing better becomes equipment
limited.

In similar fashion, cost is relative. A $5000 station is small
change to some and beyond others' wildest dreams. Same for
many other spending levels.

Just a few years back, having a dedicated computer in the
shack was a major expense. Not any more!


I believe there are two general groups of contesters:

1. People who like the head-to-head competition on a
personal level and
are not motivated by having large amounts of expensive
hardware. These
people focus on operating skill, knowledge and strategy instead of eq=
uipment.

-and-

2. People who will do anything legal to maximize their score,
including
spending huge amounts of money on rigs, antennas and any other hardwa=
re which gives them an advantage.


I disagree strongly!

I think there are many more basic groups, from the casual types
just putting in a few hours and maybe picking up a new state
or country, to the all-out multi-multis, to the middle-of-the-
pack folks, to the special-interest ones (like the QRP types
with incredible antenna farms).

On top of this is the fact that the superstations require
operating skill, knowledge and strategy just like the 100 W
and dipole folks.


Both groups have good points and neither is superior to the
other.


Agreed!

In fact the superstations need the little guys in order to make super
scores. And the little guys need the superstations.


What
is wrong with contesting today is both groups are combined into one w=
hen
it comes to competing, and that is hurting contesting.


Well, there's division by power level, by multiop vs. single, and
packet spotting.

I propose that there be two basic classes of competition:

1. A Limited Class which clearly spells out maximum hardware,
i.e. one
radio, one antenna per band, no receiving while transmitting,
and perhaps some others,

-and-

2. An Unlimited Class which allows anything legal.

Within those two classes there could be subclasses for power
level and
number of operators, but the basic hardware definitions would
remain the
same. This would allow an operator to choose his class and know he is
competing against others who are equipped similarly.


The trouble is where the lines are drawn.

What does "one radio" mean? Is a second receiver allowed? How
about if the second receiver is built into the rig?

One antenna per band could work a hardship on even some modest
stations. At my previous location I had an inverted V for 80/40
that could be made to work on 20. Also had a 20 meter vertical
with elevated radials. 100 W homebrew transceiver. Hardly a
superstation but I did pretty well.

On 20 the vertical was usually better, but sometimes the
inverted
V would do the trick. "One antenna per band" would eliminate
that.

The whole concept is way way way to complicated. Also
unenforceable.
Will the contest committee send out Hamcops to ensure
compliance?

Who enforces the present rules? Power level, packet spotting, etc.?

The present hardware situation reminds me of a boxer who has
acquired a
set of brass knuckles but who still wants to fight those not so
equipped. That's not right and neither is contesting in its
present form.


I don't see it that way at all. I think we need an "iron" class for a
very different reason.

One thing that makes a contest fun (for me) is the competition.
It's radiosport, pure and simple. I think the message that needs
to be emphasized more is that you don't need a superstation to
have a good time.

No you don't.

But it takes more than the average station to win.

I know too many hams with "100W and dipole" stations who think
contesting with such a setup isn't practical.

100 watts and a dipole is only about 90 percent of contesters!

And they don't win.

And compared to
the results of superstations, they're right. But if they could
see how they did against similar setups, we might get more of
them - which is a good thing all around.

My experience is that contests have two different aspects.
Operator
skill and power. This is assuming that the operator has a receiver of
adequate performance. If you have to get rid of one parameter, go with
operator skill.


"Power" is actually signal strength. I'd rather have really good
antennas and QRP than high power and poor antennas.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

But it takes more than the average station to win.

Winning isn't about being average.

Average sailors in average boats don't win the Americas Cup. Average golfers
with average clubs don't win the Masters. Average drivers in average cars don't
win Indy. Average jockeys on average horses don't win the Belmont. Average
radiomen with average stations don't win CQWWDX.

Life isn't set up to give plaques to "average joes". Winners are above average.
Second place is "First Loser".

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"Bill Turner" wrote

Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small fortune to be competitive..........

I don't think money is what makes you competitive.

It's an important factor, though. Always has been. Part of the
game in most contests.

Innovation and thoughtful
design of your station, honing your skills, and picking the
fights you can win are what make a station competitive.

"picking the fights you can win" means "have realisitic expectations".

I'll use my station as a prime example.

This'll be good...

In the major contests in which I
compete I have an excellent record of success with lots of
section and division
wallpaper and walnut on the wall. Any time I get whupped it's due to =
better operators, not the cost of the station.

My SO2R setup consists of a 10-year-old Icom run rig and a 17-
year-old mult rig.

And they are?

The city-lot antenna farm consists of a single tower with a
tribander,

Which is more than many hams will ever have.

And that description covers a lot of ground. "city-lot" could mean an
acre. "Single tower" could be 70 feet or more.
"Tribander" could be anything from a TA-33 to a Force 12 or whatever.

Big differences under that umbrella.

a selection of wire antennas, and a couple of verticals.

I'll take a dipole at 90 feet over a TA-33 at 40 feet...

Station control is an
8-year-old 'consumer grade 486', CT by K1EA (freeware), and
homebrewed
SO2R-relay/wiring system. "Hamfest value" of the entire
station is well below the "small fortune" level.

"Fortune" is in the wallet of the spender. For some folks, a $2000
station is a small fortune. For others, a $2000 transceiver
is "not competitive".

What's the replacement value of the tower and everything on it?
Not hamfest value - replacement value.

And then there's the price of the real estate to put it all on....

You only need a "small fortune" if you're adverse to a
little "sweat equity" and decide to buy it all at
1-800-rigs-r-us.

Agreed! In fact, one of the great levelers is the relatively low
price and high quality of used gear. Say, a good clean TT Omni VI+
with all the filters and mods. Close to $3000 back when it was new -
half that today? Less than half?

The computer that was $2000 less than a decade ago can be rescued from
doorstop status and put to work in the shack. Sure, it won't run
Windoze very well, but Windoze 9x isn't a good choice for contesting
anyway.

In fact, if you depend on "rigs-r-us" to win I'd guess your
station probably
could benefit from some thoughtful design efforts, not more
money.

There's also the big unknown of real estate. Take SS - the ham in a
rare section has a built-in advantage over the ham in a nonrare one.
The middle part of the country has an advanatage over the coasts. The
ham who can live on a big "city lot" with no restrictions has an
advantage over the one who has less room.
Etc. But that's all part of the game.=20

73 de Jim, N2EY

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

But it takes more than the average station to win.

Winning isn't about being average.

Agreed!

Average sailors in average boats don't win the Americas Cup.
Average golfers
with average clubs don't win the Masters. Average drivers in
average cars don't
win Indy. Average jockeys on average horses don't win the
Belmont. Average
radiomen with average stations don't win CQWWDX.

But the radiosportsmen take over big parts of the popular HF ham bands
when a contest is on. Which is more than a few weekends a year. There's
no real equivalent to that in the other contests.

And unlike the other contests, getting more radiosport contestants
helps, not hurts, the winners.

Life isn't set up to give plaques to "average joes". Winners
are above average.
Second place is "First Loser".

"Winner" has all sorts of definitions. Winning your section is
one level, winning your division another, etc. Just setting
a personal best score is winning.

Most radiosport contests have several levels of competition.
That's a good thing. My "Iron" class proposal doesn't reduce
or eliminate anyone's win.

73 de Jim, N2EY

K=D8HB wrote:
"Dave" wrote


Actually the LP layer (100-150W) is where the greatest number of stations
specifically engineered for SO2R seems to be.

I wouldn't bet on that, getting a good SO2R station running represents
a lot of work and expense. Adding an amp is a no-brainer in comparison
on both counts. The purpose of a 2R lashup is to have a run rig and a
mult rig instantly available. Since it's difficult to keep those
200-300/hr runs going with a 100W signal all the SO2R ops I know around
here use amps. Analyzing the published scores should answer the
question.

Surprising on the surface, but
makes a lot of sense when you consider the issue of self-induced noise.

Ya got me: What's "self-induced noise"?=20

=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

Dave Heil wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote


I'm aware of stations who use packet spots during contests and who claim
SO status. There's no real way to put that genie back into the bottle.

Actually the contest sponsers have gotten pretty good at detecting
those bad boys. They've developed software which automatically combs
thru logs and looks for patterns which indicate who did what when spots
show up. Lotta those guys scores have been tossed.

That's a logical extension of SO2R, and I believe that the station desi=
gner who
makes it work ought to remain in SO category and not be "punished" for =
his
innovation and design effort.

I disagree. The robot is, in effect, a second op.

I also disagree because when you get right down to it it's functionally
the same as using the spots. If it worked well enough though it would
probably be better than the spots because it would be "operating" under
the same propagation/reception condx as the rest of the station.

You can waste a lotta time chasing spots even if they are posted by
locals. Sure, the guy three Zip codes over with his 3EL 40M beam @ 150
feet can easily pick off that JT. But I'm sitting here with my weenie
dipole @ 40 feet and I can't hear a peep from the JT. In the meanwhile
I've wasted two minutes on a spots-induced wild goose chase.

Similar things already exist. CT and NA both have a feature called "Su=
per Check
Partial" which provide "matches" from a database of calls harvested from
previous contests. For example, if you enter the partial call "K0H", i=
t will
show you several choices of calls like K0HA, K0HB, SK0HL, IK0HBN, all o=
f which
contain the sequence "K0H". Because that's information not gathered "of=
f the air
during the contest", purists consider it "outside assistance" and feel =
it should
disqualify the entrant from SO and place them in an assisted category.

If I'm not mistaken those files can be used with all the mainstream
loggers these days.

I don't even have the files in CT and I'm with the purists on this one.

Purists draw only this line between SO and "multi-op" or "assisted". E=
very bit
of information which goes into an SO log must be gathered off the air d=
uring the
contest period by a single operator and his equipment without outside a=
ssitance
such as packet clusters, harvested data-bases, and similar aids.

I'm with K3ZO on the SO2R scene: It is a lot of extra work and trouble

It's certainly a lot of extra work and trouble I wouldn't even think
about getting into. But I'm not "everybody", involves the mindsets of
the specific ops. The hardcore types could care less, to them it's just
one more hill to climb to get even-up with their competitors. In many
cases they actually *enjoy* all the complexity & work. Money be damned.


and I'm of the opinion that a good SO can usually equal or beat the 2R op.

Published scores trump opinions David.

I don't think automation has necessarily been a good thing for
contesting. Computer logging aside, it has removed a good bit of the
"fun factor" in contesting.

Depends on where the op gets his jollies. One of the local EEs doesn't
do much operating but he's the guru of gurus nationally when it comes
to designing/building wonderous 2R and M-M black boxes and running the
Spider spots network. Different strokes for different folks top to
bottom in contesting.

I've never even used the keyboard or
computer for sending during a contest and don't do much with a memory
keyer. I'm beginning to think that Father Time and automation have
combined to reduce my interest in going for score in most contests.

You have a *huge* amount of company on this one. My iron-bottom days
are *long* gone. Geez, dunno how many times I did 40-48 hours at some
multi-multi or another back when. Back when I was 30-40 something of
course. These days my critical piece of "automation" is my alarm
clock.groan.

I
find that my interest in single band efforts is increased, mostly
because it allows me to get some sleep.

Less hassles all 'round. I have antenna installation restrictions and
electrical noise here but I'm hoping to squeeze a 20M antenna up and go
100W S&P mode simply to keep the my dust & rust level down.

Dave K8MN

w3rv

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...



My experience is that contests have two different aspects. Operator skill
and power. This is assuming that the operator has a receiver of adequate
performance. If you have to get rid of one parameter, go with operator
skill.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I agree partly......

1. Operator skill

2. Receiver

3. Antenna

4. Power

Note; 2 and 3 can be interchanged.

Dan/W4NTI

wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
wrote

But it takes more than the average station to win.

Winning isn't about being average.

Agreed!

Average sailors in average boats don't win the Americas Cup.
Average golfers
with average clubs don't win the Masters. Average drivers in
average cars don't
win Indy. Average jockeys on average horses don't win the
Belmont. Average
radiomen with average stations don't win CQWWDX.

But the radiosportsmen take over big parts of the popular HF ham bands
when a contest is on. Which is more than a few weekends a year. There's
no real equivalent to that in the other contests.

And unlike the other contests, getting more radiosport contestants
helps, not hurts, the winners.

Life isn't set up to give plaques to "average joes". Winners
are above average.
Second place is "First Loser".

"Winner" has all sorts of definitions. Winning your section is
one level, winning your division another, etc. Just setting
a personal best score is winning.

Most radiosport contests have several levels of competition.
That's a good thing. My "Iron" class proposal doesn't reduce
or eliminate anyone's win.

73 de Jim, N2EY


In the for what its worth department;

I, W4NTI have been contesting seriously since about 1973 when I participated
in a major operation from DL5AY. (Army MARS station in Frankfurt). It was
the CQWWDX Phone and we had a blast. We had Americans, Germans, wives,
sons, daughters, company and Battalion commanders there. And great German
sausage and Beer. A fun time was had by all. We also made over 2.5 million
points. What a blast....

That is some of what contesting is to me. Soon I intend to go play with
some super stations of the South East Contest Club. These are by invite
only.

How does one get a invite? Be a contester, show improved scores and be a
good team player. Thats also part of contesting.

For me, my individual station is probably below par for the "average serious
contester". I have two radios....a MP and a TS-530s. I have two linears,
a old SB-200 and a AL-811H (with 572s in it). Both get about 700 out on a
good day.

I have no beams. Just loops, verticals, and dipoles. All on a 200 x 200
piece of property.

With this I manage decent scores and have put many certificates on my wall.
Of course no first place wins in CQWWDX. But I have placed first in my
section in ARRLDX and various sweepstakes contests, etc.

Why do I contest? To improve my score by improving my station and myself.

Its as simple as that.

Have a good day

PS; I worked a bunch of sporadic skip yesterday on six meters in the June
VHF contest.....with 8 watts and a 3 ele yagi at 20'.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Dan/W4NTI

wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
KØHB wrote:

"Winner" has all sorts of definitions. Winning your section is
one level, winning your division another, etc. Just setting
a personal best score is winning.

Winning is beating the Yankee Clippers. Try operating at that "level"
for the ultimate contesting experience.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

You got that right. Keep an eye on W4AN. The new call for the SECC (South
East Contest Club). NQ4I is another super station to watch for. Also SECC.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
ink.net...


[snip]

Why do I contest? To improve my score by improving my station and myself.

Its as simple as that.

Have a good day

PS; I worked a bunch of sporadic skip yesterday on six meters in the June
VHF contest.....with 8 watts and a 3 ele yagi at 20'.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Dan/W4NTI



I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very strange
thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician operators. On
the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where are all
the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't" pass the
code (as some would have us believe)?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Winning is beating the Yankee Clippers. Try operating at that "level"
for the ultimate contesting experience.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

You got that right. Keep an eye on W4AN. The new call for the SECC (South
East Contest Club). NQ4I is another super station to watch for. Also SECC.

Uh-oh! This is news to me. A real three-way brawl amongst the
Unlimiteds would inject some new fire into the game for certain. But
you better be able to pull up around 250 Meg aggregate to get into it.


Dan/W4NTI

Dee Flint wrote:

I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very strange
thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician operators. On
the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where are all
the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't" pass the
code (as some would have us believe)?

It's Techs being Techs again, they're too busy "advancing the state of
the art" to be bothered with learning the code and contesting.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

w3rv

wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
"Bill Turner" wrote

Contesting hardware has evolved to the point that one must
spend a small fortune to be competitive..........

I don't think money is what makes you competitive.

Depends on what's competitive, the op, the station or both. A
competitive op doesn't have spend a dime on a station. Which is where
some of the hotshot multi-op guys come from. One of ours lives in
Manhatten for instance, zero chance for having a home station no matter
how much money he might be willing to spend.

It's an important factor, though. Always has been. Part of the
game in most contests.

I agree with that. One can take a $200 station or even a $1,000 station
into the contests and have some fun with it but it won't be a
competitive station by a long shot *if* the frame of reference is a
decent score in the DX contests. A decent score in SS at the section
level with a budget station is another story altogether.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

wrote

I also disagree because when you get right down
to it it's functionally the same as using the spots.

No, it's not functionally equivalent. If you use cluster spots, then you are
using information the some OTHER RADIOMAN at a DIFFERENT STATION provided. If
you have your own robo-hound searching FROM YOUR STATION then you acquired the
information of the air without assistance from outside sources.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote

And they are?

IC775 IC765

I'll take a dipole at 90 feet over a TA-33 at 40 feet...

For what application? A dipole at 30-40 feet is a primo antenna for SS,
probably better than either you mentioned. ("Pick the fight you can win.")

What's the replacement value of the tower and everything on it?
Not hamfest value - replacement value.

"Replacement value" is what I'd have to spend to replace it. Usually that's
equal to "hamfest value".

And then there's the price of the real estate to put it all on.

Everybody needs to live somewhere. The prices of my homes are not a factor
which contributes or detracts from my contest scores.

Take SS - the ham in a rare section has a built-in advantage
over the ham in a nonrare one.

I hear real estate is very reasonably priced in VY0-land.

73, de Hans, K0HB